The "commands everywhere, hit enter to resample them" existed back then for macintosh programmers Workshop, as many developers will remember. Basically there were no need for real 'scripts', you could type commands, hit 'enter' then hit 'undo' and 'enter' again to re-run it, and yes you could 'execute' anything you selected.
That was the only use I had for the 'enter' key of the numeric keypad of the old mac's keyboard in fact.
So, revolutionary... hmmm. I also reimplemented JUST that as a text-input extension quite a few years ago for OSx, where I could do pretty much exactly that from any text editor on the mac, like SubEthaEdit etc.
I did C++ for a very, very long time (20+ years), and yes, you can take a nice subset of c++ that is not bloated, and in that case it's a nice language.
The problem is when you work with other people. They'll drag in all the bloat they can, templates, RTTI, stl (ick), and... boost (arrrgh). And you end up with code that is actually giganormous, and runs slower than Java. I'm not joking, try stuff like OpenSCAD (chokes on 2 pages of geometry) or Code::Blocks (lags like crazy when editing the smalest of file) then there is the obvious KDE desktop, and many others.
So a few years back I reverted to C99. C99 actually had some features that c++ lacks (complex struct initialisation for example) and after years of C++ you know enough about putting structure into your code that you don't/strictly/ need classes anyway. In fact, after a while, you start to realize that in many case, you/don't/ need classes -- sometime you can reduce a problem to 2 or 3 functions, you don't need the 24 accessors, 5 constructors and all that fluff.
It's very refreshing try it. I think you can pick up good habits by hacking on the linux kernel and stuff like qemu/kvm... that sort of C project uses very complex constructs, all in C, and all in a 'clean' environment, there is a LOT to learn in these projects.
The only thing I miss is references; thats the ONE thing I'd like to bring back.
Oh, and if you want slightly smarter memory management for struct-like-objects and that sort of stuff, do lookup "libtalloc" -- it's a little bit of samba that is well worth the look at..
Ever heard of embedded development ? Or, maybe you think that distros themselves just appear magically as an ".iso" file brought by father xmas ? I'm sure you're very proud of having recompiled your kernel at some point, and that seems to have given you enough insight into general software development to make large, broad statements about it all. Actually, I/do/ find it funny, but not in the way you probably intended.
Re:I bet you're the life and soul of a party
on
Is Overclocking Over?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Is this really "slashdot.org" where "nerds" used to be around ? You know, nerds, who do technically oriented stuff "just because they can" ?
The various comments on this topic -including the one up- makes me wonder really, or has "nerd" become more of a "I'm such a nerd, babe, look, I installed an app on my smartphone".
Or/. has been mirrored to "hipster.com" and I'm accessing the wrong portal
"has the enthusiast passion for overclocking cooled off"
Not from my 5.0Ghz Core i7 2600k anyway -- The tools have become better, the mobo are generally better built and more tolerant to punishment (some have 2 Oz copper), the power rails are a LOT more controllable than before, and in general the IC companies that make the power ICs have progressed a lot too in that time, so you can overclock easier, quicker, get better results and in general, extract quite a bit more, without nitrogen.
And, I compile distros all day, to me going from 3.8Ghz max to 5.0Ghz stable (and quiet!) is awesome; make -j10 FTW !
I think you give credit a bit generously here. And in any case, how do you explain 1) the linearity and consistency of results 2) the fact it's consistently slower than a windows with Trim support ?
If the blocks were truely erased, at the very least the peak write would be significantly faster, but it's not.
The only other wacky possibility would be for the OS to be the bottleneck.
They used the "write zero" disk erase method, which in fact un-erase every NAND block of the disk, which in turn forces the disk to erase each block again as it writes. Thats why they see such consistency of results : they are measuring the worst possible case where the disk is forced to the slow path for each block.
To erase NAND, you need to erase it by block, and the resulting block is full of 1's. Writing to NAND is a question of writing zeros in places, you can't write 1's on NAND unless you erase it.
So in a way, their test is showing that OSX is much, much better than windows when the disk is dirty, but that apple hasn't implemented the "trim" that allows the disk to re-erase nand 'free' blocks.
I think there should be a nobel of engineering or something similar, given to whomever designed that rover.
It/never/ happens in real life that you can get away with designing a piece of equipment that outlasts it's fail-by-date by so much. In most companies nowayday, these guys would be in trouble !
Same here, I gave up in disgust at book 6 or something. I think I bought book 9 or so to try to see if anything had changed and gave up in disgust./me readjusts his shawl and stomps off.
I've been saying so for years now. Apple gets away with stuff that almost got M$ broken up a few years back.
+ They make products on their OS that uses private frameworks. LOTS of them. Even worse, they have the "strategic" bits in the OS so they get debugged by unsuspecting nice third party developers, then hammer them with "the" product. Look "core image" and then, some time later... "aperture". All the "Pro" Apple apps share UI look and feel that is not available to anyone else. It's nice, sleek and fast. Seen it anywhere in a third party app ?
+ Their Cocoa framework (despite the huge amount of fanboy noise) is not scaleable to a "proper" application size. STOP if you are a fanboy and think : is there any BIG application made in Cocoa today ? I mean, a BIG app ? Safari isn't even in cocoa apart from the face. The core is C++, and this is a perfect demonstration of the lack of scalability of the "developer favorite". It's just a framework to make toys and the odd utility.
+ Up to the late 90's, Apple always was careful not to make any "gizmo"; it took 15 years to roll in the menubar clock, they were/that/ respectful of the third party developers. Now, if you have an idea, they'll just steal the blood of it without any kind of remorse. Look at the "Widgets". And various others.
I've been saying for years that apple no longer need third party developers. The WWDC is just a marketing "show" for steve to make a keynote (one more) and the technologies are getting down to the level of complete gadgets. Now with the iPhone, they just came out and said "we are in control, we don't even/allow/ third party, dirty apps here". Won't want that thing to crash, mam.
So yes, I think Apple has been/worse/ than MS for about 10 years now. I think a few people are starting to realize it, but then again, there are worse FanBoys in apple's camp than there is in M$ camp nowadays.
Yeah I know, I've got the bulletproof shorts on, so fire away... I won't read:D
In october and november the volumes have rocketed. There was a weekend alone where I saw over 80000 messages being trashed. At some point procmail was too slow to digest the message as they arrived and I had to install a hook to "help".
Here are my monthly stats for over the last year on my own personal domain, that has the unfortunate privilege to be in every blasted spam file ever.. These are pre-rejected spams, some still pass to the "next level"...
I have a Powerbop (with my stack of "collector" powerbooks). It's a Powerbook 180 with a wireless modem allright, but the data was only 9600 at best (possibly less) and there was no email at the time, unless you had your own private access. There were no fully fledged commercial ISPs in france until some time later. Apple "innovation" had not foreseen the tcp/ip and the internet and at the time, "MacTCP" was pretty lame. So with powerbop, you could connect to classic BBSes and do faxes, but mostly all you could do was access the Minitel network, at a premium...
When I want to do a proper landscape, I put my DSLR in the bag and pull out the $200 Graflex Crown Graphic from 1947. The 4x5 transparency film will be scanned at 2400 dpi on my $300 Epson 4990 flatbed scanner to give me just about 100 megapixels... Largely enough to get my 2GB desktop computer to it's knees when opened in photoshop:-)
Now, thats a deal.. Scanning medium and large format transparency gives fantastic images when scanned; you can the advantages of film (tones, size, and free 70 years backup of the image...) and the advantages of digital (photoshop!)
You DO get the negatives when shooting digital... with a DSLR. Shoot RAW; keep *these* as negative. You will have to export them as JPEG anyway to get them to any customer of yours, or even get them printed at the local shop. But you can still prove fairly easily that you have the RAW files... Just put them on the same CD/CF that you bring at the shop should work...
Text files are files composed of ascii characters. The notion of "line" is totaly arbitrary. I can have a text file full of "a" and nothing else, and it'd still be a text file. And the pedantic issue is different from the end of line/file. Note the end of paragraph ?
4.0 is even more pedantic than 3.4, or 3.3. Tons of code that has been working for *years* just don't conpile anymore. And who came up with that idea that files not terminated with a newline should have a warning about it ? Where the hell is that rule in the C/C++ grammar anyway ?
Yeah Fingerworks. I touch type too, and I go pretty fast in the TouchStream (but heck, I have it for 2 years now). Not only that, but I no longer have to move my hand to mouse and back.. Oh, and the cursor key gestures. JUST for the cursor key gestures, I'd sacrifice *anything*. Hmm ok that and the programmer's keypad (drop 4 fingers of the left hand, and the right surface keys become "handy" things you'd have to reach and/or shift for, like != , {}_,-> etc) Ok it IS expensive, but looking at it, it's an investment. And yeah, the surfaces are near-indestructible & easy to keep clean, the only possible problem is the ribbon cable between the two parts, and thats only if you bend it a lot while travelling etc.
I had no peers, zero, I was giving it a try for the first time. And I have no peers in taiwan, hungaria, russia nor any of the like of the domains "Little Snitch" was telling me skype was trying to connect to.
Now if I could explain why the Skype client tries to connect to lots of shady looking addresses (dhcp/DSL, in various countries etc) when I launch it in OSX, I'm sure I'd give it another try...
"Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected" No they won't. mailing lists are delivered from known addresses. The first few message migth be delayed at most. Random PCs should not be able to send millions of mails without flow control. NOTHING should be able to send millions of mails without flow control.
"It is defenseless against brute force attacks" Everything if defenceless against brute force attack, get a firewall.
"It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it" We are already stuck with it, 2 weeks without it is worth it. Here it'd be about 40000 mails I would'nt have to receive.
"Users of email will not put up with it" 29 seconds delay max for legitimate emails, as compared to hundreds of MB of crap every month to sort out ?
"Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes" Should not be able to write email to my server at less that 30 seconds intervals.
"Extreme profitability of spam" Hit them where it hurts. Their line being tied up will prevent them from sending millions of crap per hour. They'll have to get lots more fixed IPs JUST to get the port range they need. No more NAT.
"Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks" it is MY bit of the network, there is no "public network" anywhere for the last 10 years. Unless your country wants to pay my bandwidth bill of course. I can do what I want with incoming connections. Each ISP can decide to "hold" for 30 seconds for unknown/new email routes without damaging any service.
So basicaly your little form just tells me you are a spammer. Perfectly tailored answer, no wonder you made it semi automatic & anonymous.
AND tarpit the bastards connections. Just do *nothing* for a minute or so instead of bouncing him. That way his email flooder will just engorge itself on (hopefully) lots of "slow" links and soon it'll be at the limits of his port range.
Email has a mostly human timescale. there is 0.[0]+1 chance one human email address getting email from random source every minutes. Tarpiting *everything* will not prevent legitimate "known" email from being delivered, but will overload the bots *very* rapidly.
Slashdot Mirror
Or laser from orbit!
The "commands everywhere, hit enter to resample them" existed back then for macintosh programmers Workshop, as many developers will remember. Basically there were no need for real 'scripts', you could type commands, hit 'enter' then hit 'undo' and 'enter' again to re-run it, and yes you could 'execute' anything you selected.
That was the only use I had for the 'enter' key of the numeric keypad of the old mac's keyboard in fact.
So, revolutionary... hmmm. I also reimplemented JUST that as a text-input extension quite a few years ago for OSx, where I could do pretty much exactly that from any text editor on the mac, like SubEthaEdit etc.
I did C++ for a very, very long time (20+ years), and yes, you can take a nice subset of c++ that is not bloated, and in that case it's a nice language.
The problem is when you work with other people. They'll drag in all the bloat they can, templates, RTTI, stl (ick), and... boost (arrrgh). And you end up with code that is actually giganormous, and runs slower than Java. I'm not joking, try stuff like OpenSCAD (chokes on 2 pages of geometry) or Code::Blocks (lags like crazy when editing the smalest of file) then there is the obvious KDE desktop, and many others.
So a few years back I reverted to C99. C99 actually had some features that c++ lacks (complex struct initialisation for example) and after years of C++ you know enough about putting structure into your code that you don't /strictly/ need classes anyway. In fact, after a while, you start to realize that in many case, you /don't/ need classes -- sometime you can reduce a problem to 2 or 3 functions, you don't need the 24 accessors, 5 constructors and all that fluff.
It's very refreshing try it. I think you can pick up good habits by hacking on the linux kernel and stuff like qemu/kvm... that sort of C project uses very complex constructs, all in C, and all in a 'clean' environment, there is a LOT to learn in these projects.
The only thing I miss is references; thats the ONE thing I'd like to bring back.
Oh, and if you want slightly smarter memory management for struct-like-objects and that sort of stuff, do lookup "libtalloc" -- it's a little bit of samba that is well worth the look at..
Amen to this. I also notice that a lot of the "stories" are either deliberate plants, or are fed in by commercial interest into a clueless editorship.
So yes, I also have been mostly lurking, reading the RSS headlines and sometime clicking, I haven't commented in years!
But really, "BI" ? What a frigging joke, with the canned stock photography of suits weaving their mobile phone around.
Ever heard of embedded development ? Or, maybe you think that distros themselves just appear magically as an ".iso" file brought by father xmas ? I'm sure you're very proud of having recompiled your kernel at some point, and that seems to have given you enough insight into general software development to make large, broad statements about it all. /do/ find it funny, but not in the way you probably intended.
Actually, I
Is this really "slashdot.org" where "nerds" used to be around ? You know, nerds, who do technically oriented stuff "just because they can" ?
The various comments on this topic -including the one up- makes me wonder really, or has "nerd" become more of a "I'm such a nerd, babe, look, I installed an app on my smartphone".
Or /. has been mirrored to "hipster.com" and I'm accessing the wrong portal
"has the enthusiast passion for overclocking cooled off"
Not from my 5.0Ghz Core i7 2600k anyway -- The tools have become better, the mobo are generally better built and more tolerant to punishment (some have 2 Oz copper), the power rails are a LOT more controllable than before, and in general the IC companies that make the power ICs have progressed a lot too in that time, so you can overclock easier, quicker, get better results and in general, extract quite a bit more, without nitrogen.
And, I compile distros all day, to me going from 3.8Ghz max to 5.0Ghz stable (and quiet!) is awesome; make -j10 FTW !
I think you give credit a bit generously here. And in any case, how do you explain 1) the linearity and consistency of results 2) the fact it's consistently slower than a windows with Trim support ?
If the blocks were truely erased, at the very least the peak write would be significantly faster, but it's not.
The only other wacky possibility would be for the OS to be the bottleneck.
They used the "write zero" disk erase method, which in fact un-erase every NAND block of the disk, which in turn forces the disk to erase each block again as it writes. Thats why they see such consistency of results : they are measuring the worst possible case where the disk is forced to the slow path for each block.
To erase NAND, you need to erase it by block, and the resulting block is full of 1's. Writing to NAND is a question of writing zeros in places, you can't write 1's on NAND unless you erase it.
So in a way, their test is showing that OSX is much, much better than windows when the disk is dirty, but that apple hasn't implemented the "trim" that allows the disk to re-erase nand 'free' blocks.
... aka Captain Cyborg, is a running joke in the UK for many, many years.
His name associated with this event makes me smirks in anticipation of The Register coverage..
I think there should be a nobel of engineering or something similar, given to whomever designed that rover.
It /never/ happens in real life that you can get away with designing a piece of equipment that outlasts it's fail-by-date by so much. In most companies nowayday, these guys would be in trouble !
It sort of ought to be encouraged somehow...
Same here, I gave up in disgust at book 6 or something. I think I bought book 9 or so to try to see if anything had changed and gave up in disgust. /me readjusts his shawl and stomps off.
I've been saying so for years now. Apple gets away with stuff that almost got M$ broken up a few years back.
/that/ respectful of the third party developers. Now, if you have an idea, they'll just steal the blood of it without any kind of remorse. Look at the "Widgets". And various others.
/allow/ third party, dirty apps here". Won't want that thing to crash, mam.
/worse/ than MS for about 10 years now. I think a few people are starting to realize it, but then again, there are worse FanBoys in apple's camp than there is in M$ camp nowadays.
:D
+ They make products on their OS that uses private frameworks. LOTS of them. Even worse, they have the "strategic" bits in the OS so they get debugged by unsuspecting nice third party developers, then hammer them with "the" product. Look "core image" and then, some time later... "aperture". All the "Pro" Apple apps share UI look and feel that is not available to anyone else. It's nice, sleek and fast. Seen it anywhere in a third party app ?
+ Their Cocoa framework (despite the huge amount of fanboy noise) is not scaleable to a "proper" application size. STOP if you are a fanboy and think : is there any BIG application made in Cocoa today ? I mean, a BIG app ? Safari isn't even in cocoa apart from the face. The core is C++, and this is a perfect demonstration of the lack of scalability of the "developer favorite". It's just a framework to make toys and the odd utility.
+ Up to the late 90's, Apple always was careful not to make any "gizmo"; it took 15 years to roll in the menubar clock, they were
I've been saying for years that apple no longer need third party developers. The WWDC is just a marketing "show" for steve to make a keynote (one more) and the technologies are getting down to the level of complete gadgets.
Now with the iPhone, they just came out and said "we are in control, we don't even
So yes, I think Apple has been
Yeah I know, I've got the bulletproof shorts on, so fire away... I won't read
The spam-storm is picking up again as I type...
In october and november the volumes have rocketed. There was a weekend alone where I saw over 80000 messages being trashed. At some point procmail was too slow to digest the message as they arrived and I had to install a hook to "help".
Here are my monthly stats for over the last year on my own personal domain, that has the unfortunate privilege to be in every blasted spam file ever.. These are pre-rejected spams, some still pass to the "next level"...
http://oomz.net/spam-monthly.png
I have a Powerbop (with my stack of "collector" powerbooks). It's a Powerbook 180 with a wireless modem allright, but the data was only 9600 at best (possibly less) and there was no email at the time, unless you had your own private access. There were no fully fledged commercial ISPs in france until some time later. Apple "innovation" had not foreseen the tcp/ip and the internet and at the time, "MacTCP" was pretty lame.
So with powerbop, you could connect to classic BBSes and do faxes, but mostly all you could do was access the Minitel network, at a premium...
When I want to do a proper landscape, I put my DSLR in the bag and pull out the $200 Graflex Crown Graphic from 1947. The 4x5 transparency film will be scanned at 2400 dpi on my $300 Epson 4990 flatbed scanner to give me just about 100 megapixels... Largely enough to get my 2GB desktop computer to it's knees when opened in photoshop :-)
Now, thats a deal.. Scanning medium and large format transparency gives fantastic images when scanned; you can the advantages of film (tones, size, and free 70 years backup of the image...) and the advantages of digital (photoshop!)
You DO get the negatives when shooting digital... with a DSLR. Shoot RAW; keep *these* as negative. You will have to export them as JPEG anyway to get them to any customer of yours, or even get them printed at the local shop.
But you can still prove fairly easily that you have the RAW files... Just put them on the same CD/CF that you bring at the shop should work...
Text files are files composed of ascii characters. The notion of "line" is totaly arbitrary. I can have a text file full of "a" and nothing else, and it'd still be a text file.
And the pedantic issue is different from the end of line/file. Note the end of paragraph ?
4.0 is even more pedantic than 3.4, or 3.3. Tons of code that has been working for *years* just don't conpile anymore.
And who came up with that idea that files not terminated with a newline should have a warning about it ? Where the hell is that rule in the C/C++ grammar anyway ?
Yeah Fingerworks. I touch type too, and I go pretty fast in the TouchStream (but heck, I have it for 2 years now). Not only that, but I no longer have to move my hand to mouse and back..
Oh, and the cursor key gestures. JUST for the cursor key gestures, I'd sacrifice *anything*. Hmm ok that and the programmer's keypad (drop 4 fingers of the left hand, and the right surface keys become "handy" things you'd have to reach and/or shift for, like != , {}_,-> etc)
Ok it IS expensive, but looking at it, it's an investment.
And yeah, the surfaces are near-indestructible & easy to keep clean, the only possible problem is the ribbon cable between the two parts, and thats only if you bend it a lot while travelling etc.
I had no peers, zero, I was giving it a try for the first time. And I have no peers in taiwan, hungaria, russia nor any of the like of the domains "Little Snitch" was telling me skype was trying to connect to.
Now if I could explain why the Skype client tries to connect to lots of shady looking addresses (dhcp/DSL, in various countries etc) when I launch it in OSX, I'm sure I'd give it another try...
Until then, I'll just declare it spyware.
"Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected"
No they won't. mailing lists are delivered from known addresses. The first few message migth be delayed at most. Random PCs should not be able to send millions of mails without flow control. NOTHING should be able to send millions of mails without flow control.
"It is defenseless against brute force attacks"
Everything if defenceless against brute force attack, get a firewall.
"It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it"
We are already stuck with it, 2 weeks without it is worth it. Here it'd be about 40000 mails I would'nt have to receive.
"Users of email will not put up with it"
29 seconds delay max for legitimate emails, as compared to hundreds of MB of crap every month to sort out ?
"Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes" Should not be able to write email to my server at less that 30 seconds intervals.
"Extreme profitability of spam"
Hit them where it hurts. Their line being tied up will prevent them from sending millions of crap per hour. They'll have to get lots more fixed IPs JUST to get the port range they need. No more NAT.
"Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks"
it is MY bit of the network, there is no "public network" anywhere for the last 10 years. Unless your country wants to pay my bandwidth bill of course. I can do what I want with incoming connections. Each ISP can decide to "hold" for 30 seconds for unknown/new email routes without damaging any service.
So basicaly your little form just tells me you are a spammer. Perfectly tailored answer, no wonder you made it semi automatic & anonymous.
AND tarpit the bastards connections. Just do *nothing* for a minute or so instead of bouncing him. That way his email flooder will just engorge itself on (hopefully) lots of "slow" links and soon it'll be at the limits of his port range.
Email has a mostly human timescale. there is 0.[0]+1 chance one human email address getting email from random source every minutes. Tarpiting *everything* will not prevent legitimate "known" email from being delivered, but will overload the bots *very* rapidly.