KDE & QT are under LGPL, which, unlike GPL, avoid this vulnerability. The only reason for getting a commercial license for otherwise LGPL'd software is that either 1) you need static linking or 2) you need to make secret modifications to the library.
It means a custom window manager on top of X.
Then build something better.
HTML5 should be enough.
The problem is not being sued.
The problem is that we don't necessarily want this MS-driven environment to become popular among devs.
if the official Google announcements stating that Chrome OS will not run X11 don't convince you,
They have never announced anything to that effect.
I'd love to see a citation straight from the horses mouth that X won't be used. Notably, the following says nothing about X:
Google Chrome running within a new windowing system on top of a Linux kernel.
Gnash is an open source implementation of a closed source virtual machine (Flash Player). And yet they are largely held up as heroes because they are making it possible to use a full open source environment and still see flash content. How is this any different from what Miguel is doing with Moonlight?
I guess the difference is that Gnash guys hate Flash with passion, whereas Miguel & friends recommend the technology they work with as reasonable choice for new development.
Why would anyone want to use a glorified VB clone? I am sick and tired of seeing 'rock-star' Python and Ruby programmers trying to shove the new shiny toy in everyone's face. People have been using Perl for 20+ years, and they'll still be using it for 20+ years after Ruby and Python are a distant memory.
The GP mentioned trying Ruby (and as such is not afraid of shiny toys) and disliking it because of bad implementation. In that light, Python would have been a great match.
Please don't drag down Python in the "rockstar programmer" mire, it's a time-honed language that is being used for serious (non-web 2.0) stuff all the time. We all got beards, even.
Why is this a big deal?
Fluxbox (and probably something else before *box) had tab grouping windows long time ago.
It's a big deal because a mainstream WM is finally adding it; and people don't need to lose all the KDE goodness just to get this feature.
As for btrfs, just let it die, we already have ZFS, Linux has a large number of filesystems supported, but the vast majority of them are pretty mediocre and adding btrfs is pointless when pretty much everybody else seems to be hopping on the ZFS bandwagon.
"We" here means a very, very small subset of open source community. Ditto for your "everybody else".
The clearest motivation I can see is that OOP in perl 5 is ugly and bolted on. With that motivation, I have dabbled in ruby enough to write one nontrivial app. The thing is, perl 5 still beats the heck out of ruby in terms of implementation and libraries.
Trying out Python never occurred to you?
In fact, I think the reason there are so many heated debates about which of Ruby and Python is better is exactly because, all things said and done, the differences don't matter that much and your preference is largely a matter of taste.
Indeed. It probably won't make much sense to switch from ruby to python or python to ruby, unless you get paid to do that.
Ironically, this is on topic: try chromium (the browser).
How about calculus, algebra and discrete mathematics?
Software developers don't need any of that, right?
I for one never needed those. You might need some math if you are doing graphics, though.
Being able to communicate, knowing how to use spoken and written languages, is overrated.
They teach stuff like that in college where you live? That's elementary/high school stuff here...
For instance, one thing any programmer should be able to do is write good documentation. Another thing it would be useful for every programmer to be able to do is deal with users and specs.
That's why you'd have this stuff in curriculum. It's not like the kind of people that would enroll in this kind of school need tutoring in programming language syntax.
Anyone can make an omelet with eggs. The trick is to make one with none.
