Thread: Getting a Job

Abachler is just trying to "get some goad(s)" nadroj, nothing new about that.

Witness, by definition it is impossible to hold CLOSED SOURCE up to any kind of standard at all, because you cannot look at it. All you can have is some anecdotal stories ("All the projects I've worked on -- honest!"). So when someone says open source code is generally a mess, or something to that effect, they can only be bullsh**ing. That's attitude !

There are plenty of closed source apps around that run like crap, just you can't for sure blame it on the code, which probably that is good for closed source coders -- they can claim anything they want, they just can't prove anything.

YouTube - Talking Heads - Artists Only

Originally Posted by nadroj

Again, all of these are not "real world programming" and are littered with spaghetti code, which is obvious due to their stability and popularity (right?).

You forgot to add the world's finest and most popular C/C++ compiler, and 100% of the common libraries.

Apparently linux is the OS/kernel of choice now on 99%+ of the world's supercomputers -- I guess they couldn't handle all that closed source "quality".

Great to see someone who knows what theyre talking about.

Also, I dont know any Talking Heads, but the first thing I thought of when I checked the link was that it sounded like King Crimson ([something] Bellows, or whatever one of the many lead singers' names were).

EDIT: The name I was thinking is "Adrian Belew".

Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Belew

In addition to his readily recognisable guitar sounds, Belew is noted for the distinct, nasal, sometimes manic feel of his vocals. His singing voice is often compared to that of Talking Heads singer David Byrne

Originally Posted by nadroj

This means thatmy statement I believe is true.

and my crazy ex wife believes she was abducted by aliens, your personal beliefs have no relevance on the validity of yoru statement. Of COURSE you believe yoru statements are true, or you wouldn't have said them, unless you are intentionally trying to deceive people by stating an opinion you don't hold, but to what effect who cares.

Do not call me stoned or stupid.

I didn't call you anything, which would require a declarative phrase.
I asked if you where stoned or stupid, which is an interrogative phrase.
Having reviewed my original statement, I will say that perhaps I could have worded it better... by using a different conjunction, but alas it stands as is.

Linux is the kernel.

No, it isn't.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Linux (commonly pronounced /ˈlɪnʌks/, LI-nuks in English[5][6], also pronounced /ˈlɪnʊks/[7]) is a generic term referring to Unix-like computer operating systems based on the Linux kernel.

I'll see your opinionated knee jerk opinion and raise you an actual informed and experienced position.

Originally Posted by MK27

Witness, by definition it is impossible to hold CLOSED SOURCE up to any kind of standard at all, because you cannot look at it.

Spoken like someone that has never done real world development that required signing a non-disclosure agreement.

Originally Posted by nadroj

Since you realize you dont have any valid argument, you've resulted to dissecting my statements to find grammatical or other irrelevant errors.

On the contrary, I was pointing out logical errors in your reply due to the fact that you obviously failed to comprehend what I actually posted. Your responce implied that I called you stoned or stupid, which I did not, I pointed that fact out.

After I said that I went straight to Wikipedia to back up my statement, and noticed it wasnt word-for-word equivalent, but I kept it anyway, because I usually consider Linux to just be the kernel, and when referring to it as an OS I say Linux-based OSs.

Whereas most OS programmers refer to Linux-OS as Linux and the kernel as the Linux Kernel for a good reason, they are entirely separate projects. There are many different Linux Operating systems, there is only one legitimate Linux Kernel. Even security enhanced linux uses the Linux Kernel.

Also, I would suggest not to use Wikipedia because its open-source and Ive read every line of its source and its spaghetti code. Also, I would stay away from this website because it uses free and open-source software with terrible code, too.

vBulletin is not open source in the traditional sense, that is it is not in the public domain, only licensed customers have access to the source code, which is a necessity as its written in php.

Stability and popularity can still be noodly as hell. Spaghetti code is far less secure. In point of fact, every system is perfectly secure until someone figures out a weakness. Then a systems security depends on how readable the source is so that a security fix can be implemented quickly. Sorry to burst your bubble, but some snot nosed wet behind the ears recent college graduate isn't getting first crack at fixing the latest al Qaeda hack and if your code is obfuscated or spaghetti code, even if every other snot nosed kid uses the same brand of spaghetti, it is more often cheaper to just throw the code out and start over. The cost of dealing with a security issue isn't the cost of development, but the cost of continuing to use an insecure system.

Of course they are separate projects, no one said they are the same. Of course there are many OS, Linux or otherwise. Of course there is only one "official" Linux kernel. All of these facts were already known and agreed on.

Also, "most programmers" means nothing. Please do a survey to provide hard data. Otherwise theres no point discussing this subjective topic.

Your making false assumptions again: I never said "vBulletin" is open-source. The DBMS used here is open-source. Edit: Also, the majority of the PHP libraries that it uses are probably open-source too.