skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I have been seeing more and more articles and blog posts about Mono lately but I fail to realize the importance of it. I wish I was rude enough to just email to Miguel and ask him why has he dedicated so much time of his life working on it, but I better ask people who's not related to Mono - you.

Seriously, what is their motivation? I mean Mono people's. What they are doing, how I see it, is porting someone else's platform (Microsoft) which by itself is in essense just a copy of another platform (Java)... which already runs fine on Linux! Basicaly it lookts to me that Mono guys are just building a poor performing copy of copy of something original (Java platform) which already is built and works just fine. And have been, for a long time alreay. So long, that people are already getting bored with it.

Why??? Any ideas?
--
tx

P.S. I've been working with .NET for a while. Yes, it's rich and seem to have every imaginable feature, so do Python/Perl/Ruby/Java with their libs (all are 1st class Linux citizens). Why would one want to port .NET to Linux is beyond me...
Building a Distributed Spreadsheet in Modula-3 ('98 spreadsheet idea, framework illustrates key components with src)
It should be ok now. It's on a piddly server with a couple other rails sites, but I think I've freed up enough resources for it to work ok.
'provide developers with open source tools for building cross-platform applications that can run on Linux, UNIX, and other platforms.'

To understand the motivation why just look at the the gnome project which de Icaza started with Friedman. Before gnome there was no acceptable linux opensource gui's hence the drive to build re-build another gui (remember microsoft & apple has/had a better solution) but it is/wasn't free. So mono was started to ...

- to create an opensource version of C#

- there is/was at the time a sun java & opensource java (free) but not a lot of traction with os version

- to look at a better way of building apps on open source systems

- as a means to gain language Independence using universal byte code (not bindings) with clean environment

- allow an easier way to create applications in linux community

- allow developers on linux who want to get the job done using managed environments (not suited to system applications)

- can run different languages using vm (limited) but mature (compared to parrot)

- the core is VM (virtual machine) is called mono, implementation of ECMA standard. Has no language but CIL (low level byte code). So C# is just one compiler that generates to CIL. Mono has VB, Lisp etc. Also has a Java VM. It also has many third party compilers (any language supported by gcc). Then you can mix different languages together. So it's really language independent and whatever works for you.

- fun to do more challenging things, learning about webapps to windows forms, to opengl ... "open ended university" and not get stuck in one style of programming - pcs & one single operating system

- gives Windows developers just another set of platform(s) to run (not develop) their applications

You can listen to a detailed explanation of the 'why', 'how', here - "Miguel de Icaza, Technometria: The Mono Project" ~
http://www.itconversations.com/shows/detail1771.html (mp3 1hr, 30Mb)
Recently, I've been on a high when I got my lisp code to run 60% faster by changing 10 lines of code. I think I tend to experience relief more often than high while coding. Highs are like a promise that something good is going to happen soon. My brain is telling me I have an answer just let me find the words.
Moonlight: Why the Mono Project Will Implement Silverlight for Linux
How Adobe's Photoshop Was Born
RAID-Z (and the problems with regular RAID)
But on reddit it also has 25 down votes. They are cranky over there...
10 Predictions To Help Define the Social Media Revolution
From a Flash game to a web startup
Also reported at techcrunch:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/06/08/desktop-tower-defense-spurs-startup/
'... I am not a hunter, never fired a gun, but I'm told that if you want to shoot a duck, you have to shoot where the duck is going to be ...'

Good to read in conjunction with FAW, Ch 21, Charles Geschke, P290 where Geschke explains how Adobe didn't have a product for photographic manipulation & by licensing the Knolls product beat the market.
I was at a talk by Jim Buckmaster (CEO) at Edinburgh University earlier this year, he mentioned this. He attributed the lack of staff turnover to the generally relaxed work environment rather than one of these specific reasons. Seems like quite a cool place to work for a programmer, and given only 23 people work there it's not surprising few people leave.
Anyway, the video is available here if you are interested, have a look around 8 minutes: mms://granton.ucs.ed.ac.uk/tech-entrepreneur/IE2-06-07/S07JimBuckmaster.wmv
(maybe it was the jet lag but he's definitely the most chilled out CEO I have seen!)
was I the only one a bit disappointed by this speech?

Steve Jobs and company set the bar pretty high I suppose, but this speech wasn't that great, and many people have made these same points much better. And I'm not sure that he justified his assumption that inequality is necessarily an evil. this isn't about exactly the same thing, i admit, but doesn't paul graham have an essay about inequality in a society being a good thing, a sign of a healthy economy, or something like that?

oh, and i could picture the audience shifting uncomfortably at his jokes about trying to score chicks at radcliffe.
I think it's because they're a bunch of Microsofties. They saw C# and .NET and thought, OHMIGODC001, and wanted it on Linux. They probably migrated to Linux in just the same way, OHMIGODC001 C0MM4ND-L1N3!

I think it's just a project so they can feel like they're working hard on something. It's a time-killer. A wasted effort unfortunately :(

(I hope I didn't come off as too harsh...I've only gotten 2 hours of sleep in the last 24 hours and have a bit of a sun burn)
Outcomes vs. Activity
The Dangers of Working for a Living
It's typical of commercial enterprises (and some academics) to write about technology without citing references and prior work--perhaps plagiarism is more profitable than citation.

(Richard Fateman's old review of Mathematica documents this tendency in the case of Mathematica. I could give examples in academia.)

For those interested in the literature on continuation-based web servers, here's a paper by Shiram Krishnamurthy and others.
http://www.cs.brown.edu/~sk/Publications/Papers/Published/khmgpf-impl-use-plt-web-server-journal/

Gilad Bracha, who wrote a blog at Sun entitled Computational Theology, attributed the first continuation-based web server to Paul Graham: http://blogs.sun.com/gbracha/date/200605
Dude, don't bash Miguel. He's bad ass:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_de_Icaza

He's one of the original GNOME guys.
Inequality, a sign of a good economy? Are you kidding me?
Wow. He's done a lot. Sorry for the bashing!

But I think the fact that he works on something that Microsoft should be working on themselves excuses a bit of the bashing :P
Which of the three criticisms count as two criticisms?
Weebly makes a great product but site building software is a crowded space.
Do people need or want more than their facebook/myspace profile or wik i services? I guess we'll find out.
Mono/Moonlight... what a pointless waste of time. These smart programmers are spending their lives blindly copying MS products. I think this is programmer's hell.
Google Gears
Just started reading about Google gears. It is an open source browser extension that lets developers create web applications that can run offline.

Source Link:
http://code.google.com/support/bin/topic.py?topic=11628
http://code.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=69197&topic=11629
Web users judge sites in the blink of an eye (impressions in 50ms)
Email blackmail is unnecessary
I hope to see this idea take off, it's a great addition to current Web 2.0 technologies, but I highly doubt this will see the adoption rate necessary to make implementing it useful. It's the issue of "it needs to be implemented for people to adopt it, and people need to adopt it for it to be worth implementing" conundrum.
I can see this filling the same niche as software to run ASP on Linix (well, at least the way I use the software): some consulting company that does mostly OSS wants to attract MS-based clients. The cheapest thing to do is to just run the .Net software on a nix box and say "hey, we host .Net apps!" rather than finding or becoming an experienced Windows sysadmin...many hosting companies offer ASP on the nix boxes for that exact reason: to appeal to a larger market.
Saving the Internet
Well, they're paid to do it, and it's quite predictable. Suits some people ;-)
I don't think it's the pointer dereference so much as the fact that you can't inline virtual methods.
Huh, oops, how do I delete a submission?
I don't understand it either. Perhaps they hate Microsoft and want to provide a way for people to migrate away from the MS Platform, once they see the light.

I have wondered the same thing about studio musicians. I was thinking that if you are such a skilled musician, why wouldn't you write your own music. But I was told that some people just don't have that creative streak, whereas others lack the skill to perform on their instruments. Could be the same with Mono - they are probably excellent programmers and enjoy programming, but don't have own ideas about what to program.

In my opinion, that is bullshit, though - it is not so hard to get good ideas.
The news and best links don't help avoid the long tail. best is too static; it rarely changes. And http://news.ycombinator.com/rss presents too much dross. Dross which is hard to for my brain to filter because each item has too little info so I end up having to visit every thread and then often each linked external article.

(Thanks for starting to add (comments) to the title.)
Does this really have anything to do with startups? Besides the fact that most internet users send e-mail, I can't think of a reason why this article would apply.
Marc Andreessen: Essential HTML, CSS, Javascript, PHP, and miscellaneous cheatsheets
Is anyone else stunned by the quality and quantity of content he's being producing?

Years of dormant wisdom?
It's not super related, but might be interesting if you need to send a lot of email. Also, the Google paper is a good read for learning more about how the Gmail spam filter works.
It's related to a lot of startups, I would think. Spam is a problem in almost every form of communication today--and most startups are about communication. Spam is no longer contained to the SMTP protocol. I get spam on my blog, in our forums, and in our wikis. I'm sure it's going to be a problem in messaging, if it isn't already.

And, many startups are dealing with email. It isn't what we advertise as an important part of our product, and yet we spend vast amounts of developer time worrying about it, 90% of it related to spam. If I hadn't already heard Paul's comments about this at a YC dinner, it would have been welcome advice (and the link to Taylor's "Sender Reputation..." article was very useful). The tantalizing bit of data that Google might someday open their reputation data was also news worthy of comment. The question, of course, is who do we have to kidnap and hold hostage in order to make that happen sooner rather than later?
The Big 4 wireless carriers have created bottleneck to innovation that keeps coolest phone features unavailable to users
Hey, baby, want a date? - Online dating goes mobile
WUbuntu - Web Ubuntu :)
Microsoft Finds Legal Defender in Justice Dept. (Google Files Complaint About MS)
Watchdog Group Slams Google on Privacy
Leopard, iPhone set to shine at Apple Worldwide Developers Conference
10 serious problems with touchscreens that you should know before 29th June
Will the next Tony Soprano be on the Internet?
What you can do about the latest Google Desktop flaw
Who to hell is Tony Soprano?
Google Desktop vulnerable to attack (critical: cross-site scripting attacks)
Ultimate List of Ruby Resources
OK everyone, calm down.

Let me explain what these internet companies are asking for. Essentially they want the telecoms to pay us, the American Taxpayers, BILLIONS for access to wireless spectrum. Subsequently, they want these telecoms to be obliged to let them use the same wireless spectrum for free.

Did I mention that the wireless spectrum is OURS?
That it is the sole property of the American Citizenry?

Start standing up for your rights people. Either EVERYONE pays US for access to OUR spectrum, or NO ONE does. Look at it this way, on average, many would say a black guy is more cool than any other guy. That said, if one comes into MY store and wants MY product, he will pay the same price as everyone else. Any other method of operating is known as DISCRIMINATION. If Google wants to use OUR spectrum, they are welcome to bid on it like everyone else.

But come here Google . . . a little closer I have to tell you a secret. WE are probably going to charge you a good deal more for usage rights to that spectrum than the telecoms want to charge you to sub-lease it. It's because our government needs the money and . . . Oh who am I kidding . . . I just love sticking it to huge companies like yours. I don't care what the other reasons are. By the way, we also have laws that limit your ability to pass those costs on to the consumers, typically us. That's because WE want to be able to access the spectrum as close to free as possible, even after we sell the usage rights to it. You know why? That's right . . . because it is OUR SPECTRUM!

I apologize for this rant. It just seems to me that when a company like F@#K!^& GOOGLE is whining about something like this, the cult of victimization in this nation has officially reached its farcical zenith. The people who started that company, AND the early employees for that matter, have more money than 99.9999999% of us. Yet STILL, they want us to give them even more of the few of our resources that they don't already own for FREE!!!

I have to stop working Sundays...
Wolfram Blog: Computable Data Functions: A Crazy Idea That Just Works
You mean which of the three criticisms counts as zero. :) You're saying I have four (1 + 1 + 2). :)
An Annotated List of Software Startup Resources
VesTopia Shows You The Money
How To Burn $6,540 a Week: Indecision and Software Development
The open source Frink programming language already does this: http://futureboy.homeip.net/frinkdocs/#OtherDataSources
That wasn't the proposal in the article. It was for a segment of the wireless spectrum to be auctioned off with the restriction that it be open to any device that meets certain specifications. The big-4 wireless carriers can keep their allotted bands; this is a new part of the electromagnetic spectrum that is scheduled to be auctioned off shortly anyway.

If the wireless spectrum is OURS (as in, the U.S. peoples'), it makes sense that we can restrict its usage in whatever way would benefit the people most. It also makes sense that one such way would be to restrict its usage so that the buyer cannot restrict other firms' usage of it.

It's essentially an easement. You know what an easement is, right: the owner of the property sells off certain rights and restrictions to a third-party. For example, power companies will buy an easement to run high-tension lines over a field. Wealthy individuals will sell an easement stating that their land will become conservation land after their death, and the owner will be prohibited from developing certain areas. In this case, the government is giving an easement for open-access to the general public, and selling off the remaining rights to that portion the EM spectrum to the highest bidder.

There is no economic reason why this chunk would sell for higher than the existing telecoms' slices. Its usage rights are restricted: generally, an easement lowers the value of the remaining property rights, since you can do less with it. Also, if you read the article, you'll notice that it's being auctioned off, which means the government isn't setting a price, it's selling it to the highest bidder, who will presumably be responsible for developing the network and putting up cell towers.

Actually, if I had a few billion dollars in funding and a plan for putting up cell towers more cheaply than the established carriers, I'd buy it. This could be a game-changer on the same order as Intel's invention of the microprocessor. Before Intel, the minicomputer field was much like the wireless field, with many vertically-integrated carriers stifling innovation. Because Intel (and Microsoft) decided to focus only on one area and relentlessly lower costs, letting others innovate in the app sphere, the PC market exploded. We all know how it worked out for Intel and Microsoft...

Even if the government doesn't grant this easement, a savvy investor should swoop in and make that portion of the spectrum open-access anyway. There's potentially a massive market there. Too bad I don't have a billion dollars...
"The Home Depot Has Managed To Trick Us We Can Do It Ourselves" -- just having access to tools isn't enough
"There's no skill aisle at the Home Depot. Have you been to the Home Depot? That's why they want you to do it yourself. They don't want to work at all. They got self-service checkout. So I'm here buying things I can't afford, to do a carpentry job I'm not qualified to do, and I got to work the register, too. They should change the name of the store. They should call it 'You're On Your Own.' "
Fun > Money
Alright, firstly if you read my post I said Google is free to BID on the spectrum like everyone else. It is my hope that these bids run into the BILLIONS, we should get our cut.

Secondly, an easement brings down the price for the reasons you outlined. However, there will be NO restrictions on HOW the winners use this spectrum. Only a provision that they let other cheap bastards who are not paying us use the spectrum as well, for FREE. Now as long as EVERYONE pays I am happy. Yet when ONLY the telecoms have to pay, and the internet companies ride for free, the American People are losing money. I spend the summers in Paris, and I can tell you that the American People can ill afford to give things away for free. 1 Euro is about US$1.34 right now.

The fact that the price would be lower for this spectrum is EXACTLY what INCENSES me. These people will make BILLIONS, and you want us to let them weasel out of the spectrum fees. They already have a myriad of different options for weaseling out of our ability to tax them on the back end. With all due respect, sir, we must agree to disagree.

To everyone else, believe me, I'm wealthy enough. If the majority of us wish to continue to give more and more to the wealthy in exchange for less and less, then that is democracy and I will go along with it. It will benefit me after all. I am simply stating my belief that it is contrary to the interests of other social classes.
Whoah. That's pretty good stuff you got there. Just one gripe - it's really not obvious that the bands I am seeing listed there are the bands in my town.

Did you get yc rejected or accepted?
I agree with you about how obvious the meaning of what's showing in the clouds is, and what the sizing is based on. We have also have had some critiques on some of the visibility of the links and also the lack of directions or explinations on what the site actually does. At the same time, our users have raved about the simplicity once they pass the slight learning curve... so it's a toss up in my mind, and a balance that we are going to have to think about once we have more of our core features in place, and can really analyze the entire user experience.

Rejected.
I am sure there will be a lot of successful accepeted and rejected ycombinator companies in the future though.
You're right - maybe pg didn't express himself in the right way.

However - you have to forgive him. He's just trying to prevent News.YC from turning into reddit.

I think all he's asking is that you (and everyone else here) make a concerted effort to not engage in flame wars, pointless arguments, personal attacks, etc. Let's just try to keep these discussions intelligent and courteous.
Well, personally I believe that it is a fundamental flaw. It's a minor issue, but it IS an issue, and not a question of philosophy. You should label the box so that it's clear that the bands in that box are the bands that are in your town right now.

Remember that you know EXACTLY what your site does. When I visited the site for first time, I had these few moments of confusion. This is bad with software. Software should always be instantly clear as to what you are seeing. Bad software is confusing software. Good software is obvious.

Everything else is okay because one can click to find out how it works, in my opinion. If you add explanations or not is a thing of philosophy.

By the way, I had one other issue. I live in a city. A big city. The site showed me bands in other towns that are quite a distance from my city. That does not make sense to me. Why would I want to go to another town for a concert when there must be hundreds in my city every weekend?

I ycomb made a mistake rejecting your application. It's not your idea that is revolutionary, it's your execution. It's an excellent implementation of a simple function.

I'm not going to use your site, because I don't care that much about concerts in my town. However, just giving you an idea where else your code would be useful: A nice tool would be one that shows me what is happening TODAY in my city, and how popular is it? As in - Dave Chappelle is going to be in Mudds comedy club, and 100 people are interested in this item. I normally would not find that out that Dave was in my town, but because others find this interesting, it floats to the top of the tag cloud. Just an idea for the future, in case you decide to expand....
Nice :) The firefox browser inside accepts only fully qualified urls.
What is spam? A funny way to look at it would be this:

Spam is something (usually ads) that shows up where you normally would expect to see your information, messages from your friends. Annoying? Sure!

Which is (to me) is not that much different from how ad-supported companies like google and most Web 2.0 startups work: they show you ads instead of useful content. Of course it is instead, because we consume information from our monitor screens, and each pixel of monitor real estate, occupied by ads, is a pixel stolen from you.

Same applies to bandwith as well. Ever since I installed ad-blocker extention to Firefox, I've been enjoying a very noticeable speedup in page loading times.

Therefore, google building sophisticated spam filters is essentially a war between spam generations: spam 2.0 vs old spam :-)
A Race to the Bottom: Privacy Ranking of Internet Service Companies (Google's Dead Last)
Poor Microsoft. They had almost 10 years of near complete browser dominance. They could have built anything they wanted into IE. And they didn't. They kept it's JavaScript crippled and they kept CSS broken.

Very stupid, if you ask me. They could have turned IE into very powerful development platform, capable of doing amazing things and used it as their leverage to dominate Internet just like they did with desktops, leveraging their OS. They could have built it for Linux/Mac/Windows, natively (without always missing plugins) supporting UI languages like XUL/Xaml. And they didn't.

That is simply beyond my understanding... Hey, I am not talking about early 90s, when Gates supposedly said "Internet is not important to us". I am talking late 90s - early 2000s, when Microsoft already knew Internet was big.
Nice... but how would that work if you need to scale out?
Thanks inklesspen,

I did exactly what you advised. Devoured through Ruby for Rails, and I'm about half way through Agile Web Development. I really feel like I'm getting a good understanding of RoR!
When will we see "ball cams" in sports?