Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Shuttleworth On Mir: "A Fantastic Piece of Engineering"

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • It's a metaphor--it can apply to many things. A tree-graph doesn't have to grow and breathe CO2 in addition to showing you how certain concepts relate, and a pie-graph doesn't have to be baked, nor does it need a filling.

    Comment


    • Even Microsoft realizes HTML5 is the future.
      Microsoft is floundering since new developers are not picking up the platform lock in of .net, but instead locking themselves into Cocoa or Android. The only reason anyone even cares about html5 apps is because it is the only pervasive platform that targets every device ever.

      In practice, web apps are some of the ugliest hacks ever conceived. They take an xml derived fuzzy document language, a tacked on styling language with C syntax, and a malformed script language with semi-Java syntax that has barely improved in 20 years due to perverse standards by committee and terrible original syntax, and try to make real world applications of them. There is a reason people still see tech demos for html apps that look like native toolkit apps from 2000 (note I'm about to be a hypocrite on this).

      As a developer, html5 is an evil necessity in a more diverse world. Platform lock in just isn't an option anymore, and it is the lowest common denominator of cross platform applications. It still lacks any real input, audio, or state handling worth a crap. It is why I'm so hopeful for qt to become as ubitquitous as 5.1 is shaping up to be - being able to target all the new mobile GNU oses, Android, iOS, and the big 3 desktops in one app is what needs to happen to keep me sane not writing html5 webapps. Of course, most of that I do with the same language I was complaining about earlier - QML, json, and javascript - but at least in qt you aren't dealing with the awful DOM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by zanny View Post
        a malformed script language with semi-Java syntax that has barely improved in 20 years due to perverse standards by committee and terrible original syntax
        What are you talking about? Javascript is nothing like Java.

        Comment


        • How did this thread become about math and biology? I mean, it is an improvement, but...

          Comment


          • Originally posted by phoen1x View Post
            So i can't comprehend your retarded posts eh? 1001 toolkits? Google some info on it. Why gtk was created, why g.n.o.m.e. was born. There are only 3 desktop environments and one of them is irrelevant. Wayland was started by Xorg devs, so no there are no 2 display servers. Yes MIR is fragmentention, but you are too dumb to understand.
            Wayland came from employee who was working for RedHat(even if it was side project), please stop posting bs like other buntutards here.
            Stay classy!

            Comment


            • Originally posted by jayrulez View Post
              Maybe I should have qualified by inserting the word "legally" for you. Hackintoshes are not legal. Hence, to legally run OS X, you need a apple branded computer. So there is no point to buying OS X if you do not own or plan to buy a Apple computer as long as you want to legally run it.
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSx86#L...ple_objections
              ...and yet you can still buy OSX without a MAc, which you ahve claimed was not the case. ... If i had made no mention of hackintosh, whatr would ahve your response been, exactly??? would you have still calimed that people cannot buy MacOSX without a Mac? (since that WAS your claim)/

              Regardless, i am fully aware of Apple's EULA ~ and personally own a Mac, so this is not my concern - my main point was that your claim was blatantly absurd - ANYONE can buy MacOSX without a Mac.

              Originally posted by jayrulez View Post
              Canonical working on Mir doesn't top anyone else from working on Wayland. Mir only changes things for Ubuntu, not any other distro. I see a lot of hypocrisy behind this claim of fragmentation. When it's something you agree with, you will tout it as diversity. If it is something you disagree with, you will cry fragmentation.
              Use logic and reason here - by virtue of splitting the stack, Ubuntu using Mir vs. very other distro planning to use Wayland = fragmentation... and even an idiot should have enough brain power to see that. (no offense)

              Originally posted by jayrulez View Post
              E.g: People tout having 1001 distros as diversity and having choice. 1001 Toolkits is diversity. 6 or 7 desktop environments is diversity. 2 display servers (X and Wayland), diversity. Add Mir, now it becomes fragmentation? Where is the consistency?

              If Mir came from Google or Redhat, the story would be different.
              90% of those distros are nothing but derivatives, not unique distros. They are really only a few toolkits that have any real focus / impact on the vast majority.

              X and Waylaand doesn't = diversity, Wayland is intended to be the SUCCESSOR to Xorg. Throwing Mir into the mix, voids any standardization and throws another into the mix. ~ again, it doesn't even take a half-whit to be able to distinguish the difference here...

              it does not matter 'who' it came from. that's not the point, dude. (i thought that would have been obvious, but i guess not).
              Last edited by ninez; 03-09-2013, 03:23 AM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sergio View Post
                WTF?
                Just ask Knuth or Dijsktra (if you could) what programming really is and stop just throwing out things that do not sum up to nothing. I'm mathematician and you have no fscking idea what it is really all about, so stop talking about it like if you did, because you are embarassing yourself. Also, linguistics? WTF, you have no idea what you are saying.
                Now, keep thinking that OOP is the true foundation for programming (I don't care if you don't want to open yourself and have such a NARROW view of programming), but stop implying that Knuth or Dijkstra or even Stepanov are just fools, or even imply that Alonso Church and Kurt Gödel are also that, because you own much of what you do to people like them.
                "Math is a model and so by definition..." Haha, you are lost...
                No sir you are no mathematician if you can't even understand that math is a model you are simply yet another deluded academic who has completely lost touch with the real world and how things work. I even gave an example showing that it's a model and one of the holes thereof (are you really going to argue that dark matter isn't just a placeholder? If so you've been reading far too much scifi). I have pointed out to you twice now that engineering does not work how you think it works, and that you need to read up on history to learn about how things work in the real world. The Constellation project is the perfect example of the equivalent of having buildings just collapsing as they're built (in fact if we go back to the law of Hammurabi this sort of thing happened enough that they made a law about it.. obviously they've gotten a lot better since), and some architecture (particularly from greek time frame) confounds modern engineers today. Also I guess Thomas Edison, Nikolai Tesla, or any number of other famous inventors was crappy because well Edison found nearly 2000 ways to not make a lightbulb, because you know math makes things JustWork(tm), no extra development time required.

                And you sir are the one with the narrow worldview trying to force everything into fitting into your little math box, this may be news to you but not everything can or will fit in there. You think if people just do the math that things turn out perfect. Except the problem is that it doesn't and so the models involved have to be tweaked or even thrown out entirely and recreated from scratch. Sometimes people die as a result of an error in the model. I can understand that you don't quite get linguistics but I've already tried to explain to you how this all works and you've simply ignored it to try to push your math.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by ninez View Post
                  You have NO clue what you are talking about. Have you ever even set foot in an Apple Store? (i guess not) You can buy MacOSX by itself and that has ALWAYS been the case. it's like $100. I know several people with Hackintoshes that have done just that.
                  But this is just upgrade license, it's not OS itself. Just like in Windows case - upgrade license is nothing without "base" license for OS (retail, GGK, volume licenses) that you will upgrade.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by RussianNeuroMancer View Post
                    But this is just upgrade license, it's not OS itself. Just like in Windows case - upgrade license is nothing without "base" license for OS (retail, GGK, volume licenses) that you will upgrade.
                    Again, walk into ANY apple store - Usually at the back of the store you will find Mac Software (DVDs). You can buy the OS - and i know this because i have been a long-term Apple customer for many years AND i have also serviced many other people's Macintosh in that time INCLUDING buying the OS (not just an upgrade, but the complete OS on DVD ~ which comes with all of the 'extras' too. ie: xcode, well up until lion anyway ~ if i remember correctly. etc). I've purchased *every version* dating back to the to the initial release of MacOSX, and MacOSX server, several times over.... 10.5.8 retail DVD case also happens to be in the room i am in. 10.6 + 10.8 are probably downstairs or possibly @ work.

                    'Smartshop' even has a page showing the physical boxes (which is not easy to find on Apple's website, but easy if you walk into the store); http://wprnznxehycd.jet-software.net...ple%20mac%20os

                    but hey what do i know, over someone whom probably has never even owned a Mac and probably isn't even a customer of Apple's and probably is just googling crap and drawing stupid conclusions...but do go on if you like, talking about sh*t that you OBVIOUSLY have no clue about. lol

                    I should also point out something here ~ You can't upgrade MacOSX more than 1 major release. (ie: no upgrading 10.6.x to 10.8.x). Apple HAS to provide installation discs to their customers who have Mac's running older versions of MacOSX that can't be upgraded to the latest major version (if their H/W supports it).
                    Last edited by ninez; 03-09-2013, 10:22 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by ninez View Post
                      ...and yet you can still buy OSX without a MAc, which you ahve claimed was not the case. ... If i had made no mention of hackintosh, whatr would ahve your response been, exactly??? would you have still calimed that people cannot buy MacOSX without a Mac? (since that WAS your claim)/

                      Regardless, i am fully aware of Apple's EULA ~ and personally own a Mac, so this is not my concern - my main point was that your claim was blatantly absurd - ANYONE can buy MacOSX without a Mac.
                      Everybody here knows that he was referring to the fact that OS X is tied to Mac hardware and is not something that you can just install anywhere (legitimately) like Windows / Linux.

                      Why are you so eager to rip everybody a new one...?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
                        And you sir are the one with the narrow worldview trying to force everything into fitting into your little math box, this may be news to you but not everything can or will fit in there. You think if people just do the math that things turn out perfect. Except the problem is that it doesn't and so the models involved have to be tweaked or even thrown out entirely and recreated from scratch. Sometimes people die as a result of an error in the model. I can understand that you don't quite get linguistics but I've already tried to explain to you how this all works and you've simply ignored it to try to push your math.
                        If I understand what you are saying correctly, you are saying that mathematical models do not always correlate to reality. Which is of course true in the sense that human created models may not include all of the real world factors at play. I think the debate here arises from the fact your words could also be interpreted as saying that the math itself can be flawed, which is clearly not the case, as two plus two always equals four (in base 10). I think we can all agree that it is the human component that is the potential failure point, and I will agree with your claim that is where the need for engineering comes in.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by johnc View Post
                          Why are you so eager to rip everybody a new one...?
                          I do not think it is fair to point that question to any one person on this forum.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Hamish Wilson View Post
                            If I understand what you are saying correctly, you are saying that mathematical models do not always correlate to reality. Which is of course true in the sense that human created models may not include all of the real world factors at play. I think the debate here arises from the fact your words could also be interpreted as saying that the math itself can be flawed, which is clearly not the case, as two plus two always equals four (in base 10). I think we can all agree that it is the human component that is the potential failure point, and I will agree with your claim that is where the need for engineering comes in.
                            If you would take a look back here http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...ext-quot/page6 that's not really the issue, the point of contention is that he is arguing software engineering isn't engineering on the basis that software is buggy and not delivered on time and such, and that math somehow answers all these problems and he keeps trying to point to this idiotic fallacy:

                            Originally posted by Engineer from adobe who attended Stepanov's course
                            “Ask a mechanical, structural, or electrical engineer how far they would get without a heavy reliance on a firm mathematical foundation, and they will tell you, ‘not far.’ Yet so-called software engineers often practice their art with little or no idea of the mathematical underpinnings of what they are doing. And then we wonder why software is notorious for being delivered late and full of bugs, while other engineers routinely deliver finished bridges, automobiles, electrical appliances, etc., on time and with only minor defects. This book sets out to redress this imbalance. Members of my advanced development team at Adobe who took the course based on the same material all benefited greatly from the time invested. It may appear as a highly technical text intended only for computer scientists, but it should be required reading for all practicing software engineers.”
                            Anyone with any knowledge of the history of any field of engineering knows the above statement is utter bullshit. Bridge, automobile, and electrical engineers are all where they are today because they are standing upon the shoulders of people who figured it out before them who are standing on the rubble of the previous engineers mistakes. This is the fundamental reality of all fields of engineering where they can just pop something out on time with minor defects.

                            and then he continues this delusion by trying to push the idea that engineers get new fields right 100% of the time because Math.. He even goes so far as to try to use Space Travel as an example... which just no.

                            Also my secondary point is that that 2+2=4 is language with base 10 as the dialect, and that objects form the basis for language of any form be it english, math, or C++. As a result OOP is simply a recognition of the underlying way language works and is applying how we use english or math to programming, and he fails to even comprehend that math or the sub-models thereof are object oriented, and it's a fundamental concept whether he or other "mathematicians" recognize this truth or not.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
                              If you would take a look back here http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...ext-quot/page6 that's not really the issue, the point of contention is that he is arguing software engineering isn't engineering on the basis that software is buggy and not delivered on time and such, and that math somehow answers all these problems and he keeps trying to point to this idiotic fallacy:
                              Not the original source of contention, but my conclusion is what I got from the likes of your dark matter analogy, and with regards to your criticisms of pure mathematical models in of themselves.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Hamish Wilson View Post
                                Not the original source of contention, but my conclusion is what I got from the likes of your dark matter analogy, and with regards to your criticisms of pure mathematical models in of themselves.
                                Well true, Although my worldview is that there is pure information (such as the cardinality that two objects put with two objects makes four objects) and then we have models with which we express such things as 2+2=4, and I'm sure you've seen tricks in math where people will break the model and they get things like 1=0 which obviously aren't true and don't agree with the pure information. Because of that I consider cardinality and math to separate and math to be purely a model, because we're always fundamentally working with the model instead of the information itself. That is unless you're purely using the objects themselves instead of traditional mathematics...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X