On *nix platforms you have Puppet and Chef (or cfengine if you're a greybeard), which suites the way that *nix platforms work far better than trying to bend GP to work on them would.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was specifically referring to servers rather than clients. I agree that in most cases it makes more sense for the majority of end users to stay on Windows, but if you're deploying a large number of servers you can use something other than Windows and still take advantage of AD to manage your users and their permissions on those servers.
It's entirely possible to integrate non-Windows platforms into Active Directory via. LDAP and Kerberos. It's not necessarily simple but it's do-able. So even as an administrator, you don't have to run Windows everywhere just to use AD.
If/dev/random has run out of entropy, so will this ridiculous hack:/dev/random already sources entropy from the packet buffers, so either there are no packets arriving and neither method works, or their are packets arriving and then you may as well stick to/dev/random
Even better, use/dev/random to periodically seed a good psuedo-random generator, say a Mersenne Twister implementation. You could call it/dev/urandom.
There is nothing magical about garbage collection that only the Java or.Net VM's are capable of implementing. GC has a long history, stretching back to languages like LISP and SmallTalk. Hell even C++ has had the Boehm GC available for nearly 20 years.
Everyone is connected to Wall Street in some way. The protesters are wearing clothes too, and those clothes are made by companies. Are we going to declare that only naked protesters are "real" now? Like I said, "No True Scotsman"
To be fair, I don't think it's necessary for the protesters to abhor technology: it's a "No true Scotsman" fallacy to suggest that they should. If they were protesting Google, Samsung, HTC and AT&T directly then yeah, there would be some hypocrisy there. As it is they're on Wall St. and are directing their protests at the banks, mostly.
What's more interesting about this is that it's taken so long for them to fix it, and that RIM themselves don't seem to understand what's wrong: the linked article in the Guardian indicates it's a failed database upgrade, but the news earlier was reporting that RIM were blaming a core switch failure.
That they don't seem to know what the problem is indicates that their infrastructure and processes are pretty poor. I'm pretty glad I'm not a Network or Systems admin at RIM.
Wait: you seriously expect a party that is part of a coalition to not make compromises?
would be able to do everything that they said in their manifesto that they would do if they had a majority
Why in the world would anyone with half a brain expect such a thing? They have 40% of the votes in the coalition. They have 9% of the seats in the House of Commons. How, precisely, do you expect the Liberal Democrats to do this without support from either the Conservatives or Labour? Bearing in mind that apparently they're also not allowed to compromise.
People expect magic. It's the same mind set of people who blame the President of the United States for absolutely everything but never question what the Senate or HoR are doing.
I'm not sure what people expect from the Liberal Democrats. Some sort of Night of the Long Knives where Nick Clegg eliminates both the Conservatives and Labour and declares himself Supreme Leader?
But if the self-service doohickeys have caused the store to sell him more paracetamol than it should have, isn't that the store's problem?
The self service tills will stop you buying more than two packs at a time. He admits he went back and bought the rest of them in a separate trip through the till, so the self service till couldn't do much to stop him. So yes, it was the store's problem, which is why they stopped him!
Unfortunately, your sentence doesn't have a subject
There are precisely two subjects under discussion: the guy buying the drugs, and the store. The context seems pretty obvious from where I'm sat.
Yes, binary drivers can have their problems, WHEN THE ABI CHANGES!
Linux supports 28+ different CPU architectures, so funnily enough the ABI is changing all the time. Having the majority of the drivers as source in the main tree is a massive advantage when you only need to recompile the driver for whatever architecture you're running. You simply can't do that with a binary driver...which is a problem you neatly highlighted already.
Qemu is both an emulator and a virtualization platform, depending on the host & guest CPU you are running and the options you compile and invoke it with:
When used as a machine emulator, QEMU can run OSes and programs made for one machine (e.g. an ARM board) on a different machine (e.g. your own PC). By using dynamic translation, it achieves very good performance.
When used as a virtualizer, QEMU achieves near native performances by executing the guest code directly on the host CPU. QEMU supports virtualization when executing under the Xen hypervisor or using the KVM kernel module in Linux. When using KVM, QEMU can virtualize x86, server and embedded PowerPC, and S390 guests.
Restricting you to two packs (32 tablets) is fairly standard in the UK: you'll find that Asda, Sainsburys and pretty much every other supermarket will have a similar policy. As much as I hate Yahoo! Answers, check the answer from "lozzielaws". The important bit is:
In the UK, there is no law as such, but the maxumum amount as per the Medicines And Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency over the counter is 100. Anything over that requires a prescription. They also recommend a maximum of 32 be sold over the counter as standard practice, and most shops and pharmacies stick to this.
So while it's possible they could have handled the situation better (I have no idea, we only have your version of events), they were probably concerned that may have been breaking the law.
Engineering equipment like scopes and test tools and calculators. Then they added printers. Then they added PCs...Don't remember when they added workstations and minicomputers to the mix, but they aren't doing PA-RISC systems anymore.
Apparently "The problem with HP..." is that the vast majority of people who want to tell us all what "The problem with HP..." is don't know anything about HP.
the "platform" ABI on e.g. UNIX is meant for C programs
Now you're talking about language ABIs, which is a different matter entirely. How Haskell or OCaml or C++ handle one function calling another function within the same process is entirely up to the language designer. That isn't anything to do with the platform ABI.
Externally however, you have to conform to the platform ABI because you have to run on the platform. The platform ABI is language agnostic. There is absolutely nothing C specific about the x86-64 ELF ABI, for example.
What C ABI? There is no "C" ABI: just the ABI of the platform the code is running on. The machine ABI is, by it's very nature, a very low level construct: it defines things like which CPU registers are used to pass arguments, which registers may be clobbered during a call etc. How would you propose to implement an ABI in say, Haskell, that doesn't eventually describe how the CPU registers are used, or doesn't describe how the stack is used, or any other very low level details you must cover to implement a usable ABI?
Eventually, all languages become individual CPU instructions. That's the level that the machine ABI deals with.
As long as they provide a main entry point does it really matter?
Yes, very very much. Even defining enough of an ABI to even get to the executables entry point is a pretty big task!
the "platform" ABI on e.g. UNIX is meant for C programs
Huh? No it isn't. The API may most often be expressed in C, but the ABI is language agnostic.
keep in mind the only types in C are bytes, half-words, words, double words
Huh? The C standard doesn't define anything in terms of "bytes", "half-words" or "double words". In fact those terms are largely meaningless in the context of C: the standard offers very few guarantees about the width and endianess of it's native types. C didn't even gain portable fixed-width types until C99.
Slashdot Mirror
On *nix platforms you have Puppet and Chef (or cfengine if you're a greybeard), which suites the way that *nix platforms work far better than trying to bend GP to work on them would.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was specifically referring to servers rather than clients. I agree that in most cases it makes more sense for the majority of end users to stay on Windows, but if you're deploying a large number of servers you can use something other than Windows and still take advantage of AD to manage your users and their permissions on those servers.
It's entirely possible to integrate non-Windows platforms into Active Directory via. LDAP and Kerberos. It's not necessarily simple but it's do-able. So even as an administrator, you don't have to run Windows everywhere just to use AD.
Perhaps you should stop filtering ACs, in order to not shit-up Slashdot with reposts just to keep you happy?
If /dev/random has run out of entropy, so will this ridiculous hack: /dev/random already sources entropy from the packet buffers, so either there are no packets arriving and neither method works, or their are packets arriving and then you may as well stick to /dev/random
/dev/random to periodically seed a good psuedo-random generator, say a Mersenne Twister implementation. You could call it /dev/urandom.
Even better, use
Wait...
There is nothing magical about garbage collection that only the Java or .Net VM's are capable of implementing. GC has a long history, stretching back to languages like LISP and SmallTalk. Hell even C++ has had the Boehm GC available for nearly 20 years.
They never said they had run the battery down. Seriously. Go watch the review and pay attention this time.
Just what technology would be that be, precisely? Flint knives and smoke signals?
Everyone is connected to Wall Street in some way. The protesters are wearing clothes too, and those clothes are made by companies. Are we going to declare that only naked protesters are "real" now? Like I said, "No True Scotsman"
To be fair, I don't think it's necessary for the protesters to abhor technology: it's a "No true Scotsman" fallacy to suggest that they should. If they were protesting Google, Samsung, HTC and AT&T directly then yeah, there would be some hypocrisy there. As it is they're on Wall St. and are directing their protests at the banks, mostly.
Surely exit(EXIT_SUCCESS); is more fitting for a man of Dennis Ritchie's talents?
What's more interesting about this is that it's taken so long for them to fix it, and that RIM themselves don't seem to understand what's wrong: the linked article in the Guardian indicates it's a failed database upgrade, but the news earlier was reporting that RIM were blaming a core switch failure.
That they don't seem to know what the problem is indicates that their infrastructure and processes are pretty poor. I'm pretty glad I'm not a Network or Systems admin at RIM.
Subtle sarcasm doesn't carry well on the internet. If it makes you feel less pained by my post, replace "you" with "people".
Wait: you seriously expect a party that is part of a coalition to not make compromises?
Why in the world would anyone with half a brain expect such a thing? They have 40% of the votes in the coalition. They have 9% of the seats in the House of Commons. How, precisely, do you expect the Liberal Democrats to do this without support from either the Conservatives or Labour? Bearing in mind that apparently they're also not allowed to compromise.
People expect magic. It's the same mind set of people who blame the President of the United States for absolutely everything but never question what the Senate or HoR are doing.
I'm not sure what people expect from the Liberal Democrats. Some sort of Night of the Long Knives where Nick Clegg eliminates both the Conservatives and Labour and declares himself Supreme Leader?
You need to watch The West Wing.
There are precisely two subjects under discussion: the guy buying the drugs, and the store. The context seems pretty obvious from where I'm sat.
Linux supports 28+ different CPU architectures, so funnily enough the ABI is changing all the time. Having the majority of the drivers as source in the main tree is a massive advantage when you only need to recompile the driver for whatever architecture you're running. You simply can't do that with a binary driver...which is a problem you neatly highlighted already.
So while it's possible they could have handled the situation better (I have no idea, we only have your version of events), they were probably concerned that may have been breaking the law.
HP started making computers in 1966.
Apparently "The problem with HP..." is that the vast majority of people who want to tell us all what "The problem with HP..." is don't know anything about HP.
Yeah, because that IP can't be an endpoint on a pair of HA load balancers.
Now you're talking about language ABIs, which is a different matter entirely. How Haskell or OCaml or C++ handle one function calling another function within the same process is entirely up to the language designer. That isn't anything to do with the platform ABI.
Externally however, you have to conform to the platform ABI because you have to run on the platform. The platform ABI is language agnostic. There is absolutely nothing C specific about the x86-64 ELF ABI, for example.
Eventually, all languages become individual CPU instructions. That's the level that the machine ABI deals with.
Yes, very very much. Even defining enough of an ABI to even get to the executables entry point is a pretty big task!
Huh? No it isn't. The API may most often be expressed in C, but the ABI is language agnostic.
Huh? The C standard doesn't define anything in terms of "bytes", "half-words" or "double words". In fact those terms are largely meaningless in the context of C: the standard offers very few guarantees about the width and endianess of it's native types. C didn't even gain portable fixed-width types until C99.