teacup50

35 ms·

331.
by teacup50 11y ago
> First, there was no guarantee you could get useful data out of the programs of the PC and Mac era if they didn't explicitly support getting data out. I don't know why you keep lumping the Mac in with the PC; on the Mac -- n
332.
by teacup50 11y ago
No. Current technologies do not move fast, because computer science and maths in general are still hard . This year's "hot" approach isn't fundamentally different from last year's hot approach, and it won't
333.
by teacup50 11y ago
There's a long, long road between not "going hungry" and maximizing your individual potential, and anyone that survived the first .com bubble unscathed knows that the latter has far more lasting power.
334.
by teacup50 11y ago
It's easier to take risks, and it's also cheaper for YC. Your chances of success, however, are much higher with more experience and resources at your disposal.
335.
by teacup50 11y ago
My impression of YC's marketing is an appeal to hubris (and often, the hubris of youth). Most will fail, but none believe it will be them, and in the process, they position themselves outside of an environment in which they'd othe
336.
by teacup50 11y ago
Don't you feel the least bit of reservation selling young kids on the idea that they're likely to create a "multi-billion dollar business" by running through a grist-mill of a program that -- by your own admission -- isn
337.
by teacup50 11y ago
Personally, I'm less interested than the average valuation and more interested in their P&Ls. Of course, that's not the game YC is playing.
338.
by teacup50 11y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Serlet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avie_Tevanian Bertrand wrote malloc, top, and quite a bit of code at NeXT. Avie wrote Mac Missles! in the 80s: https
339.
by teacup50 11y ago
Unified vision matters . Peer commentator already noted Steve Jobs, but I wanted to focus on this. Steve didn't draw the buttons, design the hardware, or write the code -- but he sure as shit told the relevant teams exactly what he wa
340.
by teacup50 11y ago
Ex post facto justification of complex interdependent decisions and consequences by virtue of market valuation? That's just dumb survival bias endemic to the YC camp. It's not something you should actually base business and techni
341.
by teacup50 11y ago
If the technology that's boring to "early engineers" has significantly more weaknesses than the alternatives, then, simply: the wrong people were hired.
342.
by teacup50 11y ago
Most people would like live traffic information. Most people would not like to feed their location data to "the cloud", or open their car to anyone with an exploit in their pocket. Traffic information can be distributed to cars vi
343.
by teacup50 11y ago
There are certainly enough languages to choose from.
344.
by teacup50 11y ago
Thread-based concurrency doesn't require shared mutable state at the application implementation level.
345.
by teacup50 11y ago
How much cheaper (in time, code, effort, complexity) would it be if: - Their language runtime supported thread-based concurrency, which would drastically reduce implementation complexity and actual per-task overhead, thus improving machin
346.
by teacup50 11y ago
> This is what most people do on Windows / OS X anyway... For the record, people on OS X / Windows package a VERY SMALL NUMBER of shared libraries with their application, if they use any at all. The majority of application
347.
by teacup50 11y ago
> Care to elaborate on this one? I don't see what sucks about it. You can build proprietary software and run it on Linux. See also: Steam games. This works if you: - Ship all your dependencies yourself (the distribution-provided d
348.
by teacup50 11y ago
> Am I some superhuman that I am actually capable of getting work done on GNU/Linux? That, in fact, all of the software I need is there? You're a software developer in a particular, small segment of the industry for which too
349.
by teacup50 11y ago
Unfortunately, that's also the best way to not get any work done because: 1) None of the software most people need is available for Linux, and 2) "GNU/Linux" sucks at providing a rich and stable API/ABI on which pro
350.
by teacup50 11y ago
Yes, but as a developer, you're less likely to ship regressions in the first place if your deployment process involves more structure (beta testing, internal code freezes, release branches containing only bug fixes, etc) than 'git
351.
by teacup50 11y ago
Apple aside, doing this kind of thing silently sucks for users -- one of the benefits of native applications over the web is having control over when updates containing potential regressions are inserted into your workflow.
352.
by teacup50 11y ago
> Not factoring in the end product? > False premise aside, that's the great thing about software. You don't need an extremely large force of programmers to satisfy most needs. This is because software is a non-rivalrous,
353.
by teacup50 11y ago
The "you have to distribute it" argument doesn't matter. When your company IP is subject to onerous restrictions as soon as you have to "distribute it", you've greatly reduced the value of that work, now and in
354.
by teacup50 11y ago
Well, we agree that there's a philosophical difference. In my world view, there's nothing ethical about laying claim to all future work output of my own in exchange for incorporating any amount of copyleft code. This situati
355.
by teacup50 11y ago
It's using a license that ensures that it'll probably stay dead; this is a reasonable criticism. Anyone using the code is forced to "pass on the same freedom" to original code that's infected by the AGPL license. Ta
356.
by teacup50 11y ago
A source file is reasonably "a substantial portion"; in fact, a per-file license is applicable to that file, and does not cover other files.
357.
by teacup50 11y ago
Most non-copyleft OSS licenses are compatible in some form, including with copyleft licenses such as the GPL; when used in a combined work, the combined work's license essentially reverts to the most restrictive of the licenses. In som
358.
by teacup50 11y ago
If that's actually the case, then the QPL/GPL license headers must be replaced. Note that the commenting individual is the founder of the company acquired by Microsoft that provided this code.
359.
by teacup50 11y ago
It's just not that simple: the source attribution for the entire code base is in question. Of the licensing that is known, the licenses are known incompatible and the result is non-distributable. They also got the copyright headers wr
360.
by teacup50 11y ago
The scrubbed copyrights are bad enough, but can be fixed. The incompatible licenses mean that this code is actually unusable. I have no idea how MS is going to rectify this.

More ›