On Friday, 12 February 2016 at 03:19:52 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
wrote:
On 02/11/2016 04:54 PM, w0rp wrote:
His article is way too long. It seems like an article about
whining
about how people whine too much.
It's metawhine! :)
These meta whines get on my nerves, everything was much better in
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 10:52:31 UTC, Ola Fosheim
Grøstad wrote:
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 09:51:16 UTC, Joakim wrote:
All of which are decades-old projects from the heyday of the
GPL, when many mistakenly attributed linux's success to the
GPL and copied its license blindly.
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 12:47:20 UTC, Ola Fosheim
Grøstad wrote:
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 11:46:44 UTC, Joakim wrote:
That's why I differentiated between getting a team on the same
page and high-quality coherent designs. The former may get
more done, but usually not at high
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 10:21:19 UTC, Joakim wrote:
You heard them above. Sun is basically inbreeding. That tends
to be good
to bring out specific characteristics of a breed, and tends to
be good for
_specialization_.
Linus is not a very good analyst. All the big iron corporations
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 09:51:16 UTC, Joakim wrote:
Consensus is for getting everybody doing the same thing, which
is not the road to technical quality. Linus has talked about
the "wasteful" OSS approach, which he compares to evolution:
I am sure nobody will disagree with this post. Thing is, whenever
there are people, there will be disagreements. I remember "final
by default" vs "virtual by default" thread. I remember people
whining and leaving the D community for X various reasons.
What made me personally stick to D is
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 11:46:44 UTC, Joakim wrote:
That's why I differentiated between getting a team on the same
page and high-quality coherent designs. The former may get
more done, but usually not at high quality. Read up more at
the Linus links I gave to get the alternate
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 14:53:37 UTC, Joakim wrote:
It was not always high-profile, it started off with one guy and
grew big through the same decentralized process.
It was fairly popular among students even back when it was not so
great. This is not so atypical. Someone fills a void,
On 02/11/2016 06:53 AM, Dejan Lekic wrote:
I know some will disagree with me, but I will say it anyway: IT
community, especially developers, are known for poor social skills...
People tend to forget that...
There may be a certain *small* level of truth to that, but most of it is
nothing more
His article is way too long. It seems like an article about
whining about how people whine too much.
On 02/11/2016 04:54 PM, w0rp wrote:
His article is way too long. It seems like an article about whining
about how people whine too much.
It's metawhine! :)
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 16:39:14 UTC, Joakim wrote:
I wouldn't call Swift specialized, maybe only because it only
runs on OS X, iOS and linux right now. So Linus would predict
that Go and Rust may do well now because they're specialized,
but will be hit hard if their niche collapses
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 15:31:02 UTC, Ola Fosheim
Grøstad wrote:
People are not looking for a general purpose language. They are
looking for a solution to their particular problem area...
Go
Rust
Swift
All fairly specialized and gaining ground.
I wouldn't call Swift specialized,
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 07:32:00 UTC, Ola Fosheim
Grøstad wrote:
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 06:20:33 UTC, Joakim wrote:
Eh, there were always the BSDs and essentially nobody runs GNU
code today.
Uhm... Many do. And beyond GNU, the GPL/LGPL are the most
common licenses in
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 09:51:16 UTC, Joakim wrote:
All of which are decades-old projects from the heyday of the
GPL, when many mistakenly attributed linux's success to the GPL
and copied its license blindly.
Yes, it does take decades to create complicated productivity apps.
The
On 02/09/2016 09:11 PM, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
My email is inevitably met not with acceptance, nor with constructive
discussion, but with some attempt to derail the entire enterprise. Here
are some real examples, paraphrased by yours truly:
I think it should be done some other way, even
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 12:17:40PM -0500, Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On 02/09/2016 09:11 PM, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
> >
> >My email is inevitably met not with acceptance, nor with constructive
> >discussion, but with some attempt to derail the entire enterprise.
> >Here are some
On Wednesday, 10 February 2016 at 18:09:57 UTC, Joakim wrote:
Pretty funny that he chose Stallman as his example of a guy who
gets stuff done, whose Hurd microkernel never actually got
done, :) though certainly ambitious, so Stallman would never
have had a FOSS OS on which to run his GNU tools
On Wednesday, 10 February 2016 at 18:31:22 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
wrote:
On 02/10/2016 01:09 PM, Joakim wrote:
Pretty funny that he chose Stallman as his example of a guy
who gets
stuff done, whose Hurd microkernel never actually got done, :)
though
certainly ambitious, so Stallman would never
On 02/09/2016 09:11 PM, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
http://sealedabstract.com/rants/conduct-unbecoming-of-a-hacker/
(His particular suggestion about accept patches by default is not why I
post this).
Just read the rest of the article. That's a REALLY good article.
Especially these bits:
On Wednesday, 10 February 2016 at 02:11:25 UTC, Laeeth Isharc
wrote:
http://sealedabstract.com/rants/conduct-unbecoming-of-a-hacker/
(His particular suggestion about accept patches by default is
not why I post this).
'
We’re all talk
[...]
Pretty funny that he chose Stallman as his example
On 02/10/2016 01:09 PM, Joakim wrote:
Pretty funny that he chose Stallman as his example of a guy who gets
stuff done, whose Hurd microkernel never actually got done, :) though
certainly ambitious, so Stallman would never have had a FOSS OS on which
to run his GNU tools if it weren't for Linus.
On Wednesday, 10 February 2016 at 19:44:50 UTC, Joakim wrote:
Perhaps historically as a guinea pig, but its use is waning for
more permissive licenses, which have been around for decades
too.
Well, they had been around for things like X11, which had a
commercial consortium driving the
On Wednesday, 10 February 2016 at 17:17:40 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
wrote:
Unfortunately, that sounds very similar to experiences I've had
here in D-land :( Gets very frustrating.
Yes - one trigger for posting it was the tone of some messages in
some recent forum discussions (although it's really
On Wednesday, 10 February 2016 at 23:55:17 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
Also because context switching got from a handful of cycle at
the time to about 1000 cycles on modern CPU, making the idea of
microkernel somewhat less attractive.
But saying Stallman released nothing is unfair. If we can
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 04:50:04 UTC, Laeeth Isharc
wrote:
For the most difficult/contentious issues, writing a DIP is
just another form of arguing.
Well writing code might be better, but writing a DIP is a
superior form of arguing to just plain grumbling as its more
constructive.
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 06:20:33 UTC, Joakim wrote:
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 05:31:54 UTC, tsbockman wrote:
As of today, the "Study" group for safe reference-counting
doesn't appear to be going much of anywhere, because Walter
and Andrei have rejected the DIP69 approach
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 04:50:04 UTC, Laeeth Isharc
wrote:
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 04:35:27 UTC, tsbockman wrote:
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 04:27:43 UTC, Laeeth Isharc
wrote:
would we be better off if some people that like to argue were
to pick just one of their points
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 04:54:15 UTC, tsbockman wrote:
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 04:50:04 UTC, Laeeth Isharc
wrote:
For the most difficult/contentious issues, writing a DIP is
just another form of arguing.
Well writing code might be better, but writing a DIP is a
superior
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 04:59:16 UTC, Laeeth Isharc
wrote:
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 04:54:15 UTC, tsbockman wrote:
True. Just pointing out that for certain recurring issues, the
reason that people have fallen back to grumbling is because
some DIPs *did* get written, but were
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 04:27:43 UTC, Laeeth Isharc
wrote:
Joakim:
"Pretty funny that he chose Stallman as his example of a guy
who gets stuff done, whose Hurd microkernel never actually got
done, :) though certainly ambitious, so Stallman would never
have had a FOSS OS on which to
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 06:01:29 UTC, Laeeth Isharc
wrote:
Beyond my pay grade, but looks to me like study group is
devoted to just this kind of question
It's not just devoted to this *kind* of question - it's devoted
to this *exact* question. It was formed explicitly for the
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 05:31:54 UTC, tsbockman wrote:
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 04:59:16 UTC, Laeeth Isharc
wrote:
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 04:54:15 UTC, tsbockman wrote:
True. Just pointing out that for certain recurring issues,
the reason that people have fallen back
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 06:20:33 UTC, Joakim wrote:
Eh, there were always the BSDs and essentially nobody runs GNU
code today.
Uhm... Many do. And beyond GNU, the GPL/LGPL are the most common
licenses in community driven open source productivity
applications: Gimp, Inkscape,
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 04:27:43 UTC, Laeeth Isharc
wrote:
would we be better off if some people that like to argue were
to pick just one of their points and write some code or a DIP?
For the most difficult/contentious issues, writing a DIP is just
another form of arguing.
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 04:35:27 UTC, tsbockman wrote:
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 04:27:43 UTC, Laeeth Isharc
wrote:
would we be better off if some people that like to argue were
to pick just one of their points and write some code or a DIP?
For the most difficult/contentious
On Wednesday, 10 February 2016 at 02:11:25 UTC, Laeeth Isharc
wrote:
http://sealedabstract.com/rants/conduct-unbecoming-of-a-hacker/
(His particular suggestion about accept patches by default is
not why I post this).
'
...
Hacking should be about making things. And yet a great many of
our
On Wednesday, 10 February 2016 at 02:11:25 UTC, Laeeth Isharc
wrote:
http://sealedabstract.com/rants/conduct-unbecoming-of-a-hacker/
(His particular suggestion about accept patches by default is
not why I post this).
'
We’re all talk
[...]
On Wednesday, 10 February 2016 at 02:11:25 UTC,
On Wednesday, 10 February 2016 at 18:31:22 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
wrote:
On 02/10/2016 01:09 PM, Joakim wrote:
Pretty funny that he chose Stallman as his example of a guy
who gets
stuff done, whose Hurd microkernel never actually got done, :)
though
certainly ambitious, so Stallman would never
http://sealedabstract.com/rants/conduct-unbecoming-of-a-hacker/
(His particular suggestion about accept patches by default is not
why I post this).
'
We’re all talk
Back when I joined the hacking community, it was about making
things. There were mailing lists, and before them there were
40 matches
Mail list logo
