All systems nto related to getting the thing flying with reasonable safety are removed. No gun, no fire control computers, no weapon mounts. I imagine you could righ something onto it, but it would be a shitload of work.
GOTO isn't always bad. It is *very* rare that its a good idea, but sometimes it is the least ugly hack out of a bunch of ugly hacks when you need to get the code finished and have too little time to puzzle out a more elegant solution.
Getting a program working is the first goal of any real programmer. Getting it working well, or having maintainable code are both very important, but they are secondary to getting the program functioning in the first place. Especially with commercial products, sometimes spaghetti code that works NOW is preferable to textbook examples that work sometime next year. Perl wouldn't be nearly so popular if not for that fact of development.
There are also some interesting, and rather elegant, looping structures you can do with goto that are actually more elegant than the more purely structured counterparts- that isn't what seems to be going on here, just thought I'd mention it.
I would have to dig through the code to find the context of that goto, but they aren't always bad.
Code Complete by Steve McConnell has a good section on goto.
They probably had the money troubles because they put so much into R&D and marketing. Short term risk(running red) for long term benefit against Intel. They probably knew there was no way they could be profitable in the short term and be anything but a bit player, and intentionally ran red so they could get to a better position.
You could do it. That would be a nightmare of a program to code, but you could write an OS that makes programs think they have only 4GB of memory available.
You would need a rather complicated API for memory management, and to take advantage of it you'd have to use that API for all your memory needs... but it could be done.
Is it a good idea? Probably not. But it could be done.
AMD. Going from simply fabbing chips for Intel, to making simple clones(cheaper and lower performing than the intels) to dead even performance with their own designs, to actually pushing around the direction of the industry a bit(though not quite as much as intel). Without AMD, computers would probably be much more expensive. Even when they just fabed chips for intel, rather than compete head on like they do now, that got more chips onto the market keeping prices from getting too out of hand. And now with them being a viable competitor, and even leading in some areas(it seems every six months the one with the fastest chip flip flops)... Even Intel fans benefit from AMD forcing Intel to keep prices somewhat reasonable.
If either Intel or AMD slacked on advancing their designs, or decided to get too greedy with pricing, the other would eat them alive. They push each other to put out better products at lower prices, and the consumer wins.
If only the consumer OS market was this competetive. Linux is rapidly rising in the consumer space, so perhaps things will start looking up even there.
The carbon APIs sit on top of UNIX apis. It would be much simpler to port the necesary support libraries of Office for OSX to Linux than to port the support libraries Office for Win32 depends on.
If IBM threw its weight behind the WINE project, WINE would improve tremendously very fast.
Or if IBM were to buy Crossover Office, which is already designed to support MS Office, and then hack on that for a while, we'd have near native speed and near native stability.
Looking at the code does present a risk though, of being tempted to incorporate it or even subconciously choosing a suspiciously similar implementation. It wouldn't be a death sentence to look at it, but you'd have to be *very* careful to avoid landing in trouble.
I'm not sure MS could take on IBM. MS has more cash to throw around, but if IBM plays their cards into a heavy delaying action, MS won't have the staying power. IBM simply has more assets to burn through if they handle the situation carefully, and from what we've seen wtih SCO, they know how to fight a major court battle. If MS could force the case to go quickly, they might have an edge by throwing more money at it, but IBM can throw money at it longer if they play their cards right. Especially if MS takes on IBM and others with largely similar claims, the coordination that would be arranged on the IBM side would destroy MS. MS vs IBM would be an even fight overall(mass cash to move for the short term vs mass assets to hold through teh long), but add in Red Hat, Novell, and whoever else, and MS will lose.
Includes kernel stuff, crypto code(ouch!), architecture documents, some stuff that looks like internal emails but I can't get them to open(will work on that later)...
Actually, the code on the older hardware may well be the most impressive. IIRC, the software that runs the Space Shuttle is the most bug free non-trivial program ever written. On hardware from the late 70's and early 80's.
I think there might be a few "Holy crap you can do that!?!?!!?" moments reading those sources. Tight optimizations, tricks for doing things that normally require massive support libraries linked together... might be some interesting techniques there.
This has existed since at least Windows 98(I don't remember 95 or 3.x enough to know if it could do autoplay).
Why the hell didn't these people sue earlier? ok, I know the answer, but even though it shouldn't be so surprising, I'm constantly amazed at peoples complete adn total lack of integrity.
Its OpenOffice apps that start up slightly slower than MS Office's equivalent app. However, once running, OpenOffice runs faster and more smoothly, definitely better responsiveness. A bit more stable as well. OS is Windows XP Pro, some cache optimizations and registry tweaks done through TweakXP that may have an impact on things.
Those evaluations don't do squat at my school. My philosophy class down to the last one of us nailed the idiot attempting to teach us. I, and several others, outright recommended firing him as a way to improve the course. He did get points from most of us for being enthusiastic... but other than that, we ripped him apart. Every one of the 40 students ripped him to shreds on the reviews.
I intentionally failed that class so I could repeat it... I hadn't given up on learning something until after the laste date for withdrawals. In just two sessions, I've learned more this time taking the class than I did the entire semester with the idiot. Adn I actually applied myself, I tried to learn that first time.
Odd. Office 2000 is more cumbersome on my system than OO is(my system- Athlon XP2200, 1GB DDR266, WD 7200RPM/8MB cache hard drve- so ok, my system is a bit of overkill for office productivity apps), starts *very* slightly slower, but not much at all. barely noticeable.
As for ease of use, I find OO a lot easier. I don't even know how to do footnotes in MS Office, and I have looked, but I can do it with a right click in OO. That puts a nice little polish onto school papers, gets a few extra points(and wastes a couple lines to help bump up page count:))
Only reason I'm using MS Office mostly these days is its part of one of my courses.
Yes, perl is included in SFU, but its a slightly older version(5.6.something IIRC). Which actualyl works out for me, my webhost is a linux box with Perl 5.6.x on it, so having the same version available locally, when I do local tests of the scripts, I know if they will work live or not- subtle versioning issues aren't likely to come up, especially given that SFU has good posix support so I can even test out that stuff.
ActiveState ActivePerl should be included on windows by default... if not with XP Home, with XP Professional and 2003 Server, and thrown on to 2k service packs. Perl is a little hard to learn, but once you get it its damn easy to use. imagine all the perl hackers that could create... wait, no, maybe thats not a good idea. Perl is hard enough to read without using AOL'ese for your identifiers:)
My dads truck has a FAR higher TCO than my moms car. Cost twice as much, the systems are so much more complicated it breaks more often simply due to having more parts. It burns so much more fuel that even though deisel is cheaper these days its miles per dollar are lower.
On the other hand, if my dad tried using my moms car for what he uses his truck for, he wouldn't even get out of the driveway.
TCO is only part of the story, what you need the system for is another... so generalized TCO is not very useful. Its only useful when comparing narrowly defined usage scenarios- like with cars, it would be relevant to compare TCO of the Hyundai Elantra and the Honda Civic for the purposes of transporting passengers. But some of the TCO comparisons I've seen are more like comparing the Hyundai Elantra and a Dodge 350 truck for the purposes of doing everything automobiles are capable of doing. Completely irrelevant.
IS the position meant to be filled by someone who works against monopolies, or is it more of an advisory/educational position, where it requires someone who knows a lot about anti trust and their opinion of antitrust laws isn't an issue?
It is possible(though I don't buy it) that SCO is legitimately unable to comply with that order without further information from IBM. The judge has to give that due consideration before declaring SCO in violation.
Slashdot Mirror
All systems nto related to getting the thing flying with reasonable safety are removed. No gun, no fire control computers, no weapon mounts. I imagine you could righ something onto it, but it would be a shitload of work.
GOTO isn't always bad. It is *very* rare that its a good idea, but sometimes it is the least ugly hack out of a bunch of ugly hacks when you need to get the code finished and have too little time to puzzle out a more elegant solution.
Getting a program working is the first goal of any real programmer. Getting it working well, or having maintainable code are both very important, but they are secondary to getting the program functioning in the first place. Especially with commercial products, sometimes spaghetti code that works NOW is preferable to textbook examples that work sometime next year. Perl wouldn't be nearly so popular if not for that fact of development.
There are also some interesting, and rather elegant, looping structures you can do with goto that are actually more elegant than the more purely structured counterparts- that isn't what seems to be going on here, just thought I'd mention it.
I would have to dig through the code to find the context of that goto, but they aren't always bad.
Code Complete by Steve McConnell has a good section on goto.
They probably had the money troubles because they put so much into R&D and marketing. Short term risk(running red) for long term benefit against Intel. They probably knew there was no way they could be profitable in the short term and be anything but a bit player, and intentionally ran red so they could get to a better position.
You could do it. That would be a nightmare of a program to code, but you could write an OS that makes programs think they have only 4GB of memory available.
You would need a rather complicated API for memory management, and to take advantage of it you'd have to use that API for all your memory needs... but it could be done.
Is it a good idea? Probably not. But it could be done.
AMD. Going from simply fabbing chips for Intel, to making simple clones(cheaper and lower performing than the intels) to dead even performance with their own designs, to actually pushing around the direction of the industry a bit(though not quite as much as intel). Without AMD, computers would probably be much more expensive. Even when they just fabed chips for intel, rather than compete head on like they do now, that got more chips onto the market keeping prices from getting too out of hand. And now with them being a viable competitor, and even leading in some areas(it seems every six months the one with the fastest chip flip flops)... Even Intel fans benefit from AMD forcing Intel to keep prices somewhat reasonable.
If either Intel or AMD slacked on advancing their designs, or decided to get too greedy with pricing, the other would eat them alive. They push each other to put out better products at lower prices, and the consumer wins.
If only the consumer OS market was this competetive. Linux is rapidly rising in the consumer space, so perhaps things will start looking up even there.
The carbon APIs sit on top of UNIX apis. It would be much simpler to port the necesary support libraries of Office for OSX to Linux than to port the support libraries Office for Win32 depends on.
Smart Suite was utter TRASH last I used it. Completely worthless. HAve they even updated it in the past few years?
If IBM threw its weight behind the WINE project, WINE would improve tremendously very fast.
Or if IBM were to buy Crossover Office, which is already designed to support MS Office, and then hack on that for a while, we'd have near native speed and near native stability.
Looking at the code does present a risk though, of being tempted to incorporate it or even subconciously choosing a suspiciously similar implementation. It wouldn't be a death sentence to look at it, but you'd have to be *very* careful to avoid landing in trouble.
I'm not sure MS could take on IBM. MS has more cash to throw around, but if IBM plays their cards into a heavy delaying action, MS won't have the staying power. IBM simply has more assets to burn through if they handle the situation carefully, and from what we've seen wtih SCO, they know how to fight a major court battle. If MS could force the case to go quickly, they might have an edge by throwing more money at it, but IBM can throw money at it longer if they play their cards right. Especially if MS takes on IBM and others with largely similar claims, the coordination that would be arranged on the IBM side would destroy MS. MS vs IBM would be an even fight overall(mass cash to move for the short term vs mass assets to hold through teh long), but add in Red Hat, Novell, and whoever else, and MS will lose.
This shit is real.
Includes kernel stuff, crypto code(ouch!), architecture documents, some stuff that looks like internal emails but I can't get them to open(will work on that later)...
This is FUN!
Actually, the code on the older hardware may well be the most impressive. IIRC, the software that runs the Space Shuttle is the most bug free non-trivial program ever written. On hardware from the late 70's and early 80's.
I think there might be a few "Holy crap you can do that!?!?!!?" moments reading those sources. Tight optimizations, tricks for doing things that normally require massive support libraries linked together... might be some interesting techniques there.
This has existed since at least Windows 98(I don't remember 95 or 3.x enough to know if it could do autoplay).
Why the hell didn't these people sue earlier? ok, I know the answer, but even though it shouldn't be so surprising, I'm constantly amazed at peoples complete adn total lack of integrity.
Clarifying a couple points-
Its OpenOffice apps that start up slightly slower than MS Office's equivalent app. However, once running, OpenOffice runs faster and more smoothly, definitely better responsiveness. A bit more stable as well. OS is Windows XP Pro, some cache optimizations and registry tweaks done through TweakXP that may have an impact on things.
Those evaluations don't do squat at my school. My philosophy class down to the last one of us nailed the idiot attempting to teach us. I, and several others, outright recommended firing him as a way to improve the course. He did get points from most of us for being enthusiastic... but other than that, we ripped him apart. Every one of the 40 students ripped him to shreds on the reviews.
I intentionally failed that class so I could repeat it... I hadn't given up on learning something until after the laste date for withdrawals. In just two sessions, I've learned more this time taking the class than I did the entire semester with the idiot. Adn I actually applied myself, I tried to learn that first time.
Odd. Office 2000 is more cumbersome on my system than OO is(my system- Athlon XP2200, 1GB DDR266, WD 7200RPM/8MB cache hard drve- so ok, my system is a bit of overkill for office productivity apps), starts *very* slightly slower, but not much at all. barely noticeable.
As for ease of use, I find OO a lot easier. I don't even know how to do footnotes in MS Office, and I have looked, but I can do it with a right click in OO. That puts a nice little polish onto school papers, gets a few extra points(and wastes a couple lines to help bump up page count:))
Only reason I'm using MS Office mostly these days is its part of one of my courses.
Yes, perl is included in SFU, but its a slightly older version(5.6.something IIRC). Which actualyl works out for me, my webhost is a linux box with Perl 5.6.x on it, so having the same version available locally, when I do local tests of the scripts, I know if they will work live or not- subtle versioning issues aren't likely to come up, especially given that SFU has good posix support so I can even test out that stuff.
ActiveState ActivePerl should be included on windows by default... if not with XP Home, with XP Professional and 2003 Server, and thrown on to 2k service packs. Perl is a little hard to learn, but once you get it its damn easy to use. imagine all the perl hackers that could create... wait, no, maybe thats not a good idea. Perl is hard enough to read without using AOL'ese for your identifiers:)
Example:
My dads truck has a FAR higher TCO than my moms car. Cost twice as much, the systems are so much more complicated it breaks more often simply due to having more parts. It burns so much more fuel that even though deisel is cheaper these days its miles per dollar are lower.
On the other hand, if my dad tried using my moms car for what he uses his truck for, he wouldn't even get out of the driveway.
TCO is only part of the story, what you need the system for is another... so generalized TCO is not very useful. Its only useful when comparing narrowly defined usage scenarios- like with cars, it would be relevant to compare TCO of the Hyundai Elantra and the Honda Civic for the purposes of transporting passengers. But some of the TCO comparisons I've seen are more like comparing the Hyundai Elantra and a Dodge 350 truck for the purposes of doing everything automobiles are capable of doing. Completely irrelevant.
That line was put in for the impending criminal case against SCO.
IS the position meant to be filled by someone who works against monopolies, or is it more of an advisory/educational position, where it requires someone who knows a lot about anti trust and their opinion of antitrust laws isn't an issue?
It is possible(though I don't buy it) that SCO is legitimately unable to comply with that order without further information from IBM. The judge has to give that due consideration before declaring SCO in violation.
Fair trials means fair trials. Period.
he was comparing to C, not assembly. and its much more complicated than "just as fast" if you actually read that paper.
Hey, a pickup truck works fine for transvestites from Transylvania!
Sometimes shit happens and email/phone/fax just won't get through. Telegram is the fastest method after those to get ahold of someone.
Get a real bank. Both banks I've used have been perfectly compatible with Mozilla.