pbsdp

5 ms·

1.
by pbsdp 13y ago
If you guarantee that your binary has source, it has source. Guaranteed. If users only want binaries that guarantee they have source, they can insist on only downloading/acquiring binaries from people that guarantee they provide source
2.
by pbsdp 13y ago
> "Google contributed ports of NaCl for ARM and Amd64." So, Mono/C# in Chrome? If NaCl/PNaCl becomes available outside the Chrome App Store, that could be pretty exciting -- Mono does an excellent job with AOT perfo
3.
by pbsdp 13y ago
> No, the 'point' you've been trying to push during this entire conversation is that proprietary software gives the end user the 'freedom' to choose not to use it, but somehow you claim that developers don'
4.
by pbsdp 13y ago
> Your 'logic' is ridicoulus, GPL is no more 'enforcing' sharing than proprietary software is 'enforcing' non-sharing. You call my logic ridiculous, and then you reiterate my entire point. The GPL is enf
5.
by pbsdp 13y ago
> You dislike GPL because you as a proprietary developer can't use that code, which for some reason you think you have a 'right' to. You're being obtuse; I've never said what you claim. What I've said, rep
6.
by pbsdp 13y ago
> If we speculate wildly, why not an "asm.js restricted operating mode"? Because we already had Jazelle, and it sucked, and we learned our lesson. A Jazelle that operates on ASCII-encoded bytecode with traps for unsupported J
7.
by pbsdp 13y ago
> The point is that NaCl is not portable, just like a native platform such as Windows. So provide fat binaries. Maximize performance on ARM and i386, with fallback to PNaCL for future platforms that are neither. > They are even the
8.
by pbsdp 13y ago
All you need to do is perform NaCL validation of pages before marking them executable; this is what NaCL already does. You can either do this through a high-level "JIT API" that generates safe machine code from a validated IR (aka
9.
by pbsdp 13y ago
> And how is the GPL intellectually dishonest? Replacing proprietary software by giving free software developers an advantage is an explicit goal of the GNU project. How is it dishonest? The usual explanation is "four freedoms&quo
10.
by pbsdp 13y ago
> ... who are aren't going to make the jump as soon as HTML5 delivers everything they need? When will that be, exactly? The promise has been a long time coming, and in the meantime, the constitution of the industry is shifting awa
11.
by pbsdp 13y ago
> You know what, never mind; you're an argumentative ill tempered child who doesn't know how to have a discussion properly. Have a nice day. One of us has stuck to discussing the topic, the other, discussing the person. Good
12.
by pbsdp 13y ago
> No such thing is happening ... You're asserting that there hasn't been a significant management and hiring shift in engineering departments over the past 5 years, moving away from what became a web monoculture in the post
13.
by pbsdp 13y ago
What's your excuse? Mobile is growing hand-over-fist and web apps developers are still arguing about whether they're fast enough to compete, and whether we could possibly maybe actually move past HTML/CSS/JS sometime in
14.
by pbsdp 13y ago
No. As someone intimately involved in startup hiring, there's been a massive shift in the make-up of technology organizations. Mobile has gone from a side-show farmed out to consulting organizations to a mainstream in-house developme
15.
by pbsdp 13y ago
> I don't follow that. You can't make a fast JS runtime in your previous examples (the JVM, PNaCl, .NET, etc.). I included ones you could, such a NaCL. And I should probably have also included the native platforms (Apple, MS,
16.
by pbsdp 13y ago
> There are far far worse systems for evolving widely used platforms. That's fine, but perhaps it would behoove Mozilla to not participate in dooming the web as a competitive application platform simply due to a misguided belief t
17.
by pbsdp 13y ago
Yes, the reality is that proprietary application platforms are taking over the application market, and that the web is slowly losing one of its major market advantages: a huge brain trust of web-only engineers and web-only engineering organ
18.
by pbsdp 13y ago
> I see; you're the type who thinks he's smarter than everyone in the industry ... You mean, like Google, who continually pushes to do exactly what I've described here, only to be stymied by: - Apple, who has no reason t
19.
by pbsdp 13y ago
> What is your goal - speed? Code size? Portability? Security? That depends on the target. I selected them because they represent different aspects of the state of the art. > ... and I would argue that modern JS VMs are competitive
20.
by pbsdp 13y ago
That didn't stop them from trying to launch a mobile phone platform in competition with Apple, Microsoft, and Google. If they're willing to accept that risk, by comparison, how large of a risk is trying to push through a better
21.
by pbsdp 13y ago
Actually, as an liberally licensed open-source author, I wish to "escape the network effects of the GPL" because I want proprietary companies to use my software, too. That means I have to escape the GPL despite your wanting to for
22.
by pbsdp 13y ago
It's reality because Mozilla makes it a reality. See how this is a circular argument? Meanwhile, native mobile and desktop keep growing, and growing, and the web as an application platform loses out, because none of the native plat
23.
by pbsdp 13y ago
Nobody is proposing that. Neither NaCL, PNaCL, nor asm.js are 3rd-party browser plugins. I agree that it's time to move on. It's time to treat the web as a real application platform, instead of as document model with a JavaScrip
24.
by pbsdp 13y ago
Ah, so it will lose because it will lose. So we can't implement it because we won't implement it. That's ridiculous. Mozilla is willing to stick their neck out there implementing a mobile phone operating system , but trying
25.
by pbsdp 13y ago
> Why would I care if it's portable or not? ... Because you literally cannot implement it safely or correctly from the C level on Mac OS X, and any other platform with similar thread/stack/thread-state constraints. Unles
26.
by pbsdp 13y ago
Two browsers is more than enough to shift the industry, and there's still nothing stopping you from supporting JS as a legacy compilation target.
27.
by pbsdp 13y ago
> Only copyleft style licences guarantees this right to end users ... That's just blatantly false. Distribute your binaries with source. Or distribute them with an offer of source. There, problem solved. Heck, may your binaries no
28.
by pbsdp 13y ago
> Nonsense, by that logic your proprietary software is taking away users 'right' to use your proprietary software in an open source context. Indeed, it is. The difference is that we're not intellectually dishonest about
29.
by pbsdp 13y ago
> It has happened in many cases. Many companies have used, modified and contributed to GCC in the path with no complaints. Hardly. Companies have complained plenty, but escaping the network effects of the GPL was expensive enough that
30.
by pbsdp 13y ago
You can't do that in portable C as-is. Watch what happens when you try to restore thread state on a different system thread using an OS that instrisically ties system threads to user threads to thread local variables to the stack. And

More ›