You can generate a similar effect today by driving onto a crossroads and stopping. The only solution to people being dicks on the road is to take them off the road.
I manage to use perl just fine. And I either knew the answers to all those offhand, or I could tell you why you shouldn't write code like that in the first place.
I'm 21, and the computers I grew up with, starting from the BBC Master, taught me how to build powerful software from the outset, rather than spending all my time working around the limitations of the hardware and the tools. I didn't have to be taught things like object-oriented design - it was obvious.
When I went to university, I learned how all these things *worked*, all the way down to flip-flops, and to mathematical analysis of complex programs.
I've seen people who've been working with computers for longer than me, but they seem to just miss the point. They spent years learning only how to work around computers, and when they went to university (if they went at all) they were taught nothing useful. They can find a solution to most problems they are faced with, but it's rarely the best one; they don't understand how to make computers work for them, instead of the other way around.
Just when you thought it was safe, a different perspective comes up and kicks you in the nuts.
You bet they do. There are these laws because their political opponents won the last round. Customers don't have a "right" to fair pricing, and Microsoft don't have a "right" to charge a fee for every copy of Windows that is made - these are artificial conditions created as a result of politics and backed up by government coercian, financed by taxation. Neither more nor less. This is the basis of every legal system.
From the situation with GNUs su program not supporting wheel (link), I think its clear that RMS has a dubious and somewhat iffy personal view on security
That's oft-quoted but wrong; GNU su has used pam for years, and pam supports pam_wheel just fine (and is much more flexible than the BSD equivalent) - but why you'd want to use it is anybody's guess, it doesn't add any real security. Better to use sudo and keep the root password a secret (assuming you have a root password at all; half the time I disable root authentication against pam_unix completely).
Recursive Make Considered Harmful Considered Dumb
on
Optimizing distcc
·
· Score: 1
That paper makes a spectacularly bad case. It provides no serious analysis to back up its wild claims, and mixes variables quite horribly. Approximately one page of the paper is spent talking about recursive makefiles, while the bulk of it is just about various ways in which people write bad makefiles, which apply equally to recursive and monolithic ones. It's like saying "We administered the drug to the patient, and then he was hit by a cruise missile. The patient died, so we have to assume the drug is not safe for human use".
This is the sort of paper that would be rejected out of hand by any serious journal.
Fortunately, most people just use automake rather than paying attention to this nonsense.
The problem with that idea is that pretty much nobody is going to include Mozilla-built binaries. Upstream releases are usually broken and need to be fixed, often have to be changed slightly to integrate properly into the system, and (this part is very important) MUST BE ABLE TO HAVE SECURITY UPDATES EASILY APPLIED LATER.
Mozilla is currently attempting to break all that.
It's not a very good analogy. It's more like one child using a traffic cone to scoop sand into their pail, the other using a hollowed out skull to shovel rocks into thier pail, and then comparing the amount of cola they drink and fun they have.
That is, there's about a zillion variables that are very difficult to even *describe*, let alone measure and determine the effects of, and any attempt to measure processor power that results in a report which can be physically lifted by an adult human when printed, is probably about as accurate as throwing a dice.
There are no known-accurate methods of measuring performance between platforms. There's just some guesswork and handwaving, and a few plausible arguments. In theory you can compare real-world performance before and after upgrading - but then what are you really testing? An old box against a new box? The site before and after it was rewritten to work on a different platform? I've never heard of anybody who makes a real-world upgrade with an objective of changing only *one* variable.
Cross-platform comparisons are usually half made up, and half an invalid test.
No, I think that the heart of the problem is that people pay any attention to these self-proclaimed "standards bodies".
The only reason that people think they have any authority is because they've shouted loud enough and long enough that people can't remember they really don't have any authority.
There is no sense in using this device in any area that gets its ethanol from the Corn Belt. In those areas, nuclear power is practical.
This device is interesting in the third world, where there is no industrial base to support more efficient methods of energy production - where solar power is probably the best they have at present.
Most of the world can get ethanol a heck of a lot more easily than it can get fossil fuels.
The RS/6000 is a line of systems (big fridge-shaped bastards). It has had many different processors over its lifespan, which has been rather long.
There have been four basic chip designs used. First was POWER. Later on came POWER2, which was similar but added more instructions.
At some point around here, PowerPC was created. This is not a chip, but a family, defined in terms of the instruction set. It was loosely based on POWER2, but mutually incompatible; it contained some new stuff and didn't include all of the old stuff.
Next came POWER3, the first RS/6k chip to use the PowerPC instruction set.
Then RS/6k was renamed to pSeries, and POWER4 came out, which is another chip using the PowerPC instruction set.
What dark magics? Despite being lumped in with "Intellectual property" by corporate types, there's nothing particularly bad about trademarks - they are simple, non-overreaching limits on what you can do with somebody else's name and image. It's pretty damn hard to do anything bad with a trademark; they just can't do that much.
I don't believe that you could reliably tell the difference between this, and the digitally-modified human vocals that have been used before now, even in mainstream music.
Heck, when I was a little kid, I knew another kid who had a widget that made your voice sound like this if you spoke through it. I expect those things are still around.
If this can come close to Linux alone in speed, then this is a major step forward.
It probably can't. Windows itself has massive, wide-reaching performance issues, especially with IO. It is very unlikely that you can use a device in both without taking a massive performance hit from the terrible IO scheduling and support in Windows (presently it appears to support no device sharing at all, which is pretty useless).
I guess learning how to do things on your own is going the way of the do-do bird, so to speak.
You stopped "learning how to do things on your own" the moment you got into a car. Replacing some peripheral functions with automation is pretty insignificant compared to having a huge internal combustion engine doing the running for you.
There doesn't appear to be any kind of demand for security updates to Debian 1.1, so they don't get done. If there was appreciable demand for it, they'd almost certainly happen (but it would be indicative of serious, wide-ranging problems if people were still using something that old).
Most of the other distributions haven't existed for eight years (I don't know anything interesting about the few that have).
How hard would it be to insert a little something something that gets updated on all the Debian boxes out there?
Precisely as hard as it would be on any other system, excluding those Debian boxes which actually verify the signatures before installing packages (where it would be impossible).
However, it would be noticed rapidly and suitable announcements made.
Slashdot Mirror
You can generate a similar effect today by driving onto a crossroads and stopping. The only solution to people being dicks on the road is to take them off the road.
Two, perhaps three. No biggie.
Actually that's wrong too. It's up to the applications to support it, though.
I manage to use perl just fine. And I either knew the answers to all those offhand, or I could tell you why you shouldn't write code like that in the first place.
Argument trivially refuted by counterexample.
I'm 21, and the computers I grew up with, starting from the BBC Master, taught me how to build powerful software from the outset, rather than spending all my time working around the limitations of the hardware and the tools. I didn't have to be taught things like object-oriented design - it was obvious.
When I went to university, I learned how all these things *worked*, all the way down to flip-flops, and to mathematical analysis of complex programs.
I've seen people who've been working with computers for longer than me, but they seem to just miss the point. They spent years learning only how to work around computers, and when they went to university (if they went at all) they were taught nothing useful. They can find a solution to most problems they are faced with, but it's rarely the best one; they don't understand how to make computers work for them, instead of the other way around.
Just when you thought it was safe, a different perspective comes up and kicks you in the nuts.
You bet they do. There are these laws because their political opponents won the last round. Customers don't have a "right" to fair pricing, and Microsoft don't have a "right" to charge a fee for every copy of Windows that is made - these are artificial conditions created as a result of politics and backed up by government coercian, financed by taxation. Neither more nor less. This is the basis of every legal system.
That's oft-quoted but wrong; GNU su has used pam for years, and pam supports pam_wheel just fine (and is much more flexible than the BSD equivalent) - but why you'd want to use it is anybody's guess, it doesn't add any real security. Better to use sudo and keep the root password a secret (assuming you have a root password at all; half the time I disable root authentication against pam_unix completely).
That paper makes a spectacularly bad case. It provides no serious analysis to back up its wild claims, and mixes variables quite horribly. Approximately one page of the paper is spent talking about recursive makefiles, while the bulk of it is just about various ways in which people write bad makefiles, which apply equally to recursive and monolithic ones. It's like saying "We administered the drug to the patient, and then he was hit by a cruise missile. The patient died, so we have to assume the drug is not safe for human use".
This is the sort of paper that would be rejected out of hand by any serious journal.
Fortunately, most people just use automake rather than paying attention to this nonsense.
The problem with that idea is that pretty much nobody is going to include Mozilla-built binaries. Upstream releases are usually broken and need to be fixed, often have to be changed slightly to integrate properly into the system, and (this part is very important) MUST BE ABLE TO HAVE SECURITY UPDATES EASILY APPLIED LATER.
Mozilla is currently attempting to break all that.
It's not a very good analogy. It's more like one child using a traffic cone to scoop sand into their pail, the other using a hollowed out skull to shovel rocks into thier pail, and then comparing the amount of cola they drink and fun they have.
That is, there's about a zillion variables that are very difficult to even *describe*, let alone measure and determine the effects of, and any attempt to measure processor power that results in a report which can be physically lifted by an adult human when printed, is probably about as accurate as throwing a dice.
There are no known-accurate methods of measuring performance between platforms. There's just some guesswork and handwaving, and a few plausible arguments. In theory you can compare real-world performance before and after upgrading - but then what are you really testing? An old box against a new box? The site before and after it was rewritten to work on a different platform? I've never heard of anybody who makes a real-world upgrade with an objective of changing only *one* variable.
Cross-platform comparisons are usually half made up, and half an invalid test.
Yes, exactly right. It means "no guarantees" and "we can remove it entirely in the future".
Aside from snipping non-free out of the release process, it doesn't mean any more than that.
No, I think that the heart of the problem is that people pay any attention to these self-proclaimed "standards bodies".
The only reason that people think they have any authority is because they've shouted loud enough and long enough that people can't remember they really don't have any authority.
There is no sense in using this device in any area that gets its ethanol from the Corn Belt. In those areas, nuclear power is practical.
This device is interesting in the third world, where there is no industrial base to support more efficient methods of energy production - where solar power is probably the best they have at present.
Most of the world can get ethanol a heck of a lot more easily than it can get fossil fuels.
Not everybody agrees that "Intellectual Property" is a good thing.
The only thing being defended here is a profit margin.
The RS/6000 is a line of systems (big fridge-shaped bastards). It has had many different processors over its lifespan, which has been rather long.
There have been four basic chip designs used. First was POWER. Later on came POWER2, which was similar but added more instructions.
At some point around here, PowerPC was created. This is not a chip, but a family, defined in terms of the instruction set. It was loosely based on POWER2, but mutually incompatible; it contained some new stuff and didn't include all of the old stuff.
Next came POWER3, the first RS/6k chip to use the PowerPC instruction set.
Then RS/6k was renamed to pSeries, and POWER4 came out, which is another chip using the PowerPC instruction set.
POWER5 is due out this year.
Which chip are you talking about?
Saying it won't make it so. I've seen at least three contradictory "definitions".
What dark magics? Despite being lumped in with "Intellectual property" by corporate types, there's nothing particularly bad about trademarks - they are simple, non-overreaching limits on what you can do with somebody else's name and image. It's pretty damn hard to do anything bad with a trademark; they just can't do that much.
I don't believe that you could reliably tell the difference between this, and the digitally-modified human vocals that have been used before now, even in mainstream music.
Heck, when I was a little kid, I knew another kid who had a widget that made your voice sound like this if you spoke through it. I expect those things are still around.
It probably can't. Windows itself has massive, wide-reaching performance issues, especially with IO. It is very unlikely that you can use a device in both without taking a massive performance hit from the terrible IO scheduling and support in Windows (presently it appears to support no device sharing at all, which is pretty useless).
That's a little backwards.
They legally cannot give their services away for free, so they are charging their standard fee and donating the proceeds.
You stopped "learning how to do things on your own" the moment you got into a car. Replacing some peripheral functions with automation is pretty insignificant compared to having a huge internal combustion engine doing the running for you.
There doesn't appear to be any kind of demand for security updates to Debian 1.1, so they don't get done. If there was appreciable demand for it, they'd almost certainly happen (but it would be indicative of serious, wide-ranging problems if people were still using something that old).
Most of the other distributions haven't existed for eight years (I don't know anything interesting about the few that have).
Precisely as hard as it would be on any other system, excluding those Debian boxes which actually verify the signatures before installing packages (where it would be impossible).
However, it would be noticed rapidly and suitable announcements made.
World War 2 ended in Europe, not Japan. The surrender of Japan wasn't hugely relevant, it was just part of the ongoing spat between the US and Japan.
Voting only works when a substantial portion of the enfranchised citizens are capable of voting responsibly. As such, it will never work for the US.
It works for Debian because you have to be at least minimally competant to join the project. There is no such requirement for US citizens.