[opensuse] Re: [SLE] Novell-Microsoft: What They Aren't Telling You

newer
[opensuse] GLIBC upgrade

older
[opensuse] Instability in SuSE...

M Harris

12 Nov 2006 12 Nov '06

04:21

On Sunday 05 November 2006 05:24, you wrote:

...

Re: software patentability: I ask this in all seriousness; I don't have a particular pre-conceived bias one way or the other:

Why would assembling a collections of "objects" (as in C-objects) together to perform some function be any different that assembling a collection of resistors, capacitors and active devices together to form a "circuit" (which is certainly patentable)? hi Tony,

Great question. I asked it also, as I was thinking through this... The answer is simple, but in order to answer it you need to ask another question.... how is "software" like or unlike a collection of resistors and capacitors assembled on a circuit board... compare and contrast. The circuit board containing resistors and capacitors is a physical (meta-physical) construction comprised of real objects manufactured from "stuff" that we generally call matter (we can touch it). Software is text. The point is that software (as a medium) is only text, like a play, a novel, a short story, a poem... or a recipe in a cookbook. It is a set of symbols which can be read (by another person, or by a machine).... it is text, plain and simple. Text is protected by copyright (or copyleft... as I see it) and is not patentable. Software is text, and as such should be protected by copyright (or copyleft) and should not be patentable any more than a recipe in a cookbook (designed to be read and "executed" by a chef in a kitchen). The recipe in the cookbook, and any other software objects, are both text.... protected by copyright perhaps (or copyleft) but not patentable. As a side note... some software ( none if it is intellectual property in my view) can also be viewed the same way most of us view mathematics. No mathematical "truth" can be patented. Much of software (if not all...) is similar to mathematical truth... whether trivial or not... and should not be patentable for the same reason. This is of course a minor point to the real answer... which is that software is text and should be protected as text... not as a physical (meta-physical) object. -- Kind regards, M Harris <>< --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Show replies by date

Patrick Shanahan

12 Nov 12 Nov

03:33

* M Harris [11-11-06 22:22]: ...

...

As a side note... some software ( none if it is intellectual property in my view) can also be viewed the same way most of us view mathematics. No mathematical "truth" can be patented. Much of software (if not all...) is similar to mathematical truth... whether trivial or not... and should not be patentable for the same reason. This is of course a minor point to the real answer... which is that software is text and should be protected as text... not as a physical (meta-physical) object.

I think, a _very_ good analogy. Thankyou, -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org @ http://counter.li.org HOG # US1244711 Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

John Andersen

04:24

M Harris [11-11-06 22:22]:

...

No mathematical "truth" can be patented. Much of software (if not all...) is similar to mathematical truth... whether trivial or not... and should not be patentable for the same reason.

On Saturday 11 November 2006 18:33, Patrick Shanahan replied:

...

I think, a _very_ good analogy. Thankyou,

To which I reply: This sort of overlooks the fact that the REASON gif, jpeg, mpeg, dvdcss, zip, various others were deemed patentable is that they were not "mathematical truths" but rather constructions using a variety of mathematical truths, logic, processes, and specifications. They were therefore patentable under current interpretation of the laws. (I suggest the term Harris was looking for was "mathematical proof"). -- _____________________________________ John Andersen

Doug McGarrett

04:13

On Saturday 11 November 2006 23:21, M Harris wrote:

...

On Sunday 05 November 2006 05:24, you wrote:

...
Re: software patentability: I ask this in all seriousness; I don't have a particular pre-conceived bias one way or the other:

Why would assembling a collections of "objects" (as in C-objects) together to perform some function be any different that assembling a collection of resistors, capacitors and active devices together to form a "circuit" (which is certainly patentable)?

hi Tony,

Great question. I asked it also, as I was thinking through this...

The answer is simple, but in order to answer it you need to ask another question.... how is "software" like or unlike a collection of resistors and capacitors assembled on a circuit board... compare and contrast.

The circuit board containing resistors and capacitors is a physical (meta-physical) construction comprised of real objects manufactured from "stuff" that we generally call matter (we can touch it). Software is text.

The point is that software (as a medium) is only text, like a play, a novel, a short story, a poem... or a recipe in a cookbook. It is a set of symbols which can be read (by another person, or by a machine).... it is text, plain and simple.

Text is protected by copyright (or copyleft... as I see it) and is not patentable. Software is text, and as such should be protected by copyright (or copyleft) and should not be patentable any more than a recipe in a cookbook (designed to be read and "executed" by a chef in a kitchen). The recipe in the cookbook, and any other software objects, are both text.... protected by copyright perhaps (or copyleft) but not patentable.

/snip/ You should be happy that software is patented, rather than copyrighted. Patents expire within a long but reasonable(?) time; copyrights don't expire for almost 200 years. No-one living will ever see a copyright expire, even if it was granted to Mickey Mouse movies of the 1920's. Of course, I'm not happy that software is patented, I think that's ridiculous, but think of the alternative! --doug --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Anders Johansson

04:37

On Sunday 12 November 2006 05:13, Doug McGarrett wrote:

...

You should be happy that software is patented, rather than copyrighted. Patents expire within a long but reasonable(?) time; copyrights don't expire for almost 200 years. No-one living will ever see a copyright expire, even if it was granted to Mickey Mouse movies of the 1920's.

Everything published before 1923 is already in the public domain http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Doug McGarrett

05:58

On Saturday 11 November 2006 23:37, Anders Johansson wrote:

...

On Sunday 12 November 2006 05:13, Doug McGarrett wrote:

...
You should be happy that software is patented, rather than copyrighted. Patents expire within a long but reasonable(?) time; copyrights don't expire for almost 200 years. No-one living will ever see a copyright expire, even if it was granted to Mickey Mouse movies of the 1920's.

Everything published before 1923 is already in the public domain

http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm

Disney was responsible for changing the copyright laws. Probably, Mickey Mouse appeared in 1923. How? Lotsa money, that's how. The referenced chart tends to indicate what I have noted, altho there are a few exceptions. Maybe not 200 years, but it is still true that practically nobody will ever see a copyright expire--particularly one that was filed in the last 20 or 30 years. If you know any way to influence Congress, it would be a boon to Americans to make copyrights for writers, painters, musicians, etc., expire at _most_ 20 years after they die, and for corporate copyrights, to have no longer life than patents. (A corporate copyright is in all respects exactly equal to a patent, in my view.) A trademark is a different animal. It should last as long as the company which registered it plus a reasonable time--maybe 10 years. All of this is strictly my opinion--I'm not a lawyer--but I suspect that most Americans would be happy to agree with me. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Randall R Schulz

04:17

On Saturday 11 November 2006 20:21, M Harris wrote:

...

On Sunday 05 November 2006 05:24, you wrote:

...
Re: software patentability: I ask this in all seriousness; I don't have a particular pre-conceived bias one way or the other:

Why would assembling a collections of "objects" (as in C-objects) together to perform some function be any different that assembling a collection of resistors, capacitors and active devices together to form a "circuit" (which is certainly patentable)?

hi Tony,

Great question. I asked it also, as I was thinking through this...

The answer is simple, but in order to answer it you need to ask another question.... how is "software" like or unlike a collection of resistors and capacitors assembled on a circuit board... compare and contrast.

The circuit board containing resistors and capacitors is a physical (meta-physical) construction comprised of real objects manufactured from "stuff" that we generally call matter (we can touch it). Software is text.

Software is not text. Software is the pure essence of mechanism operating only on information. Text is just a means of encoding information. Programmers are applied mathematicians. The basis of all software is mathematical logic of one sort or another.

...

The point is that software (as a medium) is only text, like a play, a novel, a short story, a poem... or a recipe in a cookbook. It is a set of symbols which can be read (by another person, or by a machine).... it is text, plain and simple.

Textual representation is not the essence of software. Software is complexly structured (like knowledge) but to convey from its point of origin (a person's mind) to a machine where it can be made precise and thence executed requires serialization. That serial form is a programming language. It's analogous to human language insofar as both are serial representations of complexly structured information and knowledge.

...

Text is protected by copyright (or copyleft... as I see it) and is not patentable. Software is text, and as such should be protected by copyright (or copyleft) and should not be patentable any more than a recipe in a cookbook (designed to be read and "executed" by a chef in a kitchen). The recipe in the cookbook, and any other software objects, are both text.... protected by copyright perhaps (or copyleft) but not patentable.

Again, software _is not_ text. It is mechanism. It is logic. It is ideas. Text is only the way it is externalized from its point of conception in a human mind (or, in some cases, from another program).

...

As a side note... some software ( none if it is intellectual property in my view) can also be viewed the same way most of us view mathematics. No mathematical "truth" can be patented. Much of software (if not all...) is similar to mathematical truth... whether trivial or not... and should not be patentable for the same reason. This is of course a minor point to the real answer... which is that software is text and should be protected as text... not as a physical (meta-physical) object.

Apart from you misconception about the essential nature of software, I agree that patents are an inappropriate way of providing legal protections for programs. Copyright and trade secret law is applicable and mostly adequate. But if you think software patents are bad, gene patents will make you apoplectic. Well, it does to me... Randall Schulz --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

John Andersen

04:29

On Saturday 11 November 2006 19:17, Randall R Schulz wrote:

...

Programmers are applied mathematicians. The basis of all software is mathematical logic of one sort or another.

Grossly over stated. Very little of programming is mathematical. The logic involved is usually no more than find the RED ball. Programming is mostly moving stuff around, getting it from here and putting it there. More akin to organizing your closet than math. I once debated this very issue with the head of the Math Department at college. He insisted programming belonged in the Math department. I insisted it belonged in the business department. This was before the advent of Computer Science departments, which took the wind out of both of our sails. -- _____________________________________ John Andersen

Randall R Schulz

05:24

On Saturday 11 November 2006 20:29, John Andersen wrote:

...

On Saturday 11 November 2006 19:17, Randall R Schulz wrote:

...
Programmers are applied mathematicians. The basis of all software is mathematical logic of one sort or another.

Grossly over stated.

Not overstated in the slightest. It is exactly and completely true.

...

Very little of programming is mathematical. The logic involved is usually no more than find the RED ball.

The foundations of all programming is symbolic logic. Not necessarily first-order predicate logic, but a variety of logics nonetheless.

...

Programming is mostly moving stuff around, getting it from here and putting it there. More akin to organizing your closet than math.

It all requires complete and precise characterization, without which programs could never be made to do a particular thing. Computers don't understand what we have them do, so we have to tell them with perfect precision in a completely formal language what it is we want them to do. The essence of those characterizations, going back to Turing and beyond, originates in symbolic mathematics. Mathematics, after all, is not primarily about numbers, but really about symbols (of which numbers a kind--or kinds) and patterns. Moving data from one place to another requires a formal specification just as does a regular expression match, a sort or a neural network simulation. The only problem with current logical formalisms is how low-level they are. An FOPC characterization of something as simple as the C library "memcpy" function requires pages of mathematical logic. Few programmers realize just how very much they're saying when they write a few simple lines of C or Java. In fact, that kind of leverage is absolutely essential as our ambitions w.r.t. to size and complexity of information systems grows ever larger.

...

I once debated this very issue with the head of the Math Department at college. He insisted programming belonged in the Math department. I insisted it belonged in the business department.

The people who do the best software are those that understand the formal and theoretical underpinnings of computing. In rare cases, you find individuals with a sufficient intuitive grasp that they can craft good software with realtively little overt understanding of computing theory, but for the most part, to exploit the nature of computation requires a good understanding of the principle of operation. There's a pretty good comparison, I think, with medicine. If you don't understand the anatomical and physiological bases of normal human function and ways in which it breaks down or is impaired in disease, you cannot be a competent, effective doctor. At my alma mater, CS grew out of the math department, and I'm glad for it.

...

This was before the advent of Computer Science departments, which took the wind out of both of our sails.

The domain of computation and of engineered information processing system is easily big enough to constitute a separate domain of study and justify separate departmental home in academia. Randall Schulz --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Anders Johansson

14:01

On Sunday 12 November 2006 06:24, Randall R Schulz wrote:

...

At my alma mater, CS grew out of the math department, and I'm glad for it.

At my university, it started out as "numerical analysis". Then it became "numerical analysis and computer science", then "computer science and numerical analysis", and finally today "computer science" --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Greg Wallace

20:01

On Saturday, November 11, 2006 @ 11:24 PM, Randall Schulz wrote:

...

On Saturday 11 November 2006 20:29, John Andersen wrote:

...
On Saturday 11 November 2006 19:17, Randall R Schulz wrote:

...
Programmers are applied mathematicians. The basis of all software is mathematical logic of one sort or another.

Grossly over stated.

...

Not overstated in the slightest. It is exactly and completely true.

But isn't programming simply a set of instructions? Those instructions may be logical or completely illogical. Any mathematical calculations in a program are of course logical, by definition, though the logic behind the calculation may be completely illogical (wrong formula). I. e., the calculation itself is logical in that it provides the result that it was asked to give, though what it was asked to give by the programmer may have been totally illogical.

...

...
Very little of programming is mathematical. The logic involved is usually no more than find the RED ball.

I agree to some extent, though I think you grossly underestimate the logic that can be involved (i. e., it can certainly be much more complicated than "find the RED ball").

...

The foundations of all programming is symbolic logic.

I'd say an attempt at symbolic logic.

...

Not necessarily first-order predicate logic, but a variety of logics nonetheless.

...

...
Programming is mostly moving stuff around, getting it from here and putting it there. More akin to organizing your closet than math.

It can be quite a bit more complicated than organizing your closet, I promise you.

...

It all requires complete and precise characterization, without which programs could never be made to do a particular thing. Computers don't understand what we have them do, so we have to tell them with perfect precision in a completely formal language what it is we want them to do. The essence of those characterizations, going back to Turing and beyond, originates in symbolic mathematics. Mathematics, after all, is not primarily about numbers, but really about symbols (of which numbers a kind--or kinds) and patterns.

I believe the foundation of programming is simply instructions, logical or illogical.

...

Moving data from one place to another requires a formal specification just as does a regular expression match, a sort or a neural network simulation.

...

The only problem with current logical formalisms is how low-level they are. An FOPC characterization of something as simple as the C library "memcpy" function requires pages of mathematical logic.

...

Few programmers realize just how very much they're saying when they write a few simple lines of C or Java. In fact, that kind of leverage is absolutely essential as our ambitions w.r.t. to size and complexity of information systems grows ever larger.

...

...
I once debated this very issue with the head of the Math Department at college. He insisted programming belonged in the Math department. I insisted it belonged in the business department.

...

The people who do the best software are those that understand the formal and theoretical underpinnings of computing. In rare cases, you find individuals with a sufficient intuitive grasp that they can craft good software with realtively little overt understanding of computing theory, but for the most part, to exploit the nature of computation requires a good understanding of the principle of operation.

...

There's a pretty good comparison, I think, with medicine. If you don't understand the anatomical and physiological bases of normal human function and ways in which it breaks down or is impaired in disease, you cannot be a competent, effective doctor.

...

At my alma mater, CS grew out of the math department, and I'm glad for it.

...

...
This was before the advent of Computer Science departments, which took the wind out of both of our sails.

...

The domain of computation and of engineered information processing system is easily big enough to constitute a separate domain of study and justify separate departmental home in academia.

...

Randall Schulz

Greg Wallace --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Randall R Schulz

20:26

On Sunday 12 November 2006 12:01, Greg Wallace wrote:

...

On Saturday, November 11, 2006 @ 11:24 PM, Randall Schulz wrote:

...
On Saturday 11 November 2006 20:29, John Andersen wrote:

...
On Saturday 11 November 2006 19:17, Randall R Schulz wrote:

...
Programmers are applied mathematicians. The basis of all software is mathematical logic of one sort or another.

Grossly over stated.

Not overstated in the slightest. It is exactly and completely true.

But isn't programming simply a set of instructions? Those instructions may be logical or completely illogical. Any mathematical calculations in a program are of course logical, by definition, though the logic behind the calculation may be completely illogical (wrong formula). I. e., the calculation itself is logical in that it provides the result that it was asked to give, though what it was asked to give by the programmer may have been totally illogical.

I'm not talking about incoherent programs, or programming language gibberish, I'm talking about programs that do something coherent. I'm talking about the underpinnings of computation, not any given batch of instructions that may or may not do something useful and / or which may or may not do what's intended.

...

...
...
Very little of programming is mathematical. The logic involved is usually no more than find the RED ball.

I agree to some extent, though I think you grossly underestimate the logic that can be involved (i. e., it can certainly be much more complicated than "find the RED ball").

...
The foundations of all programming is symbolic logic.

I'd say an attempt at symbolic logic.

No. It _is_ logic. It can be nothing more nor less. Computation is pure formalism, just as formal logic is. Don't confuse the loose sense of logic in everyday conversation with the formal mathematical notions of logic. I'm talking only about the latter.

...

...

I believe the foundation of programming is simply instructions, logical or illogical.

This just isn't a meaningful statement. "Instructions" are defined by a formalism about how to refer to stored pieces of information, how to operate on those pieces of information and how to organize such operations into what are called "effective procedures" that embody specific computations or algorithms. The Turing Machine is the canonical example of a computing formalism and to date (modulo quantum computing) captures the capabilities of _all_ digital information processing hardware, whether it be a x86 CPU, an nVidia GPU, a DSP or some custom-built logic device. Refer to Cutland's "Computability" or Boolos and Jeffrey's "Computability and Logic" for contemporary treatments. The seminal work is that of Church and Turing, but it's all based on mathematics and logic as it goes back to the ancient Greeks.

...

...

Greg Wallace

Randall Schulz --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

John Andersen

13 Nov 13 Nov

00:23

On Sunday 12 November 2006 11:26, Randall R Schulz wrote:

...

Don't confuse the loose sense of logic in everyday conversation with the formal mathematical notions of logic. I'm talking only about the latter.

Which perhaps explains why your impassioned arguments are so wide of the mark. By your definition, EVERY department, even biology, and art, should be subordinate to the math department. This is a settled issue. Its already been decided. Virtually every university world wide has yanked computers, programming, and systems analysis out of math departments and created Computer Science departments. By and large they were forced to do this by funding reasons, when business communities started demanding IT workers that were attuned to getting the business done rather than proving some obscure theorem. The pay checks had to be printed on time, and the shipping orders prepared and the instructions to the automated manufacturing machines had to be downloaded. It didn't matter a great deal if it was done in the most efficient way, as long as it was done on time. This argument ran during the 70s, and the math departments of the world lost then and haven't gained any ground since. The world had work to get done, and the only way to do it was to move computer technology out of the math department. -- _____________________________________ John Andersen

Anders Johansson

00:29

On Monday 13 November 2006 01:23, John Andersen wrote:

...

Its already been decided. Virtually every university world wide has yanked computers, programming, and systems analysis out of math departments and created Computer Science departments.

By and large they were forced to do this by funding reasons, when business communities started demanding IT workers that were attuned to getting the business done rather than proving some obscure theorem.

This differs from university to university. At my university, the department I was in, known as computer science ('datalogi' in Swedish) dealt with theoretical stuff, understanding algorithmic theory, analysing and proving stuff There were other departments, one I remember was called Informatics, which were more into the practical results and took shortcuts across the more theoretical aspects But I know other places around there which packed everything into the Comp. Sci. department, both the theoretical and the "instant business programmer" type courses --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

John Andersen

00:48

On Sunday 12 November 2006 15:29, Anders Johansson wrote:

...

But I know other places around there which packed everything into the Comp. Sci. department, both the theoretical and the "instant business programmer" type courses

Exactly. Which is not to say they dont still have math prerequsits, as well as English/Swedish, and some science prereqs. In my university, even basic logic ( AND, OR, set theory ,etc) was not a math course. -- _____________________________________ John Andersen

jfweber＠gilweber.com

02:31

into electronic streams flowing thru the cosmos On Sunday 12 November 2006 7:29 pm, Anders Johansson wrote:

...

On Monday 13 November 2006 01:23, John Andersen wrote:

...
Its already been decided. Virtually every university world wide has yanked computers, programming, and systems analysis out of math departments and created Computer Science departments.

By and large they were forced to do this by funding reasons, when business communities started demanding IT workers that were attuned to getting the business done rather than proving some obscure theorem.

This differs from university to university. At my university, the department I was in, known as computer science ('datalogi' in Swedish) dealt with theoretical stuff, understanding algorithmic theory, analysing and proving stuff

There were other departments, one I remember was called Informatics, which were more into the practical results and took shortcuts across the more theoretical aspects

But I know other places around there which packed everything into the Comp. Sci. department, both the theoretical and the "instant business programmer" type courses

And yet you came out of Uni able to understand non-Uni people when they had questions and problems w/ computers ( especially, but I suspect not limited to SuSE , or Suse , as it now is called) . You were able to assist many of us idiots on the lists w/ answers that were clear and helpful. Your Uni must have a good grasp on the practical , or perhaps it's just the way you are. ;) However, once computers generally became ubiquitous in business, the hurry up and teach em just enough to get the cheques cut and inventory tracked efficiently , probably isn't all that bad an idea. While theory and deep learning of computer history vs howto do whatever needs done, is a diversion which may never be resolved, it seems to me business will always opt for the howto folks every time. Unless it's some of the companies who do development of future systems. Nano tubes or nano bots vs who knows what blue sky thing they are dreaming up. They all seem to live in a different world and a different time frame than most of the rest of us.. ;) As for me, I want an R2D2 type bot that will follow me around and keep track of where I left my Pepsi.. then I could even be happy w/ an older computer. Not very happy, but happy nonetheless. <VBG> -- j * Energizer Bunny arrested - charged with battery. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

John Andersen

02:13

On Sunday 12 November 2006 17:31, jfweber@gilweber.com wrote:

...

While theory and deep learning of computer history vs howto do whatever needs done, is a diversion which may never be resolved, it seems to me business will always opt for the howto folks every time.

Yes, we need engineers to build sewers and waste treatment plants, but its the plumbers of the world that make life liveable. We can re-use old designs and do without engineers for a few years, but a few weeks without the plumbers and electricians goes a long way toward bringing civilization to a halt. -- _____________________________________ John Andersen

Stevens

02:17

New subject: [opensuse] Novell-Microsoft: What They Aren't Telling You

On Sunday 12 November 2006 20:13, John Andersen wrote:

...

We can re-use old designs and do without engineers for a few years, but a few weeks without the plumbers and electricians goes a long way toward bringing civilization to a halt.

Yes, it's the old joke about which organ in the body is the most important and it is related to plumbers. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Basil Chupin

02:26

New subject: [opensuse] Novell-Microsoft: What They Aren't Telling You

Stevens wrote:

...

On Sunday 12 November 2006 20:13, John Andersen wrote:

...
We can re-use old designs and do without engineers for a few years, but a few weeks without the plumbers and electricians goes a long way toward bringing civilization to a halt.

Yes, it's the old joke about which organ in the body is the most important and it is related to plumbers.

And considering the Subject topic, I thought it had all to do with the suits at M$ and Novell :-) . Cheers. -- If apathy is increasing, where is it coming from? --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

JJ Gitties

21:42

On 11/12/06, Anders Johansson wrote:

...

This differs from university to university. At my university, the department I was in, known as computer science ('datalogi' in Swedish) dealt with theoretical stuff, understanding algorithmic theory, analysing and proving stuff

He... he... One of my comp sci profs once told us once, "I am not here to teach you how to program. I am here to make great minds. If you want to learn how to program, go buy "C For Dummies" and ask for a refund from the registrars office". :-) -- jjgitties, "*We* need to convince OpenSUSE to fork, or let 'em die. To bad, it is a wonderful Distro. But their parent company is NOT our friend."

Randall R Schulz

00:47

On Sunday 12 November 2006 16:23, John Andersen wrote:

...

...

Its already been decided. Virtually every university world wide has yanked computers, programming, and systems analysis out of math departments and created Computer Science departments.

With which I agree. But there is a distinction in approach depending on whether the CS depart grew out of the math department or the electrical engineering department, and I believe you get better practitioners from departments that emphasize the mathematical roots. I don't expect a business person to understand, though. Your only logic is the logic of dollar and cents. RRS --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

M Harris

14 Nov 14 Nov

17:24

On Sunday 12 November 2006 14:26, Randall R Schulz wrote:

...

...
...
...
...
Programmers are applied mathematicians. The basis of all software is mathematical logic of one sort or another.

Grossly over stated.

Not overstated in the slightest. It is exactly and completely true. No...

Programmers are software text authors who rely upon an underpinning of applied mathematics and hardware logic circuits... this attempts to be partially and mostly true. Many software authors are neither applied (nor theoretical) mathematicians... to the chargrin of several of us. And like yourself, I too am from the older school where computer science sprang out of the math department. Our math department was the *first* department on campus to own a mini-computer (pre personal computer era ~1970s). However, I must agree with Kai that the foundation of even mathematics is in fact language... and language (at least written language) is text symbology of some kind. I did an enormous amount of commercial business programming most of which didn't even calculate... it was all about organization of data, data mining, data distribution and data display. It really had nothing what-so-ever to do with mathematics... other than we all know that the entire system is a giant binary (math) emulator. As a software text author I really could have cared less (at least on those projects). Having said all of that... I must admit that I agree with the basic spirit of your heart argument... because I still really believe in my heart of hearts that all of computer science really does in fact spring out of mathematics. And as such, can be built (or may I say rebuilt) from a foundation of axioms (just like mathematics). Because this is true, none of that progression (building) can be patented because all of it can (and will) be discovered by *anyone* who begins to build from the same axiomatic foundation. If I give you *point*, *line*, and *plane* eventually you will derive Euclidian geometry. It doesn't belong to anyone... because it is mathematical truth which can be discovered (built) by anyone... and it therefore (given enough time) is in fact obvious to everyone... eventually. Much if not all of computer science is just like that... eventually (given a von Neuman processor and appropriate instruction set) all truths (algorithms) of computer science will be discovered (or rediscovered) by anyone who spends enough time building on same. The tower (geometric structure) of computer science software cannot be patanted for the same reason that mathematical truth (proof) cannot be patented (in my view) because it is all a logical progression (may I even say an obvious) given enough time at construction. -- Kind regards, M Harris <>< --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Randall R Schulz

17:37

On Tuesday 14 November 2006 09:24, M Harris wrote:

...

On Sunday 12 November 2006 14:26, Randall R Schulz wrote:

...
...
...
...
...
Programmers are applied mathematicians. The basis of all software is mathematical logic of one sort or another.

Grossly over stated.

Not overstated in the slightest. It is exactly and completely true.

No...

Programmers are software text authors who rely upon an underpinning of applied mathematics and hardware logic circuits... this attempts to be partially and mostly true.

Many software authors are neither applied (nor theoretical) mathematicians... to the chargrin of several of us.

A person who has an innate talent for music and who taught herself to play instruments and compose and arrange tunes _does_ understand music theory even if she did not study it and does not know it explicitly as such. The same is true of programmers. If you can write a program that works, then you're a logician and an applied mathematician. It doesn't matter how you relate to your act of creation and authorship, if what you wrote was not coherent and correct, it wouldn't serve its intended purpose. The problem is that without that explicit understanding of the fundamentals, one is almost always quite limited in how much they can accomplish. Here the analogy with music breaks down, since music is somewhat closer to our universal human skills of language and hearing and movement. Programming and mathematics are more abstract and, for most people, harder to relate to everyday experience and hence are harder to get right. I cannot reconcile what you wrote here with what your wrote in the previous post: That programs are text and that by writing a program you've created patentable mechanisms. Randall Schulz --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

M Harris

20:33

...

I cannot reconcile what you wrote here with what your wrote in the previous post: That programs are text and that by writing a program you've created patentable mechanisms. Good point... I need to clarify just a bit... the world view has changed since you and I were in school (some of the other posts were trying to get at

On Tuesday 14 November 2006 11:37, Randall R Schulz wrote: this) and consequently the {MATH - PROGRAMMER} connection is not as distinct today (if at all) like it was 15 or 20 years ago. Today there are quite literally thousands of "programmers" that do not understand mathematics concepts 101 and yet they write profound software text files. These folks are *not* being educated in mathematics as a theoretical science; rather, they are being trained with the skills necessary to move data fields from one business app to the other. Yes, some degree of logic and at least an ability to count are requirements... but many "programmers" today are being taught differently than you and I were taught; in my opinion they are being *trained* instead of being *educated* (and there is a profound difference). In my last couple of years at IBM I was beginning to notice this effect; 2002 timeframe. I was frankly appalled at the lack of math and language skills of new-hires coming into the department. Oh they could copy and tweak a java script with the best of them, and manipulate a "Lotus Notes Database". However, they had trouble communicating clearly in writing, and were seriously deficient in mathematics skills (and I don't mean arithmetic). And forget completely about trying to code a dual circular linked list of pointers to template class objects and have very many of them be able to support it... they just didn't get it. I remember one time trying to get a particular department to use my server concept (Linux RH at the time) for support and mission critical deployment.... and I was told they just couldn't because they did not posses the required Unix skills! (and we all know what they meant by that-- they only had M$ windoze development environment skills or less) Oh don't get me wrong... we had top notch comp sci grads that DID have the knowledge... but many did not. The point being that in my view ALL programmers should have the background---period--- however, that has nothing to do with whether software text symbols (as text, ascii ebcidic-whatever) should be considered part of the logic mechanism (patentable), or should be considered (as my viewpoint holds) only a copyright text source. Most programmers today are software text authors (or redactors) and not only do not have the sufficient background (my opinion) but could also care less... as long as they can pound out the text and their boss is happy with the delivery dates. -- Kind regards, M Harris <>< --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Pascal Bleser

23:17

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 M Harris wrote:

...

On Tuesday 14 November 2006 11:37, Randall R Schulz wrote:

...
I cannot reconcile what you wrote here with what your wrote in the previous post: That programs are text and that by writing a program you've created patentable mechanisms.

Good point... I need to clarify just a bit... the world view has changed since you and I were in school (some of the other posts were trying to get at this) and consequently the {MATH - PROGRAMMER} connection is not as distinct today (if at all) like it was 15 or 20 years ago.

Today there are quite literally thousands of "programmers" that do not understand mathematics concepts 101 and yet they write profound software text files. These folks are *not* being educated in mathematics as a theoretical science; rather, they are being trained with the skills necessary to move data fields from one business app to the other. Yes, some degree of logic and at least an ability to count are requirements... but many "programmers" today are being taught differently than you and I were taught; in my opinion they are being *trained* instead of being *educated* (and there is a profound difference).

Well thankfully for most software projects we've moved way beyond the point where mathematics are related. While being able to think in logical terms, which is highly related to mathematics indeed, today's issues are much more about - - software architecture and design - using patterns instead of NiH - MDA is an illusion - knowing UML is best at a drawing board and not for generating code - learning approaches like Domain Driven Design or agile methods and keep what you think is appropriate and matches your organization/ project/coworkers (and not apply it as-is) - - mastering relational databases - and that includes ORMs and their illusion of taking all complexity away from you (which they don't) - efficient ways of working with transactions, indexes and statements - - clustering - distributed caching and synchronization - - remoting - optimistic locking on database content - handling the lack of distributed object identity - - knowing and using appropriate technologies and standards - - at least a basic understanding of the underlying concepts - operating systems - TCP/IP networking - multithreading/process communication and locking, etc... Usually most developers already fail at understanding the very basics. Frankly, most don't even *really* understand what OO is all about and how to apply it properly wrt the possibilities of the various languages (e.g. for Java: use interfaces a lot; composition over inheritance; high cohesion, low coupling; ...) (note that I'm saying that in the context of e.g. Java, C# or C++ projects - if you just use C or Perl, understanding OO doesn't really matter that much)

...

In my last couple of years at IBM I was beginning to notice this effect; 2002 timeframe. I was frankly appalled at the lack of math and language skills of new-hires coming into the department. Oh they could copy and tweak a java script with the best of them, and manipulate a "Lotus Notes Database". However, they had trouble communicating clearly in writing, and were seriously deficient in mathematics skills (and I don't mean arithmetic). And

Communication, in a technical sense, is totally understated in IT. Knowing software patterns, being able to structure your thoughts, drawings (UML or whatever), documents, etc... That's just extremely important as soon as you work in a team (which is almost always the case), but almost all developers fail or lack wrt that. Planning is similarly important and not understood enough. But I guess it just has to take you a few years to be able to realistically evaluate and plan task efforts. It's most probably a matter of experience and cannot be taught much.

...

forget completely about trying to code a dual circular linked list of pointers to template class objects and have very many of them be able to support it... they just didn't get it. I remember one time trying to get a

I don't know what kind of software you are working on, but... thankfully for most projects you really don't need to think about stuff like that. If you use Java, just use what's in the JDK. If you use C++, just use what's in the STL or Boost. While I agree that being able to write such stuff properly is important because if you don't get _that_ right, well... ;) But I would dump any developer off of my project if he writes something basic like that that already exists in a library (especially the C++ STL or the Java JDK). The NiH antipattern (not invented here) is a terrible thing.

...

particular department to use my server concept (Linux RH at the time) for support and mission critical deployment.... and I was told they just couldn't because they did not posses the required Unix skills! (and we all know what they meant by that-- they only had M$ windoze development environment skills or less) Oh don't get me wrong... we had top notch comp sci grads that DID

Sure looks like there is still a lot to gain on the IT job market when you have high Linux and/or Un*x skills.

...

have the knowledge... but many did not. The point being that in my view ALL programmers should have the background---period--- however, that has nothing to do with whether software text symbols (as text, ascii ebcidic-whatever) should be considered part of the logic mechanism (patentable), or should be considered (as my viewpoint holds) only a copyright text source. Most programmers today are software text authors (or redactors) and not only do not have the sufficient background (my opinion) but could also care less... as long as they can pound out the text and their boss is happy with the delivery dates.

While I somewhat disagree on the mathematics background, I totally agree with the conclusion. Guess we have to live with the fact that 50% of all software developers just plain suck, 40% are OK, 9% are good and 1% are highly skilled experts. But that's just drawn from my personal experience (and maybe somewhat exaggerated). cheers - -- -o) Pascal Bleser http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/ /\\ _\_v The more things change, the more they stay insane. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFWk6Rr3NMWliFcXcRAll+AKCKeK0rC71lLbceD03k/ZvVp9wdlACgnh1P pTXlUnThk+H/3F0+pRLDE5Y= =GxXS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

JJ Gitties

12 Nov 12 Nov

13:44

On 11/11/06, John Andersen wrote:

...

Very little of programming is mathematical. The logic involved is usually no more than find the RED ball.

Programming is mostly moving stuff around, getting it from here and putting it there. More akin to organizing your closet than math.

I always thought Comp. Sci was a branch of math. What about algorithms and efficiency analysis? -- jjgitties, "*We* need to convince OpenSUSE to fork, or let 'em die. To bad, it is a wonderful Distro. But their parent company is NOT our friend."

Patrick Shanahan

13:55

* JJ Gitties [11-12-06 08:50]: ...

...

I always thought Comp. Sci was a branch of math. What about algorithms and efficiency analysis?

Abstract art forms. -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org @ http://counter.li.org HOG # US1244711 Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Anders Johansson

14:09

On Sunday 12 November 2006 14:44, JJ Gitties wrote:

...

On 11/11/06, John Andersen wrote:

...
Very little of programming is mathematical. The logic involved is usually no more than find the RED ball.

Programming is mostly moving stuff around, getting it from here and putting it there. More akin to organizing your closet than math.

I always thought Comp. Sci was a branch of math. What about algorithms and efficiency analysis?

I've never heard of "efficiency analysis", but there is a branch of computer science which deals with the efficiency of algorithms called Complexity Theory. It is - or can be - heavily mathematical. At my university it was simply a part of the computer science department, unaffiliated with the maths department (although it was next door) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

John Andersen

13 Nov 13 Nov

00:13

On Sunday 12 November 2006 04:44, JJ Gitties wrote:

...

On 11/11/06, John Andersen wrote:

...
Very little of programming is mathematical. The logic involved is usually no more than find the RED ball.

Programming is mostly moving stuff around, getting it from here and putting it there. More akin to organizing your closet than math.

I always thought Comp. Sci was a branch of math. What about algorithms and efficiency analysis?

What about it? Efficiency analysis is a BUSINESS concept, cost control, etc. If one makes the claim that just because math might be used in a field of endeavor the entire field belongs in the math department there would be no need for anything BUT the math department. -- _____________________________________ John Andersen

Randall R Schulz

00:25

Honorable Ferengi, On Sunday 12 November 2006 16:13, John Andersen wrote:

...

...

Efficiency analysis is a BUSINESS concept, cost control, etc.

Nonsense. You clearly see everything through the lens of business. I got news for you, business and profit-making are _not_ the pinnacle of human achievement, they're its dregs.

...

If one makes the claim that just because math might be used in a field of endeavor the entire field belongs in the math department there would be no need for anything BUT the math department.

We have a hell of a lot more need for mathematicians than we do for an army of MBAs who think of nothing other than ways to line their pockets without actually serving or contributing anything to the world they parasitize. RRS --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

John Andersen

00:59

On Sunday 12 November 2006 15:25, Randall R Schulz wrote:

...

...
Efficiency analysis is a BUSINESS concept, cost control, etc.

Nonsense. You clearly see everything through the lens of business. I got news for you, business and profit-making are _not_ the pinnacle of human achievement, they're its dregs.

I said nothing about profit. That appears to be your particular fixation. The best and most cost effective use of scarce resources is the ultimate definition of efficiency. Where there is no scarcity there is no point in efficiency. Efficiency is the basis for specialization, allowing one farmer to support 5, then 50, then 500, then 5000. That is the pinnacle of human achievement, without which we would be too busy hunting and gathering to afford math majors. -- _____________________________________ John Andersen

jfweber＠gilweber.com

02:39

into electronic streams flowing thru the cosmos On Sunday 12 November 2006 7:25 pm, Randall R Schulz wrote: <snip>

...

We have a hell of a lot more need for mathematicians than we do for an army of MBAs who think of nothing other than ways to line their pockets without actually serving or contributing anything to the world they parasitize.

Hey ! That last is not true for the majority of MBAs in the world.. perhaps not even a plurality. There is a need for efficiency in many worlds which has nothing to do w/ making more money, sometimes it's a way to stretch limited resources to let everyone have a share. That probably is some how parasitic in your world. I doubt most would agree that sharing what is limited is somehow money grubbing. -- j * Energizer Bunny arrested - charged with battery. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Per Jessen

12 Nov 12 Nov

09:05

Randall R Schulz wrote:

...

But if you think software patents are bad, gene patents will make you apoplectic. Well, it does to me...

Well said. /Per Jessen, Zürich -- http://www.spamchek.com/ - managed email security. Starting at SFr5/month/user. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Kai Ponte

13 Nov 13 Nov

02:50

On Saturday 11 November 2006 20:17, Randall R Schulz wrote:

...

On Saturday 11 November 2006 20:21, M Harris wrote:

...
On Sunday 05 November 2006 05:24, you wrote:

...
Re: software patentability: I ask this in all seriousness; I don't have a particular pre-conceived bias one way or the other:

Why would assembling a collections of "objects" (as in C-objects) together to perform some function be any different that assembling a collection of resistors, capacitors and active devices together to form a "circuit" (which is certainly patentable)?

hi Tony,

Great question. I asked it also, as I was thinking through this...

The answer is simple, but in order to answer it you need to ask another question.... how is "software" like or unlike a collection of resistors and capacitors assembled on a circuit board... compare and contrast.

The circuit board containing resistors and capacitors is a physical (meta-physical) construction comprised of real objects manufactured from "stuff" that we generally call matter (we can touch it). Software is text.

Software is not text. Software is the pure essence of mechanism operating only on information. Text is just a means of encoding information.

Huh? Software is text. I have been writing it for over twenty years. My tired wrists tell me so. :) In fact, that's how - IIRC - Phil Zimmerman avoided being prosecuted by the US government. He published his PGP software code on Usenet (or some BBS, I forget). Because he didn't send the compiled code, just the text, it couldn't be considered a munitions export violation. I need to look that up to be sure. In any case, I have always strongly felt that software can be copyrighted. Even if the copyright acts let the copyright holder to keep the copyright for a gazillion years, one could write a similar code that doesn't infringe on the copyright. Using c-like construct, a company could write... main() { for(;;) { cout << "Hello World! "; }} ...I could then write very easily... int main() { std::cout << "Hello, world!\n"; } ...which could not be considered plagiarism. That's why I love software. As a language tool (I consider logic and math to be language-based) It provides a seemingly infinite range of possibilities to build the same mousetrap. -- kai www.perfectreign.com || www.4thedadz.com a turn signal is a statement, not a request --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

John Andersen

03:00

On Sunday 12 November 2006 17:50, Kai Ponte wrote:

> In any case, I have always strongly felt that software can be copyrighted.
>  
"Strongly felt" is a strange way of putting it.  ;-)

I'm not sure this is an area of feelings, its, rather, a matter of law.

Software source code can and always has been copyright-able.
> cat   /usr/src/linux/kerne/cpu.c
/* CPU control.
 * (C) 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 Rusty Russell
 *
 * This code is licenced under the GPL.

That little (C) is the copyright symbol (or what passes for one in the
absence of availability of the real one: ©

Every module of the Linux Kernel has a copyright asserted.


-- 
_____________________________________
John Andersen

M Harris

14 Nov 14 Nov

16:59

On Saturday 11 November 2006 22:17, Randall R Schulz wrote:

...

. . . software _is not_ text. It is mechanism. It is logic. It is ideas. Text is only the way it is externalized from its point of conception in a human mind (or, in some cases, from another program). No...

Software is *only* text. Software is not an idea, a mechanism, or logic. Software text is *the way* (means by which) logic, ideas, and intended human conception is transferred to a *patentable* mechanism. What may be patented (in my view) is the mechanism... which includes the microprocessor hardware and its associated binary instruction set. What may not be patented (in my view) is the software text which is used to convey human conception to an interpreter (or compiler) for the express purpose of generating processor instructions to manipulate the patentable processor hardware. The software text is *never* executed... it is always read (obliterated in the transfer) and translated for the mechanism. The mechanism *never sees* the software text... because it is, text not machine instructions. This is analogous to the script produced by a playwrite. The script is not the mechanism, the emotion, the dance, the music.... it must be interpretted by the dancers, the actors, the musicians in order to come alive in mechanism and emotion. Plays are protected by copyright. So it is with computer software text. Software text must be translated (compiled or interpretted in some way) in order to come alive in logic, mechanism, and useful function. Software text may be protected (in my view) by copyright, or better yet by copyleft. Consider the following software text: for (i=0; i<=9; i++) { ; } I intend this text to be translated into machine instructions by a compiler or interpretter--- instructions which may or may not eventually be executed on a real processor chip. These three lines of software text convey the idea (human conception) of looping through a nop instruction ten times essentially doing nothing except progressing through a loop counter. These three lines of software text are twenty(20) symbols arranged for human capacity by the use of white space and will *never* see the registers of a patentable mechanism. These lines are not logic, not mechanism, not executable, and are not patentable (in my view). These three lines are *only* text. I have written software text for over twenty years... most of it for commercial application (though some for my own hobby interest). All of it (except the machine code I produced for my Vic20) was produced through a text editor, and some of it was produced through a word processor... like plays, and recipes, and instructions for building a balsa wood glider. Patents are not appropriate for text of any kind... including software. -- Kind regards, M Harris <>< --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Randall R Schulz

17:02

On Tuesday 14 November 2006 08:59, M Harris wrote:

...

On Saturday 11 November 2006 22:17, Randall R Schulz wrote:

...
. . . software _is not_ text. It is mechanism. It is logic. It is ideas. Text is only the way it is externalized from its point of conception in a human mind (or, in some cases, from another program).

No...

Software is *only* text. Software is not an idea, a mechanism, or logic.

You couldn't be more wrong, but I don't care to teach you undergraduate computer science. Persist in your willful misconception. Randall Schulz --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Kai Ponte

17:24

On Tuesday 14 November 2006 09:02, Randall R Schulz wrote:

...

On Tuesday 14 November 2006 08:59, M Harris wrote:

...
On Saturday 11 November 2006 22:17, Randall R Schulz wrote:

...
. . . software _is not_ text. It is mechanism. It is logic. It is ideas. Text is only the way it is externalized from its point of conception in a human mind (or, in some cases, from another program).

No...

Software is *only* text. Software is not an idea, a mechanism, or logic.

You couldn't be more wrong, but I don't care to teach you undergraduate computer science.

Persist in your willful misconception.

I know this should be going OT, but PLEASE tell us how we're wrong. I've been doing software only since the late '70s so I'm a bit of a newbie, but I've always been using text editors and copyrights for it. AFAIK, I've always used either ASCII or EBCDIC to write (notice that word) programs. At some point, the programs got compiled into some un-readable machine code, but prior they were just text. Just words and symbols. The way I see it - unless you're flipping switches on an Altair 8000 (which could be patented) then you're writing text. -- kai www.perfectreign.com || www.4thedadz.com a turn signal is a statement, not a request --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Randall R Schulz

17:41

On Tuesday 14 November 2006 09:24, Kai Ponte wrote:

...

...

I know this should be going OT, but PLEASE tell us how we're wrong.

I've been doing software only since the late '70s so I'm a bit of a newbie, but I've always been using text editors and copyrights for it. AFAIK, I've always used either ASCII or EBCDIC to write (notice that word) programs.

At some point, the programs got compiled into some un-readable machine code, but prior they were just text. Just words and symbols.

Symbols and text are not synonymous. Symbols are a formal concept. Their properties are that you can distinguish one symbol from another and that you can use them to refer to or stand in for content. They have not intrinsic meaning. Their meaning derives entirely by what you say about them. Text is a way (only one way) of annotating symbols and of specifying symbol (processing) systems (i.e., computer programs).

...

The way I see it - unless you're flipping switches on an Altair 8000 (which could be patented) then you're writing text.

That is just the point. The means of conveyance, switches, typing, speech recognition, OCR of a hand-written page, are all irrelevant. They produce the same result, a digital representation within a computer of an algorithm. And the essence of algorithms are logic. They are not intrinsically textual. The text is just to accommodate human cognitive and perceptual strengths and weaknesses. Randall Schulz --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

M Harris

17:40

On Tuesday 14 November 2006 11:02, Randall R Schulz wrote:

...

I don't care to teach you undergraduate computer science.

Persist in your willful misconception. That's ok... been there, did that.

Oh, and look, I survived a 25 year career in computer science with IBM without your help... imagine that. -- Kind regards, M Harris <>< --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

Randall R Schulz

17:48

On Tuesday 14 November 2006 09:40, M Harris wrote:

...

On Tuesday 14 November 2006 11:02, Randall R Schulz wrote:

...
I don't care to teach you undergraduate computer science.

Persist in your willful misconception.

That's ok... been there, did that.

Oh, and look, I survived a 25 year career in computer science with IBM without your help... imagine that.

And I 30 years. Imagine what you will. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

M Harris

17:44

On Tuesday 14 November 2006 11:02, Randall R Schulz wrote:

...

I don't care to teach you undergraduate computer science.

Persist in your willful misconception. That's ok... been there, did that.

Anders Johansson

18:04

On Tuesday 14 November 2006 17:59, M Harris wrote:

...

Software is *only* text. Software is not an idea, a mechanism, or logic.

Isn't this a little like saying "A novel is only a sequence of letters"? Software covers both source and object code, but more than this, it covers the ideas and concepts that lead to the program and its design. Now perhaps we can lead this discussion to suse-ot? --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org

6379

Age (days ago)

6381

Last active (days ago)

List overview

Download

42 comments

14 participants

participants (14)

Anders Johansson
Basil Chupin
Doug McGarrett
Greg Wallace
jfweber＠gilweber.com
JJ Gitties
John Andersen
Kai Ponte
M Harris
Pascal Bleser
Patrick Shanahan
Per Jessen
Randall R Schulz
Stevens