Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Simple (Score 1) 635

by Damouze (#47789967) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Old Technology Can't You Give Up?

Hear hear.

With regards to editors. I used to -hate- vi. Passionately and with an almost religious fervor. To the extent that I renamed the vi binary to sucky-editor etc. For me, joe was the way to go. At university, on systems that were maintained by me, vi was usually a symlink to joe ;-).

All those wordstar key combo's that I was used to from those days (and nights) that I spent writing my next C program were not lost to me. I could still use them in joe while I was writing my C programs for Linux. Them good ol' times...

Nowadays, there is a dichotomy of editors in my twisted brain. If it's flat text I use vi. Mainly because of it's powerful search and replace features. If it's something else, like a UNIX shell script or a SQL file, I still use joe.

Comment: The programming language for the next 20 years... (Score 5, Insightful) 315

by Damouze (#47560645) Attached to: Programming Languages You'll Need Next Year (and Beyond)

C. Plain old C.

Entire Operating Systems are written in it. Userland tools for those operating systems are usually written in it. Any self-respecting developer knows at least C. The rest is just like fashion tips: next year they're outdated.

Although, as much as I hate to admit it, the same could be said for Java...

Comment: Re:...but if you want free software to improve... (Score 1) 1098

by Damouze (#46065333) Attached to: FSF's Richard Stallman Calls LLVM a 'Terrible Setback'

In what way is it impossible for people to use GPL licensed software to develop commercial applications? Loads of companies do it and not every single one of them shares the source code of their product or products with their customers.

I tend to take a stance in the middle ground here. The GPL license and the BSD license serve different purposes, just like the rest of the plethora of licenses in existence do. It is up to the developers to decide which of those licenses suits them and their philosophy best.

I used to be a nearly religious advocate of the GPL v2.x licenses and their derivatives. In fact, in many ways I still am. The problem with the current incarnation, GPL v3, however, is that it contains more restrictions than freedoms. And while I am no fan of DRM of binary blobs in software, preventing them from being included in Free and Open Source software harms the cause of Free and Open Source Software more than it does it any good, to name an example. Add to that the fact that the legalese in general of the GPL v3 does not invite a sense of freedom (at least to me it doesn't) it could be argued that it actually foregoes its original goals, in favour of the licensing equivalent of hard marxism.

In other words, the GPL v3 doesn't suit me, so I tend to avoid it in my hobby projects. Fortunately for me (and the rest of the world) they're exactly that: hobby projects.

Comment: Re:More importantly (Score 0) 1293

by Damouze (#44900781) Attached to: Why Are Some Hell-Bent On Teaching Intelligent Design?

Texas also gave us Double Duh Bush. One of the least enlightened beings on this planet, as well as the one who put us in the international mess we're currently in.

"If you're not with us, you're against us."

Great way to sway everyone to your side - or theirs for that matter.

On topic: the problem between science and religion is not that they are mutually exclusive, but rather that science requires actual proof, whereas religion requires merely faith. One cannot prove the existence of god either way.

Even so, it seems silly to me to require the teaching of pseudoscience in school, merely to placate a couple of religious fanatics. I thought it was us who invented the polde model, but the Americans seem to have taken it to an entire new level.

The shortest distance between two points is under construction. -- Noelie Alito