> Sorry about that. Im passionate about it. I felt that open source > programmers are being looked down and ridiculed by the "favored few". > Being kicked out of UP does that to people. > > Or maybe not. sorry about that.
Awww c'mon. Let's not use the "we're the downtrodden" argument. Heck I can use that argument too. I was kicked out of UP, and numerous MRR appeals did not sway Dr. Guevara. > > How many people even NEED that many architectures? > > > > And if you think you can learn as fast as people you've never met, you > > have an overblown self-image. I learned long ago that there are a LOT > > of people who are a LOT smarter than me. > > I dont know. I always thought that way. Anybody ever told you that all > humans are at the same level as Aristotle and Einstein? I admire what > they did but never thought God favored them more than me and so i > cannot reach the same level of learning as they did even i exerted > twice the effort? Well everyone's experience is their own. Maybe you haven't met enough super-smart people. :-) I won't say I've met that many, but I know smart when I see it. And I've met quite a number of people who, quite frankly, can do certain things that I cannot do. Let me re-phrase. I could _probably_ do almost anything _technical_ (let's not get into social stuff..) if I really, really, really wanted to. But at some point you stop really wanting to. I don't measure my self-worth by how much lines of code I emit, or how many technologies I master. Call it lazy or fatalistic. I believe that "smartness" is defined by "how well you can do something without trying too hard." If it takes an effort to do something really well -- then you're not that smart. .. > We all have our reasons for liking a desktop. For me not using > overlapping windows is enough. My startup takes 30 to 45 seconds and > shutdown about 5 seconds. Thats fast enough for me. My editor is smart > enough to know where i left off and my browser can restore my web > sessions. and to top all that i can make it better. that beats windows > on all points for me. Oh well. Editor and browser session state doesn't cut it for me. I guess it's a matter of priorities. I actually tried to use Linux as a desktop on this computer of mine, about six months back. But the sheer work needed just to get the hibernation and the [EMAIL PROTECTED] Intel 3945ABG wireless working on FC6 completely turned me off. A few years ago I would waste an entire day getting everything working "perfectly." I remember the days when I'd recompile the X server (from source!) to get good 3D OpenGL support. I have better uses for my time now. > > Hard disk has only gained a 2X speed increase in the last decade, > > while RAM has increased what, 10X? imaging a 2GB RAM image to disk > > takes about 20-30 seconds. > > There are ways but the Linux Gods don't agree. Goes back to my point. Seems the Linux Gods lack imagination and try to do things the way Microsoft does 'em. It's also easier because M$ would bend the hardware vendors to their will. Truly innovative computing like Jef Raskin's ideas (as pointed out by Tito) never catch on because they're too way off base. .. > The Apple arch migration experience with apple ][ and the mac is the > reason why we need multiple archs. Its like genetic diversity. like > BIND and NSD. The same lesson M$ learned and quickly forgot with > Vista. > > And also the embedded peple. These processors would be history if not > for the gcc. I don't believe so. GCC makes it easier for these people to support their architectures, but if GCC wasn't around do you think they'd let their architectures die? of course not. They would provide their own compilers. It isn't inaccurate to say that GCC is most often the SECOND SOURCE compiler on virtually ALL hardware platforms. There's almost always something better but proprietary. > OpenStep survived as the core technology behind Mac OS X, and I can > only imagine how things ended had it not for the GCC, it may not be > the best, but it delivers, like an old trusty Volks Beetle, it may not > be the fastest and the most stylish car, but it can go where you want > to go (tm! hehehe!) , and more practical that fast as hell F1 that's > only sensible to drive on the race track! I said that GCC sucks. I didn't say it doesn't work or that it's useless. I made that statement because of a previous motherhood statement by Rogelio that Linux and GCC are well-nigh perfect because of the many eyeballs and experts poring over them. I pointed out that in spite of all those eyeballs, GCC still sucks (on an absolute scale). Sure it is functional, and I am forever indebted to GCC (particularly DJGPP, the DOS version) for introducing me to 32-bit flat mode programming. But it still sucks! Nobody will argue that a VW Beetle is better than a bicycle. Or walking. But similarly, nobody will argue that a VW Beetle sucks next to a BMW. Or even a VW Passat. Besides, do you think MacOS / Openstep is still using GCC? I'm 100% sure that the kernel and important components were compiled with the Metrowerks optimizing compiler (on PowerPC) and now with the Intel compiler. The performance benefits are too great. Besides, the Openstep / Objective-C programming model is for user mode. GCC is good enough for that. But the kernel? I'm betting Intel Compiler all the way. .. > > Things like Intel's secrets didn't just bubble up by accident. Intel > > spent lots of money doing research and designing their CPU's so > > obviously they have the best compiler for their architecture. > > > > the thing with ideas is that people using it eventually get it... Eventually. Like I said, Open Source / Free Software does get better over time. But at any point in time, the proprietary boys are USUALLY better. They don't just stand there and let Free Software run them over, you know.. > what do you do with ideas that is "owned" by others and you find out > through lawful use? of course you would unlearn it because it is > illegal knowledge. That's a whole different ball of wax. And that's getting legal. My point solely was, a company which invests in a legitimate competitive advantage has no obligation to give it away. Patent leeches like RAMBUS don't count. Besides, most IP is protected via trade secret, NOT patent. That's why most technologists believe software patents are useless -- the act of patenting something, "lets it out of the bag," so to speak. .. > Is it sour graping? Was Mr Berners Lee stupid for giving away www? > Some people i know think so. What about berkeley? Are they evil for > taking the idea and released bsd? Well I greatly admire Tim Berners-Lee. But I also greatly admire Bill Gates. Not for his greedy monopolistic company, but for his donating virtually his entire fortune. I don't think Tim Berners-Lee can claim that his good deeds save 1 million lives in sub-Saharan Africa every year. So you see, greed is not necessarily bad. Neither is Bill Gates. > Thats Intel's business. Selling IP. You think thats, fine to some its > not. Why dont they just give it away for free? They will gain from the > hardware sales anyway. Nobody can force them though. Maybe when llvm > matures or even if gcc lto gets out. Then we will see. Intel's business is selling HARDWARE. The compiler is gravy. I don't think GCC will EVER catch up with Intel. Because Intel designs the CPU, so they know best how to optimize for it. When GCC has good optimizations for Pentium 4 or Core Architecture, Intel will have rolled out something new already. > > In short: Free Software OFTEN gets the job done. It is OFTEN more than > > good enough for the task at hand. But it is ALMOST NEVER the > > best-in-class product if you mention absolute technical performance. > > We will see. We are just starting out. Give it some time. That's my point also. The proprietary boys aren't standing still. Given time, GCC (and Linux hibernation, and a host of other stuff) will get better. But the bar will be even higher when that time comes. > > Of course for most people you don't have to be best-in-class, free (as > > in beer) is a mighty motivator. > > True. People even chose software that suck the most only because its free. Yes. Because "sucks" is often good enough. A VW Beetle is better than a bicycle. Besides I don't see what's the hangup. GCC sucks. I use GCC. So what's wrong with that? it is completely possible to be realistic about the shortcomings of your tool (Free Software or not) and still think it's a good tool to have. Why do some Free Software / Open Source advocates HAVE to have the last word? why must <their favorite tool> be the best at everything, for everyone? I'll go out on a limb and say: Proprietary software is almost always better than the Free alternative, from a technical perspective. That doesn't make it better from a _usability_ perspective. Proprietary often costs a lot of money. So I use Free Software. That doesn't blind me to its often glaring shortcomings. _________________________________________________ Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List [email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
