... have probably already figured this out. I kept seeing bizzaro stuff in my log files from rhnsd. After looking up/etc/init.d/rhnsd I saw that it was not something I needed (I always download for free, so I doubt they are going to be giving me any service ).
At least it was putting nice messages into the log file.
For those who need it:
(as root)
chkconfig --level 345 rhnsd off (turns off the startup) /etc/init.d/rhnsd stop (kills the already running server)
I worked for a client that had designed tools to do EXACTLY that. And they probably already have it patented. So, I don't think your entry can count:-) Big Business has beat you to the punch.
Just so you know, Visual C++ isn't anymore compliant than g++. Actually, VC++ has had horrible template support. Perhaps the latest versions are better, but sticking with VC++ does not guarantee a better compiler/more ANSI compliant.
NOTE: This isn't a MS slam. It's just a fact. Micrsoft would much rather you work with their ATL, because it is "better". I don't know why, but apparently it just is. So MS is just as non-compliant as g++ (the last time I checked). Your text books might take this into account--so they are more VC++ compliant than they are ANSI C++ compliant
Also take a look at g++. Its support is increasing--faster than most commercial vendors. It's a great compiler. We are all just experiencing the growing pains.
The current problem is that the gcc and the libstdc++ appear to be intertwined at the distribution level. As you will notice at the end of my post, I thought a good STL port would have been a better solution. Upgrading to libstdc++-v3 would be even better. I can't speak to whether it is possible or wise--I'll leave that to others more in the know.
But since RedHat is trying to put out a whole package, they tried both the compiler and the libstdc++. Perhaps there are reasons we don't know about.
The 2.96 compiler handles C++ differently, so I wonder if there are features in it that make it more ANSI compliant--and perhaps this why RedHat decided to go with it?
Stop and think. Why would a distribution ship a compiler that is off the development branch? Why in God's name would they ever do anything so incredibly horrible as that?
Simple: features. Many of you may be C programmers, so you may be scratching your head right now, saying "Huh? What features?" But if you work with C++ (and you will notice it mentioned specifically in the post from the GCC team), you know what features RedHat was trying to get by going with the supposed "2.96".
Now, before someone goes off all half-cocked and starts bitching about C++ and C being better, go read up on Inti, specifically on the why's. RedHat will make its money either directly or indirectly from its distribution--the more people who buy Linux, the more ways for them to make money. More people will use Linux if there is software. More software will "appear" if companies use Linux as a development platform.
From what I have read about Inti and its reasons for being started, companies are passing on Linux because they cannot get good enough C++ support and tools in Linux. That's right--C++ support is hurting Linux.
Yes, yes--C++ sucks, yadda, yadda, yadda. Stop and think. The reason so many of you turn your noses up at companies and work is because they pretty much require you to use C++ anymore. I'm not saying it is fair. I'm not saying it is necessarily a "good thing". I'm just raising the issue--most development shops, if given a choice between C and C++ use C++. Perhaps this is all Microsoft's fault. I have no idea.
But I happen to use C++. And let me tell you, writing C++ with the gcc/g++ is a royal pain in the ass. The ANSI standard has been out, and many vendors are still getting their stuff together. But the gcc is one of the lagging ones (IMO--I may be wrong, please list any worse offenders). You buy the C++ Reference by Stroustrap and try to follow the examples (try using sstream with anyone besides RH 7.0, and you will see what I mean)--endless amounts of frustration.
RedHat is just sooooo evil. They included a compiler that had better C++ support. Before you demonize them, stop and try and see it from their perspective. I for one, appreciate a better STL implementation--the one in 6.2 was just aweful. 6.2 had a C++ library with a build date of February 2000. Now that may *sound* new, but it isn't. It isn't even close to the current standard in some areas.
All that being said, I'm not sure that the "negatives" that come with 2.96 were worth it. I would have rather seen RedHat include a good STL port (I hear there are a few good projects out there). Still, the C++ support found in current Linux distribution sucks. Just join any linux C++ project mailing list and see how many times gcc bugs will come up:-(
And if you think this is flamebait, you best check your moderator rules.
My question is simple: what is unauthorized use? Does authorized mean "written permission"? Or is it implied?
I ask because of a simple case of sendmail: if it is running, is that an implicit authorization to send email to the owner via that port? I saw an article over at rootprompt where a sysadmin tried to contact the owner of a box by sending him email via the sendmail port of the box (the box was apparently on a DSL line). The owner got all pissed because he didn't "authorize" the sysadmin to use that machine. The sysadmin argued that sendmail was PRECISELY for doing exactly what he did--sending email.
This may seem stupid to most of you, but remember that many people do not understand the technology they use, let alone legislate about. Could this law be used for suing people who connect to your machine? If you have sendmail up, and someone connects to it, is it their fault or yours? What about FTP and HTTP? If you do a base install of RedHat, you get FTP, HTTPd, Sendmail and a bunch of others. If someone connects to your web page or your FTP server, is that unauthorized?
There are obviously two sides to this issue. I personally get all paranoid when people connect to my box--it is a firewall with nothing running but ssh and ident. If someone tries to connect to my RPC port (i.e. NFS), I am a bit suspicious of their intentions. So this is unauthorized? But what about someone who gets hacked and my machine's address is used as a decoy (or in the case of ADSL with PPPoE, I'm now at the address that was used to attack them, but I'm a different person) and they run a port scan in an attempt to figure out if I am hostile. Does a port scan count as "unauthorized"?
The issue is pretty simple: the techniques used by crackers are legitmate techniques used by security concscious sysadmins every day. Will clueless legislation start to put honest, hardworking sysadmins at risk?
Sorry, but I'm not a philosophy student. I pointed out the links to merely show the linkage between the two organizations and how it is not put forth as a "big" thing. However, if you would read a bit more, you would find membership between the two organizations is shared for the most part. If most of the key speakers and members of Cato are also objectivists or a part of the IOS, that would make a connection. I'm sure you can see that is clear.
I disagree with your opinion about putting them into chairs of philosophy departments. You are missing obvious consequences that counter exactly your point. Putting a homogenous group of professors in control of a majority of schools will not produce more tolerance, but intolerance to others view. The majority always seeks dominance. Have you ever read some of the position papers? I wouldn't call them tolerant; I'd call them beligerent. So perhaps you went to a different site.
So, the Cato Institute may call itself a "market liberalism", but their are objectivists in reality. So, with that piece of information, you can now go on to make more intelligent decisions.
Remember, just because you think everyone is out to get you doesn't mean they aren't:-)
I'm not disputing Cato's claims or Microsoft's. I'm just saying be aware that the Cato Institute has their own agenda.
Cato self labels itself as "market liberalism". But if you also search a little deeper in the other links, you will see a link to the Institute of Objectivist Studies. And in case you don't know what Objectivism is, it is based on Ayn Rand.
I bring this up only because these guys are a bit aggressive and not very open about the ties between them and IOS/Ayn Rand. Everyone remeber the John Stossel Report "GREED"? Well, ALL of his experts were from Cato or IOS. So the whole report was basically a platform for Objectivism. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to see the agenda behind all the rest of John Stossel's "insightful" reports. So perhaps Stossel really is an "objective" reporter:-)
If you read up on their site, you will find discussion about how they (Objectivists) are actively trying to place Objectivist professors at the head of philosophy departments.
So, as with all things on slashdot, I would take their arguments with a grain of salt, remembering their perspective and view. Because that is how you think critically. Taking in all the facts.
ALL computer science classes have this requirement. It is almost always put this way, however: "If your program does not compile on the instructor's environment, it will not be considered complete. The instructor uses the mainframe." In this case, the instructor will be testing using the development package.
Notice the TA said it had to compile/build under the environment--not that you HAVE to use it. They could care less how you type and test it--as long as it compiles under their environment. So just write ANSI C++ and you will be golden. Most of these classes stick to the language, not libraries. So there are very good odds that anything they assign you will be able to be built in a cross-platform fashion.
All of my instructors were very flexible. All they cared about was that the source was readable and that it compiled. I'm sure yours is the same way. It would actually be more useful if they had you using Microsoft VC++. Because as much as I and the rest of you hate it, if there is one development environement you WILL be forced to use in the industry-world, it is that one.
Everyone should just chill and quit pronouncing the death of CS education. Geez. Slashdot as a community needs to take a valium.
Question: Won't the RT's proximity to the east coast megalopolis suffer it interference problems: noise from jet traffic, radio, TV, etc.? I'm sure a certain amount of this can be filtered, but the less need for filtering the better, IMHO.
One of the links on the site answers that question. Apparently the GBT is inside a National Radio Quiet Zone (NRQZ). If you click on the link you will see the area covered--quite large. I believe this helps minimize any interferance.
Besides, do they even have radios in WV? (Just kidding--as an Ohioian who gets constantly cracked on by his New England friends, I had to put in a jab)
The common understanding of Software Engineering principles will hurt you here instead of helping you. Or at least this is what I have found, i.e. IMHO.
Consider taking just one chunk and prototyping it. I find that I often get overwhelmed by all that I have to design and code. Work through your design, try to map all the functionality--but then choose one piece you are concerned about or interested in and just code some prototypes. Don't worry about whether this code will make the final cut--code it with the idea that it is just research and completely expendable.
This is the equivalent of the best way to break writer's block (I use to be a English Lit major, so I know that of which I speak:-). The trick is just writing/coding. The more you write and the more you code, the more good stuff you get out of your head and into source files. You might throw it all away and keep just one concept. But you will find the pressure has eased and suddenly the direction you need to take is clear.
Sometimes we need to focus on the specifics to better understand the generalizations. It doesn't seem to make sense, but it works.
That, or go home to the wife/SO and let them make you forget all about that nasty little architecture. That works well too:-)
I'm so fed up with Slashdot mob mentality. Slashdot used to be a place where people put forth intelligent discussion, facts, or opinions. Now it just seems like everyone is just waiting to sound off and beat on *someone* (usually Katz )
All of you whining about how Mozilla isn't solid enough--have you actually used it? No, not just a download at M15, but as of last week? I've been using Mozilla for 4 months now. As a browser, it IS solid. Sure, it dies every once and a while, but that's not all that different from Netscape 4.x's stability, is it?
Download a nightly and try it out. Mozilla works great. Go download the PSM module and you have SSL. I use Mozilla for all my browsing (because I can't get 4.x to run--don't ask). It is a good browser, and it is nice to go to IE only sites and actually see the page render (try that in 4.x).
Whine and complain all you want. Be an idiot. But why don't you try and inform yourself a little and download and actually USE mozilla before you go running off at the mouth.
I'm not saying you are not a good writer. I'm not saying that you do not have something to contribute with your writing. But it is obvious that you do not know anything about X-Men.
Just so you know, Magneto is NOT supposed to be hated. Duh. You wouldn't know that because you never really read the series. But that's not the problem. Lots of people never read it, and I'm not annoyed with their wrong conclusions. But then they don't try to come off as an expert, do they?
Geez. Just stick to what you know and respectfully admit when you *might* not know what you are talking about. *sigh*
Considering that the Church of Scientology will prosecute anyone who even looks side ways at them...
Considering that there is quite a lot to look at the Church of Scientology for, let alone criticize and question...
And considering that John Travolta is a self-professed Scientologist and attributes his come back to Scientology...
I propose that Battlefield Earth is the greatest way for everyone to finally laugh at the Church of Scientology without getting our assets siezed and our families turned out on the street. And if the Church of Scientology has got issues with us mocking them because of Battlefield Earth, then we can just say, "But your boy Travolta made it--talk to him!"
I mean, come on, they deserve it--anyone who would claim that L. Ron Hubbard's Battlefield Earth is the greatest science fiction novel of the 20th century deserves to be mocked!
Interview with Travolta:
INTERVIEWER: So how do you explain the great come back you made in the 1990s? TRAVOLTA: Scientology! It gave me focus and piece of mind! I couldn't do anything wrong with Scientology on my side! INTERVIEWER: So it was Scientology? TRAVOLTA: Yep! INTERVIEWER: But how do you explain that a movie based on Scientology myth destroyed your career? TRAVOLTA: Uh...
Go to this excellent sendmail patch: sendmail patch by Koos van den Hout
Then, to get rid of the virus that is already in your spool files (because if your users were smart enough not to click on it this wouldn't be such an epidemic). I've written a little Perl-diddy that acts like an anti-virus. Rudementary usage tactics are in the comments. It will clean the user's spool file, removing all ILOVEYOU virus messages. Use and redistribute. It worked like a charm for me.
It is VITALLY important that you put the sendmail patch in place first.
#!/usr/bin/perl # # kill_lover # # Author: Matt Luker, kostya@redstarhackers.com # # This little hack will iterate over a file, grabbing # email messages. If the message is clean (i.e. not # the ILOVEYOU), it is written to file. If it is not # clean, it is thrown away. # # An extra file is generated, call $file.suspect. It # may or may not have viruses in it. It is safe to # delete it once you are done. # # I find the following command to work: # cd/var/spool/mail # find . -name \* -exec kill_lover.pl {} \; #
my $file=shift;
if ($file eq "") { print "Please enter a filename!\n"; exit 1; }
print "Looking for a lover in $file...\n";
open MAILFILE, $file; open CLEANSED, ">$file.clean";
my $message="";
while () { if (/From.*@.*/) { # Ok, we've found a message beginning, which means our # last message is done. # Now check the message to see if it is the ILOVEYOU # virus. if ($message=~/Subject: ILOVEYOU/) { # This is a potential ILOVEYOU virus print "Killing a lover...\n"; } else { print CLEANSED $message; } $message=""; $message=$_; } else { $message.=$_; } }
For all the whiners, why don't you download the code FIRST, try it out, and THEN post? I mean, I know it sounds crazy, but maybe you would like to see what they are doing before you sound off with your opinion about what they are doing?
As for me, I'm glad they are doing this! I saw the announcements for gnome-core-1.5, but I was hesitant to try it out since I wasn't sure how it would interact with the rest of my environment. Thanks to HelixCode, I now am running the latest gnome, with all the new goodies. And it IS worth trying--some great stuff in here.
I must say that the "menu" panel is quite cool. I just wish I could figure out how to change the clock to 24 hours:-)
One gotcha: the new install did not handle my old configuration well. I must have done something mean to my session or panel config in the past, because it kept screwing up on load. Some vi hacking made that go away. I still think the new code was worth it, even with my isolated problems!
Does it mean you will work less hours? Well, that depends on you. However, it does solve the problem of not getting compensated. Every single hour, down to the half hour--that's my compensation. And if the employer really wants me to work more, there is a cost; if they are willing to pay it, it's ok with me.
If you haven't tried contracting, think about it. There are plenty of agencies/pimps to take care of your taxes if you are scared of Uncle Sam. Even after you pay for health care, you are still making an astonishing amount of money.
Side note: if you are one of those people pretending to know coding, but unwilling to learn, don't do contracting. You will eventually be found out for the pretender you are. Plus, you make the job harder for the rest of us. Go be a consultant instead.:-)
The sentence: "Humility, a value of many religions scoffed at by scientists, is still the paramount character trait to seek."
What I meant was, "Even though many scientists scoff at religion, humility, a value common to religious belief systems, is something we could all use." I was not saying that science scoffs at humility;-)
Sorry for any misunderstanding!:-) I know that science treasures both humility and skepticism. The ability to admit you are wrong is key to scientific endeavors. I was just trying to point to an irony, in that despite the open hostility between religion and science, they often have shared values:-)
We are not discussing societal or cultural pressures forcing a scientist to recant against his will or better judgement. That is well documented, and actually is still happening today.
What we are talking about here is that scientists, trained and immersed in the discipline of skepticism and doubt, are often blind to their own propensity for making assumptions. This, coupled with believing you are being scientific leads to moronic theories at best. At its worst, it brings us mass extermination and eugenics.
Humility, a value of many religions scoffed at by scientists, is still the paramount character trait to seek. If you are seeking truth, you must first realize your own limits and your own propensity to think of yourself more highly than you ought.
... they just bought up all those handycams with the infrared option that can be used in the daylight! Instant x-ray glasses:-)
Some serious bigorty in this piece
on
Planet Gattaca
·
· Score: 1
Jon Katz, a man who likes to pride himself on his open-mindedness and the wonderful open cultrue of the internet--religious bigot extrodinaire.
Go ahead, moderate me as "flamebait". This article pisses me off, and I plan to sound off even if it bans this post to -4.
Jon Katz has an obvious anti-religious bias through out this entire article. I think it is pretty damn hypocritical of him to sit there and lambast organized religion as if it were a den of hate-mongers and murders waiting to unleash itself up society. Take this quote for instance:
Recently a group of bio-ethicists met with a panel drawn from the Roman Catholic, Jewish and Protestant faiths and concluded: "There is nothing in the research agenda for creating a minimal genome that is automatically prohibited by legitimate religous considerations."
So what? Is that the only major ethical issue? And why put this discussion in the hands of scientists and members of organized religion--the latter probably responsible for more hatred, bloodshed and cruelty than any other single force in human history
Well golly, who died and made you judge? Little known fact, Katz: more people have died in this century to war and persuction than in all the previous combined--yeah, on the order of MILLIONS. Do you know what the primary philosophical motivator was behind all these deaths? Not religion. Modern philosophical thought: take the Nazis and Cambodia as prime examples (although Stalin and the purges of the Chinese revolution also qualify). Nietzche was the inspiration of Hitler, Sarte the *mentor* of those who implemented the killing fields of Cambodia. A hail modern progress! It has definitely got a leg up on organized religion when it comes to ethics and human rights issues! Yes, a lot of evil is done in the name of religion, but it is in no way isolated to ignorant bigots who claim to follow organized religion. Even enlightened modernists can be ignorant bigots who inflict equal if not greate amounts of evil on their fellow man.
I agree that we should open this up for a full public debate. I agree that asking religious leaders is not enough. But leave your religion bashing at the door. Your bigotry does not suit the level of discussion we seek in these forums.
Ok, it might be time for everyone to stop and think on what it means to be human. I would suggest the following two points:
Making mistakes
The ability to rationally think through a problem
The first one applies to Bruce--to ALL of us. We all make mistakes. Often. Many times. To inifinity. Each and every day. That's part of the reason we love Open Source--it gives us many ways to compensate for making so many mistakes in an average day!:-) So cut Bruce some slack. I appreciate him stepping forward and admitting being wrong. That shows character. It takes a lot to admit your wrong. It takes even more to admit it to the large crowd that is Slashdot and the linux community at large.
The second point is for all of you who immediately jumped the gun on this. You know who you are. When I saw this post, the first thing that came to my mind was, "Ah, Bruce." That is not an insult to Bruce, but an understanding of his passion. I'm a passionate guy too--we passionate people tend to overreact and act before fully thinking through our actions. So when I saw this post, I thought back to the Bruce Perens I have come to know over the past two years in conferences and news stories and I thought, "I'm sure this isn't the last word." Thinking through tough, emotionally-charged situations like this is something the ENTIRE community needs to grow in. Perhaps the more "calm" (I don't want to say passion-less--they are just better at separating emotion from the moment) folk in the community can serve as a balance to the passion that this community seems to have no shortage of.
Everyone just cut everyone else some slack and be calm. Grace would be a good characteristic to show in this situation.
I used to be paid salary. Then my company went under, and I had enough of pouring myself into companies only to get screwed. I've been playing the start up game way too long, and I have had my fill of long hours with only the promise of compensation.
I now do contracting--i.e. I'm paid by the hour. Disadvantages: I get no "paid" vacation, I pay my own benefits, I'm not as much a part of a team anymore, my job changes quickly in a year. Advantages: I get paid a lot more than what I was getting paid at my last job, I get paid for every single little hour I work. Then there is quality of life issues. Time off, working from home, variety of jobs (important for mne: I get bored easily), isolated from company politics, etc. Also, all of you working on salary, please raise your hands if you worked over 40 hours last week. Oh, all of you did? Did you get any compensation for working those hours?
Now before someone comes down on me about the security of salary, etc. please know that it took me a loooooong time to finally pick up contracting. I was scared about being out of work or not meeting my bills. You definitely have to be of the right frame of mind to do contracting. But I'd like to tell you that a lot of your fears are simply unfounded.
That's your approximate salary with contracting. I'm sure you will be shocked by how little you actually make with regular salaried positions. Notice, I only put in 40 weeks. Sometimes you spend two weeks or more between jobs. That's why its 40 instead of 50. You'll notice that you still make more, and you are getting more time off. The idea is that all the money is given to you upfront, instead of being hidden behind supposed benfits.
For those of you scared by the taxes issues or finding work, there are many, many contracting firms out there that find the work and will take you on with W2s. Then they take care of paying your taxes, just like your salaried job would have. You just have to come up with the benefits. That's what I'm currently doing. Even after taxes, I was dumb founded at how much I made compared to my last salaried job.
One last thing: the concept of getting paid for every hour you work is very, very powerful. Be warned. Once you start getting paid for each hour, it is very hard to go back to salary!
You want more speed? Double the heat setting on your oven, and cut the baking time by half. Watch what happens.
That's a great example, but it is also a straw man. That example works for cookies, but not necessarily for software. I agree that there might be a way to speed up the code at the cost of accuracy. But that is not what I am advocating. I'm advocating better written software--which will mostly likely be at least of of the following: more stable, more robust, faster. Better written, by definition, has to be at least one of those. And we already have a requirements for the project: no loss of accuracy. Fine. We work towards that goal. That's what software development and design review are all about. Open source just taps the resources of thousands for those tasks.
And just because they open source it doesn't mean they lose control. As these post evidence, many who do SETI are doing it for the right reasons. So if SETI realeses the code FreeBSD style--i.e. where they retain control of the "official" tree--then they gain all the benefits of opensourcing along with maintaining specific control of their research. The authentication problem could easily be solved by some public key system that is controlled by SETI. And before we start arguing about that, let's remember that they have already LOST that battle. So at this point, an open approach to how to improve the client would only help them.
Again, cookies are one thing. But software is another. I am sure you have worked on projects where someone wrote something accurate, but slow. Perhaps their memory management wasn't right, or they were using a slow method to get something done. The code worked. The code was accurate. But it could be improved and remain accurate just by having someone more experienced look at it.
And that is what I am advocating. Remember, that's the whole open source "thing". I think your confusing GPL, forking, and crab grass development techniques with a time honored scientific approach: peer review.
When it gets down to it, that is EXACTLY what open source is all about.
I'm seeing comments saying that SETI@home wants accurate results, not speed. Someone actually posted that "improving the code won't improve the code." That if you try to make it faster, you are out of line with the SETI@home's goals.
How can I say this? Well let's try this: what the HELL are you talking about?
Please, let's *think* here. Why are the goals of accuracy and speed mutual exclusive? Perhaps there are some methods that would reduce accuracy for speed. Fine. Let SETI@Home set there tolerance levels (i.e. how much significance to use on calculations, precicion, etc.). Then let people who are very, very good at making C programs run really fast and making programs run reliably and accurately take a crack at it.
Come on people. There is no reason that SETI@Home could not be improved by an open source approach. I agree that accuracy should not be sacrificed. But pardon me if I think the resources of the entire program world might not be able to produce a faster and more reliable/accurate client. It's just a matter of raw resources. More programmers, more peer review==better, more reliable code. And it just might happen that it comes out faster in the process
Slashdot Mirror
... have probably already figured this out. I kept seeing bizzaro stuff in my log files from rhnsd. After looking up /etc/init.d/rhnsd I saw that it was not something I needed (I always download for free, so I doubt they are going to be giving me any service ).
At least it was putting nice messages into the log file.
For those who need it:
chkconfig --level 345 rhnsd off (turns off the startup)
I worked for a client that had designed tools to do EXACTLY that. And they probably already have it patented. So, I don't think your entry can count :-) Big Business has beat you to the punch.
Just so you know, Visual C++ isn't anymore compliant than g++. Actually, VC++ has had horrible template support. Perhaps the latest versions are better, but sticking with VC++ does not guarantee a better compiler/more ANSI compliant.
NOTE: This isn't a MS slam. It's just a fact. Micrsoft would much rather you work with their ATL, because it is "better". I don't know why, but apparently it just is. So MS is just as non-compliant as g++ (the last time I checked). Your text books might take this into account--so they are more VC++ compliant than they are ANSI C++ compliant
Also take a look at g++. Its support is increasing--faster than most commercial vendors. It's a great compiler. We are all just experiencing the growing pains.
Wow. That's some serious anger/annoyance! :-)
The current problem is that the gcc and the libstdc++ appear to be intertwined at the distribution level. As you will notice at the end of my post, I thought a good STL port would have been a better solution. Upgrading to libstdc++-v3 would be even better. I can't speak to whether it is possible or wise--I'll leave that to others more in the know.
But since RedHat is trying to put out a whole package, they tried both the compiler and the libstdc++. Perhaps there are reasons we don't know about.
The 2.96 compiler handles C++ differently, so I wonder if there are features in it that make it more ANSI compliant--and perhaps this why RedHat decided to go with it?
Stop and think. Why would a distribution ship a compiler that is off the development branch? Why in God's name would they ever do anything so incredibly horrible as that?
Simple: features. Many of you may be C programmers, so you may be scratching your head right now, saying "Huh? What features?" But if you work with C++ (and you will notice it mentioned specifically in the post from the GCC team), you know what features RedHat was trying to get by going with the supposed "2.96".
Now, before someone goes off all half-cocked and starts bitching about C++ and C being better, go read up on Inti, specifically on the why's. RedHat will make its money either directly or indirectly from its distribution--the more people who buy Linux, the more ways for them to make money. More people will use Linux if there is software. More software will "appear" if companies use Linux as a development platform.
From what I have read about Inti and its reasons for being started, companies are passing on Linux because they cannot get good enough C++ support and tools in Linux. That's right--C++ support is hurting Linux.
Yes, yes--C++ sucks, yadda, yadda, yadda. Stop and think. The reason so many of you turn your noses up at companies and work is because they pretty much require you to use C++ anymore. I'm not saying it is fair. I'm not saying it is necessarily a "good thing". I'm just raising the issue--most development shops, if given a choice between C and C++ use C++. Perhaps this is all Microsoft's fault. I have no idea.
But I happen to use C++. And let me tell you, writing C++ with the gcc/g++ is a royal pain in the ass. The ANSI standard has been out, and many vendors are still getting their stuff together. But the gcc is one of the lagging ones (IMO--I may be wrong, please list any worse offenders). You buy the C++ Reference by Stroustrap and try to follow the examples (try using sstream with anyone besides RH 7.0, and you will see what I mean)--endless amounts of frustration.
RedHat is just sooooo evil. They included a compiler that had better C++ support. Before you demonize them, stop and try and see it from their perspective. I for one, appreciate a better STL implementation--the one in 6.2 was just aweful. 6.2 had a C++ library with a build date of February 2000. Now that may *sound* new, but it isn't. It isn't even close to the current standard in some areas.
All that being said, I'm not sure that the "negatives" that come with 2.96 were worth it. I would have rather seen RedHat include a good STL port (I hear there are a few good projects out there). Still, the C++ support found in current Linux distribution sucks. Just join any linux C++ project mailing list and see how many times gcc bugs will come up :-(
And if you think this is flamebait, you best check your moderator rules.
My question is simple: what is unauthorized use? Does authorized mean "written permission"? Or is it implied?
I ask because of a simple case of sendmail: if it is running, is that an implicit authorization to send email to the owner via that port? I saw an article over at rootprompt where a sysadmin tried to contact the owner of a box by sending him email via the sendmail port of the box (the box was apparently on a DSL line). The owner got all pissed because he didn't "authorize" the sysadmin to use that machine. The sysadmin argued that sendmail was PRECISELY for doing exactly what he did--sending email.
This may seem stupid to most of you, but remember that many people do not understand the technology they use, let alone legislate about. Could this law be used for suing people who connect to your machine? If you have sendmail up, and someone connects to it, is it their fault or yours? What about FTP and HTTP? If you do a base install of RedHat, you get FTP, HTTPd, Sendmail and a bunch of others. If someone connects to your web page or your FTP server, is that unauthorized?
There are obviously two sides to this issue. I personally get all paranoid when people connect to my box--it is a firewall with nothing running but ssh and ident. If someone tries to connect to my RPC port (i.e. NFS), I am a bit suspicious of their intentions. So this is unauthorized? But what about someone who gets hacked and my machine's address is used as a decoy (or in the case of ADSL with PPPoE, I'm now at the address that was used to attack them, but I'm a different person) and they run a port scan in an attempt to figure out if I am hostile. Does a port scan count as "unauthorized"?
The issue is pretty simple: the techniques used by crackers are legitmate techniques used by security concscious sysadmins every day. Will clueless legislation start to put honest, hardworking sysadmins at risk?
My feeling is "yes". And that bothers me. Sigh.
Sorry, but I'm not a philosophy student. I pointed out the links to merely show the linkage between the two organizations and how it is not put forth as a "big" thing. However, if you would read a bit more, you would find membership between the two organizations is shared for the most part. If most of the key speakers and members of Cato are also objectivists or a part of the IOS, that would make a connection. I'm sure you can see that is clear.
I disagree with your opinion about putting them into chairs of philosophy departments. You are missing obvious consequences that counter exactly your point. Putting a homogenous group of professors in control of a majority of schools will not produce more tolerance, but intolerance to others view. The majority always seeks dominance. Have you ever read some of the position papers? I wouldn't call them tolerant; I'd call them beligerent. So perhaps you went to a different site.
So, the Cato Institute may call itself a "market liberalism", but their are objectivists in reality. So, with that piece of information, you can now go on to make more intelligent decisions.
Remember, just because you think everyone is out to get you doesn't mean they aren't :-)
Kind on/off topic (depends on your perspective)
I'm not disputing Cato's claims or Microsoft's. I'm just saying be aware that the Cato Institute has their own agenda.
Cato self labels itself as "market liberalism". But if you also search a little deeper in the other links, you will see a link to the Institute of Objectivist Studies. And in case you don't know what Objectivism is, it is based on Ayn Rand.
I bring this up only because these guys are a bit aggressive and not very open about the ties between them and IOS/Ayn Rand. Everyone remeber the John Stossel Report "GREED"? Well, ALL of his experts were from Cato or IOS. So the whole report was basically a platform for Objectivism. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to see the agenda behind all the rest of John Stossel's "insightful" reports. So perhaps Stossel really is an "objective" reporter :-)
If you read up on their site, you will find discussion about how they (Objectivists) are actively trying to place Objectivist professors at the head of philosophy departments.
So, as with all things on slashdot, I would take their arguments with a grain of salt, remembering their perspective and view. Because that is how you think critically. Taking in all the facts.
ALL computer science classes have this requirement. It is almost always put this way, however: "If your program does not compile on the instructor's environment, it will not be considered complete. The instructor uses the mainframe." In this case, the instructor will be testing using the development package.
Notice the TA said it had to compile/build under the environment--not that you HAVE to use it. They could care less how you type and test it--as long as it compiles under their environment. So just write ANSI C++ and you will be golden. Most of these classes stick to the language, not libraries. So there are very good odds that anything they assign you will be able to be built in a cross-platform fashion.
All of my instructors were very flexible. All they cared about was that the source was readable and that it compiled. I'm sure yours is the same way. It would actually be more useful if they had you using Microsoft VC++. Because as much as I and the rest of you hate it, if there is one development environement you WILL be forced to use in the industry-world, it is that one.
Everyone should just chill and quit pronouncing the death of CS education. Geez. Slashdot as a community needs to take a valium.
One of the links on the site answers that question. Apparently the GBT is inside a National Radio Quiet Zone (NRQZ). If you click on the link you will see the area covered--quite large. I believe this helps minimize any interferance.
Besides, do they even have radios in WV? (Just kidding--as an Ohioian who gets constantly cracked on by his New England friends, I had to put in a jab)
The common understanding of Software Engineering principles will hurt you here instead of helping you. Or at least this is what I have found, i.e. IMHO.
Consider taking just one chunk and prototyping it. I find that I often get overwhelmed by all that I have to design and code. Work through your design, try to map all the functionality--but then choose one piece you are concerned about or interested in and just code some prototypes. Don't worry about whether this code will make the final cut--code it with the idea that it is just research and completely expendable.
This is the equivalent of the best way to break writer's block (I use to be a English Lit major, so I know that of which I speak :-). The trick is just writing/coding. The more you write and the more you code, the more good stuff you get out of your head and into source files. You might throw it all away and keep just one concept. But you will find the pressure has eased and suddenly the direction you need to take is clear.
Sometimes we need to focus on the specifics to better understand the generalizations. It doesn't seem to make sense, but it works.
That, or go home to the wife/SO and let them make you forget all about that nasty little architecture. That works well too :-)
I'm so fed up with Slashdot mob mentality. Slashdot used to be a place where people put forth intelligent discussion, facts, or opinions. Now it just seems like everyone is just waiting to sound off and beat on *someone* (usually Katz )
All of you whining about how Mozilla isn't solid enough--have you actually used it? No, not just a download at M15, but as of last week? I've been using Mozilla for 4 months now. As a browser, it IS solid. Sure, it dies every once and a while, but that's not all that different from Netscape 4.x's stability, is it?
Download a nightly and try it out. Mozilla works great. Go download the PSM module and you have SSL. I use Mozilla for all my browsing (because I can't get 4.x to run--don't ask). It is a good browser, and it is nice to go to IE only sites and actually see the page render (try that in 4.x).
Whine and complain all you want. Be an idiot. But why don't you try and inform yourself a little and download and actually USE mozilla before you go running off at the mouth.
For those who care:Quit your whining. Use the latest builds. Report bugs. Geez, it's your community. Do something constructive.
Idiocy combined with ignorance is always your own fault.I'm not saying you are not a good writer. I'm not saying that you do not have something to contribute with your writing. But it is obvious that you do not know anything about X-Men.
Just so you know, Magneto is NOT supposed to be hated. Duh. You wouldn't know that because you never really read the series. But that's not the problem. Lots of people never read it, and I'm not annoyed with their wrong conclusions. But then they don't try to come off as an expert, do they?
Geez. Just stick to what you know and respectfully admit when you *might* not know what you are talking about. *sigh*
Considering that the Church of Scientology will prosecute anyone who even looks side ways at them ...
Considering that there is quite a lot to look at the Church of Scientology for, let alone criticize and question ...
And considering that John Travolta is a self-professed Scientologist and attributes his come back to Scientology ...
I propose that Battlefield Earth is the greatest way for everyone to finally laugh at the Church of Scientology without getting our assets siezed and our families turned out on the street. And if the Church of Scientology has got issues with us mocking them because of Battlefield Earth, then we can just say, "But your boy Travolta made it--talk to him!"
I mean, come on, they deserve it--anyone who would claim that L. Ron Hubbard's Battlefield Earth is the greatest science fiction novel of the 20th century deserves to be mocked!
Interview with Travolta:
INTERVIEWER: So how do you explain the great come back you made in the 1990s?TRAVOLTA: Scientology! It gave me focus and piece of mind! I couldn't do anything wrong with Scientology on my side!
INTERVIEWER: So it was Scientology?
TRAVOLTA: Yep!
INTERVIEWER: But how do you explain that a movie based on Scientology myth destroyed your career?
TRAVOLTA: Uh
Come on--laugh already ;-)
First, you need to patch Sendmail ...
Go to this excellent sendmail patch: sendmail patch by Koos van den Hout
Then, to get rid of the virus that is already in your spool files (because if your users were smart enough not to click on it this wouldn't be such an epidemic). I've written a little Perl-diddy that acts like an anti-virus. Rudementary usage tactics are in the comments. It will clean the user's spool file, removing all ILOVEYOU virus messages. Use and redistribute. It worked like a charm for me.
It is VITALLY important that you put the sendmail patch in place first.
#!
#
# kill_lover
#
# Author: Matt Luker, kostya@redstarhackers.com
#
# This little hack will iterate over a file, grabbing
# email messages. If the message is clean (i.e. not
# the ILOVEYOU), it is written to file. If it is not
# clean, it is thrown away.
#
# An extra file is generated, call $file.suspect. It
# may or may not have viruses in it. It is safe to
# delete it once you are done.
#
# I find the following command to work:
# cd
# find . -name \* -exec kill_lover.pl {} \;
#
my $file=shift;
if ($file eq "") {
print "Please enter a filename!\n";
exit 1;
}
print "Looking for a lover in $file
open MAILFILE, $file;
open CLEANSED, ">$file.clean";
my $message="";
while () {
if (/From
# Ok, we've found a message beginning, which means our
# last message is done.
# Now check the message to see if it is the ILOVEYOU
# virus.
if ($message=~/Subject: ILOVEYOU/) {
# This is a potential ILOVEYOU virus
print "Killing a lover
} else {
print CLEANSED $message;
}
$message="";
$message=$_;
} else {
$message.=$_;
}
}
close CLEANSED;
close MAILFILE;
`mv $file $file.suspect`;
`mv $file.clean $file`;
Enjoy!
For all the whiners, why don't you download the code FIRST, try it out, and THEN post? I mean, I know it sounds crazy, but maybe you would like to see what they are doing before you sound off with your opinion about what they are doing?
As for me, I'm glad they are doing this! I saw the announcements for gnome-core-1.5, but I was hesitant to try it out since I wasn't sure how it would interact with the rest of my environment. Thanks to HelixCode, I now am running the latest gnome, with all the new goodies. And it IS worth trying--some great stuff in here.
I must say that the "menu" panel is quite cool. I just wish I could figure out how to change the clock to 24 hours :-)
One gotcha: the new install did not handle my old configuration well. I must have done something mean to my session or panel config in the past, because it kept screwing up on load. Some vi hacking made that go away. I still think the new code was worth it, even with my isolated problems!
Does it mean you will work less hours? Well, that depends on you. However, it does solve the problem of not getting compensated. Every single hour, down to the half hour--that's my compensation. And if the employer really wants me to work more, there is a cost; if they are willing to pay it, it's ok with me.
If you haven't tried contracting, think about it. There are plenty of agencies/pimps to take care of your taxes if you are scared of Uncle Sam. Even after you pay for health care, you are still making an astonishing amount of money.
Side note: if you are one of those people pretending to know coding, but unwilling to learn, don't do contracting. You will eventually be found out for the pretender you are. Plus, you make the job harder for the rest of us. Go be a consultant instead. :-)
What I meant was, "Even though many scientists scoff at religion, humility, a value common to religious belief systems, is something we could all use." I was not saying that science scoffs at humility ;-)
Sorry for any misunderstanding! :-) I know that science treasures both humility and skepticism. The ability to admit you are wrong is key to scientific endeavors. I was just trying to point to an irony, in that despite the open hostility between religion and science, they often have shared values :-)
We are not discussing societal or cultural pressures forcing a scientist to recant against his will or better judgement. That is well documented, and actually is still happening today.
What we are talking about here is that scientists, trained and immersed in the discipline of skepticism and doubt, are often blind to their own propensity for making assumptions. This, coupled with believing you are being scientific leads to moronic theories at best. At its worst, it brings us mass extermination and eugenics.
Humility, a value of many religions scoffed at by scientists, is still the paramount character trait to seek. If you are seeking truth, you must first realize your own limits and your own propensity to think of yourself more highly than you ought.
... they just bought up all those handycams with the infrared option that can be used in the daylight! Instant x-ray glasses :-)
Jon Katz, a man who likes to pride himself on his open-mindedness and the wonderful open cultrue of the internet--religious bigot extrodinaire.
Go ahead, moderate me as "flamebait". This article pisses me off, and I plan to sound off even if it bans this post to -4.
Jon Katz has an obvious anti-religious bias through out this entire article. I think it is pretty damn hypocritical of him to sit there and lambast organized religion as if it were a den of hate-mongers and murders waiting to unleash itself up society. Take this quote for instance:
Recently a group of bio-ethicists met with a panel drawn from the Roman Catholic, Jewish and Protestant faiths and concluded: "There is nothing in the research agenda for creating a minimal genome that is automatically prohibited by legitimate religous considerations."
So what? Is that the only major ethical issue? And why put this discussion in the hands of scientists and members of organized religion--the latter probably responsible for more hatred, bloodshed and cruelty than any other single force in human history
Well golly, who died and made you judge? Little known fact, Katz: more people have died in this century to war and persuction than in all the previous combined--yeah, on the order of MILLIONS. Do you know what the primary philosophical motivator was behind all these deaths? Not religion. Modern philosophical thought: take the Nazis and Cambodia as prime examples (although Stalin and the purges of the Chinese revolution also qualify). Nietzche was the inspiration of Hitler, Sarte the *mentor* of those who implemented the killing fields of Cambodia. A hail modern progress! It has definitely got a leg up on organized religion when it comes to ethics and human rights issues! Yes, a lot of evil is done in the name of religion, but it is in no way isolated to ignorant bigots who claim to follow organized religion. Even enlightened modernists can be ignorant bigots who inflict equal if not greate amounts of evil on their fellow man.
I agree that we should open this up for a full public debate. I agree that asking religious leaders is not enough. But leave your religion bashing at the door. Your bigotry does not suit the level of discussion we seek in these forums.
Man, you piss me off.
Ok, it might be time for everyone to stop and think on what it means to be human. I would suggest the following two points:
The first one applies to Bruce--to ALL of us. We all make mistakes. Often. Many times. To inifinity. Each and every day. That's part of the reason we love Open Source--it gives us many ways to compensate for making so many mistakes in an average day! :-) So cut Bruce some slack. I appreciate him stepping forward and admitting being wrong. That shows character. It takes a lot to admit your wrong. It takes even more to admit it to the large crowd that is Slashdot and the linux community at large.
The second point is for all of you who immediately jumped the gun on this. You know who you are. When I saw this post, the first thing that came to my mind was, "Ah, Bruce." That is not an insult to Bruce, but an understanding of his passion. I'm a passionate guy too--we passionate people tend to overreact and act before fully thinking through our actions. So when I saw this post, I thought back to the Bruce Perens I have come to know over the past two years in conferences and news stories and I thought, "I'm sure this isn't the last word." Thinking through tough, emotionally-charged situations like this is something the ENTIRE community needs to grow in. Perhaps the more "calm" (I don't want to say passion-less--they are just better at separating emotion from the moment) folk in the community can serve as a balance to the passion that this community seems to have no shortage of.
Everyone just cut everyone else some slack and be calm. Grace would be a good characteristic to show in this situation.
I used to be paid salary. Then my company went under, and I had enough of pouring myself into companies only to get screwed. I've been playing the start up game way too long, and I have had my fill of long hours with only the promise of compensation.
I now do contracting--i.e. I'm paid by the hour. Disadvantages: I get no "paid" vacation, I pay my own benefits, I'm not as much a part of a team anymore, my job changes quickly in a year. Advantages: I get paid a lot more than what I was getting paid at my last job, I get paid for every single little hour I work. Then there is quality of life issues. Time off, working from home, variety of jobs (important for mne: I get bored easily), isolated from company politics, etc. Also, all of you working on salary, please raise your hands if you worked over 40 hours last week. Oh, all of you did? Did you get any compensation for working those hours?
Now before someone comes down on me about the security of salary, etc. please know that it took me a loooooong time to finally pick up contracting. I was scared about being out of work or not meeting my bills. You definitely have to be of the right frame of mind to do contracting. But I'd like to tell you that a lot of your fears are simply unfounded.
Try this little math trick:
(Annual Salary)+(Benefits: Medical, Life)--------------------------------------
(Average # hours/week) * (50 weeks)
That's your current hourly rate at your salaried position. Now try this. Snoop around the news groups for hourly rates. Then use this math trick:
(Average # hours/week) * (hourly rate) * (40 weeks)That's your approximate salary with contracting. I'm sure you will be shocked by how little you actually make with regular salaried positions. Notice, I only put in 40 weeks. Sometimes you spend two weeks or more between jobs. That's why its 40 instead of 50. You'll notice that you still make more, and you are getting more time off. The idea is that all the money is given to you upfront, instead of being hidden behind supposed benfits.
For those of you scared by the taxes issues or finding work, there are many, many contracting firms out there that find the work and will take you on with W2s. Then they take care of paying your taxes, just like your salaried job would have. You just have to come up with the benefits. That's what I'm currently doing. Even after taxes, I was dumb founded at how much I made compared to my last salaried job.
One last thing: the concept of getting paid for every hour you work is very, very powerful. Be warned. Once you start getting paid for each hour, it is very hard to go back to salary!
You want more speed? Double the heat setting on your oven, and cut the baking time by half. Watch what happens.
That's a great example, but it is also a straw man. That example works for cookies, but not necessarily for software. I agree that there might be a way to speed up the code at the cost of accuracy. But that is not what I am advocating. I'm advocating better written software--which will mostly likely be at least of of the following: more stable, more robust, faster. Better written, by definition, has to be at least one of those. And we already have a requirements for the project: no loss of accuracy. Fine. We work towards that goal. That's what software development and design review are all about. Open source just taps the resources of thousands for those tasks.
And just because they open source it doesn't mean they lose control. As these post evidence, many who do SETI are doing it for the right reasons. So if SETI realeses the code FreeBSD style--i.e. where they retain control of the "official" tree--then they gain all the benefits of opensourcing along with maintaining specific control of their research. The authentication problem could easily be solved by some public key system that is controlled by SETI. And before we start arguing about that, let's remember that they have already LOST that battle. So at this point, an open approach to how to improve the client would only help them.
Again, cookies are one thing. But software is another. I am sure you have worked on projects where someone wrote something accurate, but slow. Perhaps their memory management wasn't right, or they were using a slow method to get something done. The code worked. The code was accurate. But it could be improved and remain accurate just by having someone more experienced look at it.
And that is what I am advocating. Remember, that's the whole open source "thing". I think your confusing GPL, forking, and crab grass development techniques with a time honored scientific approach: peer review.
When it gets down to it, that is EXACTLY what open source is all about.
I'm seeing comments saying that SETI@home wants accurate results, not speed. Someone actually posted that "improving the code won't improve the code." That if you try to make it faster, you are out of line with the SETI@home's goals.
How can I say this? Well let's try this: what the HELL are you talking about?
Please, let's *think* here. Why are the goals of accuracy and speed mutual exclusive? Perhaps there are some methods that would reduce accuracy for speed. Fine. Let SETI@Home set there tolerance levels (i.e. how much significance to use on calculations, precicion, etc.). Then let people who are very, very good at making C programs run really fast and making programs run reliably and accurately take a crack at it.
Come on people. There is no reason that SETI@Home could not be improved by an open source approach. I agree that accuracy should not be sacrificed. But pardon me if I think the resources of the entire program world might not be able to produce a faster and more reliable/accurate client. It's just a matter of raw resources. More programmers, more peer review==better, more reliable code. And it just might happen that it comes out faster in the process
ranting ends ...