Although I agree with you, the comparison doesn't hold completely true. Dollars aren't worth as much today as when music was distributed on wax rolls. Back then, you needed to be more wealthy to be able to buy luxury like a pickup and wax rolls.
Instead of disabling the right alt key as a 3rd level chooser, enable the Euro key by enabling "Add the EuroSign to the 5 key". Then the Euro actually works, by pressing right alt+5.
"Menu is compose" is also useful if you don't use an international (dead keys) layout. Press the compose key (context menu) to type special characters like ë é è ê and others. (I used " ' ` ^ . and , for those. If you only see 4 characters, then the/. comment system ate them.)
Thanks for your interest in Movielink, the leading movie download service. Sorry, but Movielink is presently unavailable to users outside of the United States.
If you are a current customer of Movielink and believe you have reached this page in error, please access Live Chat with Customer Service under Help in your Movielink Manager.
Your IP address is...
So, in order to visit that website, you need to:
Have an IP address allocated for the US
Need to use MS Windows 2000 or XP
Need to use MSIE
I wonder if you also have to use a specific brand of DVD player and TV when you've actually rented/bought a movie there.
There are *lots* of reasons why threads should be used. Suppose your program has a GUI and needs to do some I/O, but want to be available to the user while doing it. The solution: queue all I/O operations and let them run in a worker thread. Suppose you use a library that has it's own event loop, and you want your process to be doing other things (for instance running a torrent) while it's waiting for those events. Solution: call the library function from the main thread, and do your other stuff from another. Suppose your program needs to decode and encode multimedia (audio/video/both) rapidly, for some sort of (post)production or just entertainment, then being able to use multiple cores in a process is *very* useful. Suppose your program is a kernel, then you don't have a process to begin with;) (You could still "outsource" work to userland apps, but only when a userland app is capable of dealing with the task).
You may get by with using only processes most of the time, but you still need to have synchronisation. If you do all your I/O in seperate processes, then you still need to transfer all the writes/to/ the other processes, and the reads/from/ the other processes. That sounds like unneccesary overhead to me. Your proposed solution has problems of it's own. When your programs use shared memory, then not only can/your/ programs access it, but/other/ programs (atleast those within the same security context) as well. This can open a lot of security holes you'd rather not have to deal with.
And about fork(), I use GNU/Linux and I don't dual boot but I do write win32 programs for fun (and profit). There is no fork() in win32, and there's no POSIX (or OS/2) subsystem in Windows XP (and later). (They introduced the system with NT4 IIRC, not with 2000.) Even if they hadn't dropped it, it would be useless for programs running under the win32 subsystem. I just looked at the cygwin implementation, and it creates a child process, so handles with a security descriptor set not to inherit handles, or handles without security descriptors (that aren't inherited by default) will break, so it's not a true fork() (according to posix documentation, man 3posix fork). There may be handles of this type or other state data held in DLLs that will not seamlessly be copied over without breaking them too.
With single-threaded processes, the user still wins when running multiple such programs at once. Especially when running multiple desktops simultaneously (which is getting increasingly popular, both over the network and locally) multiple cores have a clear advantage.
Slashdot Mirror
Although I agree with you, the comparison doesn't hold completely true. Dollars aren't worth as much today as when music was distributed on wax rolls. Back then, you needed to be more wealthy to be able to buy luxury like a pickup and wax rolls.
It's a bird! It's a plane!
OMG It's flying chairs from Redmond!
Instead of disabling the right alt key as a 3rd level chooser, enable the Euro key by enabling "Add the EuroSign to the 5 key". Then the Euro actually works, by pressing right alt+5.
/. comment system ate them.)
"Menu is compose" is also useful if you don't use an international (dead keys) layout. Press the compose key (context menu) to type special characters like ë é è ê and others. (I used " ' ` ^ . and , for those. If you only see 4 characters, then the
You forgot step 2.5: Download and apply WGA patch
So can we mount a yahoo account from initrd and never have to buy another HDD again?
With such a long license, and so many companies now using free software in their products, I bet some will follow these simple steps:
1. Open a law firm
2. Interpret the GNU GPLv3
3...Profit!
There are *lots* of reasons why threads should be used. Suppose your program has a GUI and needs to do some I/O, but want to be available to the user while doing it. The solution: queue all I/O operations and let them run in a worker thread. Suppose you use a library that has it's own event loop, and you want your process to be doing other things (for instance running a torrent) while it's waiting for those events. Solution: call the library function from the main thread, and do your other stuff from another. Suppose your program needs to decode and encode multimedia (audio/video/both) rapidly, for some sort of (post)production or just entertainment, then being able to use multiple cores in a process is *very* useful. Suppose your program is a kernel, then you don't have a process to begin with ;) (You could still "outsource" work to userland apps, but only when a userland app is capable of dealing with the task).
/to/ the other processes, and the reads /from/ the other processes. That sounds like unneccesary overhead to me. Your proposed solution has problems of it's own. When your programs use shared memory, then not only can /your/ programs access it, but /other/ programs (atleast those within the same security context) as well. This can open a lot of security holes you'd rather not have to deal with.
You may get by with using only processes most of the time, but you still need to have synchronisation. If you do all your I/O in seperate processes, then you still need to transfer all the writes
And about fork(), I use GNU/Linux and I don't dual boot but I do write win32 programs for fun (and profit). There is no fork() in win32, and there's no POSIX (or OS/2) subsystem in Windows XP (and later). (They introduced the system with NT4 IIRC, not with 2000.) Even if they hadn't dropped it, it would be useless for programs running under the win32 subsystem. I just looked at the cygwin implementation, and it creates a child process, so handles with a security descriptor set not to inherit handles, or handles without security descriptors (that aren't inherited by default) will break, so it's not a true fork() (according to posix documentation, man 3posix fork). There may be handles of this type or other state data held in DLLs that will not seamlessly be copied over without breaking them too.
With single-threaded processes, the user still wins when running multiple such programs at once. Especially when running multiple desktops simultaneously (which is getting increasingly popular, both over the network and locally) multiple cores have a clear advantage.