On 10/2/07, Orlando Andico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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. >
Yeah im getting over it already. > Well everyone's experience is their own. > > Maybe you haven't met enough super-smart people. :-) > I have. Ok i get it. Nobody wins in an opinion war. > 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. > You have the last word on that... > .. > > 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. > Thats where we differ. I got mine to work and im building a distro. Like you said its a matter of priority. Im a full time programmer paid to build custom linux servers. Besides i never liked red hat. > 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. > Cant blame you for that. > > > > 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. > I agree to that. Can we expect a closed source company to venture into those? Its too risky. And conventional wisdom says that mac style gui is king. > .. > > 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. > GCC would still appear in another name. Its too hard to reinvent the wheel. This is where an open source compiler make good economic sense. > 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. > I disagree. The cost of going proprietary is too expensive. With the recent development of llvm and gcc lto i think gcc is the best way for these small companies. > > > 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. > Well nigh perfect? Oh no. Better not perfect. Its a matter of opinion. I can do things with linux that i cant do with windows. That make ist better to me. > 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! > Thats your opinion. Well it fails to build with --prefix="". but does it suck? well not for me it doesnt. I think its getting better actually. > 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. > Of course they can afford it. > 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. > They are running a business. Thats the best for them. but they are supporting llvm and i think they intend to use it eventually. and once they start using llvm i dont think they will switch back to icc. > > .. > > > 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.. > Yeah, but i would like to "run them over" though. If I did not think this is possible i would not even be putting effort into this. > > > > 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. > I have no beef will Bill Gates. Its windows and M$ i have a problem with. > > > 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. > Why is the compiler so expensive then? Well i dont care about icc really. > 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. > I dont think so. The optimization framework in GCC is getting an overhaul. Besides the benefit of imitating all the optimizations in icc is debatable. gcc link time optimization and the extensible optimization framework in llvm is a better solution. with a lot of help from apple and the US Government. > > > > 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. > for other reasons. i would rather have them not minding open source though. > 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. > No. GCC will catch up faster for some architectures. But ACPI is still braindead and people will exert more effort in other solutions. > > > > 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. > no more hangups. its your opinion. i hear you. but it only adds to my windows hysteria. > 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. Of course. We always want it to improve right? -- Lay low and nourish in obscurity _________________________________________________ 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
