asdasf

8 ms·

61.
by asdasf 13y ago
What's with people wanting to dismiss opinions they don't like with poorly thought out strawmen?
62.
by asdasf 13y ago
>With statements like yours, you are making sure that the gender divide becomes bigger and bigger and that people become very sensitive and insecure when discussing female founders, female programmers and similar. No, that is what statem
63.
by asdasf 13y ago
It is bloated. Saying "I am cool with how bloated it is" does not change that.
64.
by asdasf 13y ago
>I offered help and enthusiasm for the project. He called me a lot of names and suggested OpenBSD wasn't for people who weren't like him. The mailing lists are all archived. Show me the link. The whole point was I hear bullsh
65.
by asdasf 13y ago
They have these "computer" things that actually use electricity just to work. Worst of all, they produce heat, so then they have to use this "air conditioning" machine to make it cool again. Crazy stuff.
66.
by asdasf 13y ago
NetBSD and FreeBSD were the original ones derived from BSD. OpenBSD forked from NetBSD. DragonflyBSD forked from FreeBSD. The forks are the only ones that are interesting. You use openbsd for firewalls, routers, loadbalancers, etc and d
67.
by asdasf 13y ago
No, I am pointing out something very obvious and important that you seem to have missed. A bunch of totally independent, distinct projects don't all vanish because one of them wants money. The entire premise that "BSD" woul
68.
by asdasf 13y ago
BSD stopped 20 years ago, if you are worried about losing it you are a little late. This weird misconception that because openbsd is begging for money that other projects with the letters "BSD" in them are in some sort of danger
69.
by asdasf 13y ago
"Unite bit-parts" is stomping them out, that's the point. Even if you just magically convinced all the openbsd developers to stop developing openbsd and go start working on an OS they don't like instead, that would just
70.
by asdasf 13y ago
Two of them "combining efforts" is removing one. That is no different than one of them "failing". That is the point. Contrary to armchair OS designer belief, you can't just say "hey guys, stop working on you
71.
by asdasf 13y ago
>So let's deal with the elephant in the room: the OpenBSD project is run by complete and utter jerks Really? Could you give me an example of that? Because from where I sit, as someone having been around the openbsd world for ~15 y
72.
by asdasf 13y ago
Your comment doesn't make more sense from reading it more often. Saying "because I don't understand how the BSDs work or their development processes, I think they should stop existing to prevent them from having to stop exis
73.
by asdasf 13y ago
>Competition is a good thing, so we should consolidate and have less competition That makes very little sense.
74.
by asdasf 13y ago
>Kids don't magically decide that math or science or computer programming is fun Yeah, they do. That's why it is so important to expose kids to lots of things. You never know what is going to capture their imagination.
75.
by asdasf 13y ago
>You see the world in black and white I see simple objective questions in black and white because they are. Is 1+1 2? Yes. There is no grey area. The answer is yes. If you say it is 3, then you are in fact wrong. >Somebody takes
76.
by asdasf 13y ago
>You are using the word "restrictions" incorrect No I am not. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/restriction You are trying to be pedantic, but you are simply incorrect. The GPL imposes restrictions as part of
77.
by asdasf 13y ago
>That is a false statement. No it is not. >Please try understand copyright law when making statements about it. I understand it quite well. You are simply confused. The GPL gives you permission to do things that you couldn't do
78.
by asdasf 13y ago
Some where around 1998?
79.
by asdasf 13y ago
>Neither of those licenses allows you to claim some code is "your own" This is a completely irrelevant statement. What was your intended purpose for making it? >I can easily rephrase that as GPL adds more freedoms You could
80.
by asdasf 13y ago
>Do you think that I, and an apparently large number of other people on the internet, spend our time insulting Haskell without having used it? That some great anti-Haskell conspiracy is being waged by evil groups unknown? No, it seems li
81.
by asdasf 13y ago
>I like go because it's not object oriented Lots of languages are not object oriented and still have parametic polymorphism. Like SML. In 1973. >If you are thinking in generic containers and are programming in Go, you either ch
82.
by asdasf 13y ago
That is not a counterpoint, it is an assumption. A counterpoint would be actual experience of getting less contributions with an MIT/BSD/ISC project. Saying "but in my imagination it doesn't work that way!" does n
83.
by asdasf 13y ago
>but Windows users do not have the same rights of modification and redistribution for that code that Microsoft enjoyed, even if they separately obtain a permissive licence to that code by downloading a fresh copy of the code from the ori
84.
by asdasf 13y ago
That isn't actually the case, just the rational used to make the choice. Actual experience has shown that commercial users simply avoid restrictive licensed projects, and frequently give back contributions to liberally licensed projec
85.
by asdasf 13y ago
>BSD is restrictive. It protects certain freedoms at the expense of others. It is objectively and unequivocally less restrictive than the GPL. All it restricts is your ability to claim it is your own code. The GPL adds several more r
86.
by asdasf 13y ago
This notion that having a huge gaping defect is just a different way of doing things is absurd. Lacking parametric polymorphism is completely unacceptable. This is a solved problem as of 1973. There is no excuse. Inheritance has nothing
87.
by asdasf 13y ago
>I have written quite a bit of Haskell That is a very common claim from people posting misconceptions that could only arise from second-hand info and a lack of direct experience. I have a very hard time believing it given that you claim
88.
by asdasf 13y ago
>When I used OCaml, I almost never used the object system. I didn't need it. Me neither, but it is still part of the language and adds a ton of complexity. Which makes the analogy of ocaml to C vs haskell to C++ quite poor. >The
89.
by asdasf 13y ago
His dismissal of haskell is rather misinformed. Haskell has no such problems with cyclic data structures. And this: >Except that abstracting things into functions that take the `old' graph as input, and answer the `new' graph
90.
by asdasf 13y ago
I think you are forgetting that everyone who uses haskell has obviously gone through the trying it stage. It is not that hard, I did it. I just had a couple of PHP programmers do it without any problems. LYAH assumes you know very little

More ›