Slashdot is really a group of perl files, etc. The main difficulty is configuration..not compilation. I think what we really want from him is a SNAPSHOT...just take whatever code there is and throw it into a tar file. Slashdot is really hardwired for their situation, and anyone else who wants to use it KNOWS that they will have to do a lot of work to make it work on their own configuration.
In comparison...Broadcast 2000 is a final release of a product made for others. From his release file, it looks like he is making it deliberately difficult to compile.
In fact, it currently won't compile at all for me, because I need to determine what typedef he left out of/quicktime/quicktime/jpeg.c
This source tree is for reference and posterity purposes, and possibly MMX. There is no support for building the source code. You should have already run the binary and decided Broadcast 2000 does something that you really want to do on a Linux box. If you can't build it, you should be doing other things as regards your GPA.
----SNIP----
And sure enough, there was just a make file, no configure script (which is when alarm bells start going through my head). I started compiling from the top level directory, and it stopped at
jpeg.c: In function `quicktime_read_markers_jpeg': jpeg.c:209: `jpeg_saved_marker_ptr' undeclared (first use in this function) jpeg.c:209: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once)
Which is not exactly an error caused by misconfiguration in the make files. I'll start going through that code now...
I hope what he put there was another one of his "jokes", because that kind of attitude really sucks. The programmer should ALWAYS provide a good build system. It takes VERY little time to do if you know how all the code is supposed to fit together. It is MUCH harder (and wasted time), for a prospective user to do the same.
If I run into a lot of annoying configuration problems, I'll write my own damn autoconf file for this code, and release it on a web page (since the author has little interest in including it in his package:P)
Building the code should not be made artificially difficult. You're not going to get rid of the losers in that way (the losers will all be screaming about RPM's (I am not implying that everyone who uses RPM's are losers)), but you are going to annoy the prospective programmers who are going to have to go through the code and reconstruct what you already KNOW. In my opinion, a sloppy build system is the product of sloppy programmers.
That's the biggest shortcoming on most man pages, and it makes a HUGE difference even when dealing with experienced users (such as myself). It's NOT enough to place the syntax at the top of each man page because "foo (time) [-aefh] (entry)" doesn't say what FORM we should put "time" or "entry" in.
Practical example: the man page for ln says that the syntax is "ln (source) (destination)". Of course, the "source" is actually what the link is POINTING TO, and the "destination" is the name of the link. Most people (including me) thought that it was the other way around, and made a mistake the first few times around. If the man page had an example section that showed "Example: ln -s/usr/src/linux-2.2.0 linux creates a link called linux pointing at the directory/usr/src/linux-2.2.0", then most of us wouldn't have made a mistake the first time around. Lots of other man pages are even worse in this respect, I've even grabbed the source code for some utilities and looked at the source code to determine what form it expects the input to be in.
Conclusion: *ALL* man pages that refer to commands that take command line input should have EXAMPLES of it being invoked. I'm not talking about a "HOW-TO" level of explantation, I'm talking about another 4 or 5 lines of the man page. It makes a BIG difference.
Yes, I understand what you're talking about with RPM'S introducing library incompatibilities..
But there's nothing that says that you need to use binary rpm's in the first place! Just do what I do...download the source for EVERYTHING, compile it once, and never have library problems again...
Any time I have had a library problem, a simple recompile fixes everything.
Debian's apt-get will grab the source for you in the same way that BSD grabs source for you.
Re:I LIKE TURNING TEENAGE GIRLS TO STONE
on
Live from a Sunspot
·
· Score: 1
Ok...what is WITH all these posts about turning women into stone and ((insert woman's name) NAKED AND PETRIFIED!)
Obviously, there's an inside joke that I haven't heard yet.
I guess I'm one of the "lucky ones" by your description. (I find Stevie Nicks in her current state to be very very attractive).
"Females on IRC (or net personal ads, the most common places for people to meet) are, on the average, substantially less attractive than society as a whole. i.e. the odds are good that the woman you meet on IRC will be fat or ugly."
I've never found that to be the case...especially looking at the picture galleries of different irc channels.
"If you can even manage to love your fat one, love can only make her seem slightly more attractive - beauty to awesome beauty, but grotesque fatness only to tolerable fatness."
I can't help but find something very disturbing in that comment...especially the "even manage" part. If physical appearance is THAT important in you LOVING someone..then you're going to have trouble sustaining a relationship throughout the aging process. Love is loving the mannerisms and the thought process and the personality of the person...she could be in a different body...but if she has the same mannerisms and the same personality and the same thought process, then I would think of her as the same person.
"So, watch out for those IRC girls. Bring your favorite intoxicant when you go to see them, if they're not attractive then you will be able to numb/alter your senses enough to want to have sex with them. (Which usually they will encourage, since they have noticed a pattern, sober men don't want to sleep with them)."
Now this is just bluntly insulting an entire group of people that you have not met at all. The rest of your comment may have been moderately thoughtful..this part is just made to insult and hurt and cause injury.
May I assume that you met a woman online, you then met her in real life, and you were somewhat tramatized by her not meeting your physical expectations, and because of that, you now feel obliged to write this comment as a way to work off your anger?
I think you need some mild psychological help, like a talk with a friend or something.
Maybe Dave's just TIRED, as *I* am, of having to support Windows...getting blamed when it craps out again and won't do something even though it should be able to, and corrupts itself and crashes and doesn't install correctly...and we, with all of our computer knowledge can't do SHIT because it's all closed and all propritary and made by people who think that "User Friendly" means "Don't give people ANY options...assume EVERYTHING..and then blow up in the fucking middle of the install when one of your stupid assumptions aren't met."
There's a REASON that we switched from Windows to Linux, and yet, we get pulled kicking and screaming into windows idiocy by clueless family members (and unfortunately) people that we actually love like our wife.
His policy of not giving support for Windows idiocy saved his wife AND himself from 3 years of torment, and now he's being forced to go back to windows idiocy by clueless web site operators...otherwise his wife wouldn't feel a need to go back to windows.
I think that his policy of only supporting Linux was correct...it taught his wife what REALLY WORKS and what is REALLY STABLE. He's angry as hell because that is being changed, not because his policy wasn't originally correct.
Before you say that he is mean, think of all the pain and suffering he saved his wife from for 3 years.
"Windows 95 Upgrade? WTF are you UPG'ing Win 95 FROM? 3.1??"
Yes, that's what the upgrade was from.
"As far as Win2K being a "business OS" -- AFAIK this was supposed to be the "Grand Unified Theory" of Windoze... the "one platform fits all" operating system designed as a clear upgrade path from both 98 and NT."
But it's not. They changed their minds..and there will be at least one more release of backwards compatible windows.
I don't think they'll ever get away from backwards compatibility...unless they emulate it. If there's anything that Y2K proves, people will NEVER get rid of software, no matter HOW old it is.
The price for a "Full" version of Windows 95 (as it said on the box, "Windows 95 for machines without windows") was $189 at the time that Windows 95 was released at Computer City. (I was working there at the time).
Have any studies been done relating the percentage of PHB's in upper-management of a company with the success of that company? Unless PHB's really do benefit a company in some way (upper management communication?), I would hope that they would eventually be naturally selected out.
Since everyone seems to hate the PHB, I wonder how they get hired/promoted in the first place. I would have to say that a company with a large amount of PHB's amounts to a house of cards..there'd be no way that I would want to work for that kind of company, because eventually, something would be thrown at it that it could not handle.
In the meantime, I've found a way to deal with PHB's, keep a technical manager between you and them at all times.:P
The only way I could ever imagine it being "taught" is through "sunday school"...which really isn't school...it's just indoctronation.
I most certainly could not see creationism being taught in a "real" class..like A.P Bio...there's no academic rigour to apply to it, no scientific studies done on any of the postulates...even the "religion" courses that I took had more rigour involved then this.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that you can "teach" a scientific theory, and verify it through experimentation (that's what those "labs" were for after all). You can only "read" religious theories, or state what they are...the reasoning behind it shouldn't really be teachable material, except maybe for history class.
That when CEO's are "playing" golf...what they are REALLY trying to do is cut business deals with suppliers, other companies, etc...which IS hard work.
Just because they look like they're playing doesn't mean that they just haven't found a more efficient way of talking with other businesses.
"People capable of ridiculous statements like "Anything run by the government usually doesn't work.""
Ok, I challenge you to name ONE thing (other then coercion) that the government does better then the private sector.
The only reason that the government exists is to coerce people..in otherwords, times when we need a law enforcement person to help get rid of that robber violating our right to property.
Education should NOT be about coercion, therefore, the government should not be in Education.
"Why should my taxes, as a non-parent, go to pay for some kid's Jesus-conditioning?"
Not all private schools are christian or religious schools...I went to two private schools that were completely non-religious....and a HELL of a lot better then the public schools I had gone to before then.
A song that is actually DECENT comes on while you're holding...and 5 seconds into it...
*click*
"Your call IS important to us. Please continue to hold. Your call will be answered in the order that it was received."
*10 seconds of silence*
*5 seconds of the decent song* then...
*click*...*repeat cycle*
WHY do they do this? This is more annoying than the WORST hold music that could possibly be played. I can't just put the phone on speakerphone and keep working on whatever I was working on before because I keep getting distracted by the damn *click* making me think that an actual human being has picked up the phone.
I'm willing to wait on hold as long as I can do something ELSE while on hold. Tricking me into thinking that they have actually answered the phone when they haven't is insulting and annoying, and makes me much MORE resentful of the hold time.
In cases like this (a DoM (Denial of Moderation) attack), someone should just mail rob about it and have him moderate all of it down so we don't lose the ability to moderate other parts of the thread.
It's hard for somebody to get a job and get on with their lives in this world unless they are allowed to drive. 18 is simply too old, too long to wait before people are allowed to be responsible.
Good luck trying to say that "underaged" people shouldn't have sex.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a difference here...
/quicktime/quicktime/jpeg.c
Slashdot is really a group of perl files, etc. The main difficulty is configuration..not compilation. I think what we really want from him is a SNAPSHOT...just take whatever code there is and throw it into a tar file. Slashdot is really hardwired for their situation, and anyone else who wants to use it KNOWS that they will have to do a lot of work to make it work on their own configuration.
In comparison...Broadcast 2000 is a final release of a product made for others. From his release file, it looks like he is making it deliberately difficult to compile.
In fact, it currently won't compile at all for me, because I need to determine what typedef he left out of
In the "Readme.src" file...
:P)
----SNIP-----
This source tree is for reference and posterity purposes, and possibly
MMX. There is no support for building the source code. You should
have already run the binary and decided Broadcast 2000 does something
that you really want to do on a Linux box. If you can't build it, you
should be doing other things as regards your GPA.
----SNIP----
And sure enough, there was just a make file, no configure script (which is when alarm bells start going through my head). I started compiling from the top level directory, and it stopped at
jpeg.c: In function `quicktime_read_markers_jpeg':
jpeg.c:209: `jpeg_saved_marker_ptr' undeclared (first use in this function)
jpeg.c:209: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once)
Which is not exactly an error caused by misconfiguration in the make files. I'll start
going through that code now...
I hope what he put there was another one of his "jokes", because that kind of attitude really sucks. The programmer should ALWAYS provide a good build system. It takes VERY little time to do if you know how all the code is supposed to fit together. It is MUCH harder (and wasted time), for a prospective user to do the same.
If I run into a lot of annoying configuration problems, I'll write my own damn autoconf file for this code, and release it on a web page (since the author has little interest in including it in his package
Building the code should not be made artificially difficult. You're not going to get rid of the losers in that way (the losers will all be screaming about RPM's (I am not implying that everyone who uses RPM's are losers)), but you are
going to annoy the prospective programmers who are going to have to go through the code and reconstruct what you already KNOW. In my opinion, a sloppy build system is the product of sloppy programmers.
That's the biggest shortcoming on most man pages, and it makes a HUGE difference even when dealing with experienced users (such as myself). It's NOT enough to place the syntax at the top of each man page because "foo (time) [-aefh] (entry)" doesn't say what FORM we should put "time" or "entry" in.
/usr/src/linux-2.2.0 linux creates a link called linux pointing at the directory /usr/src/linux-2.2.0", then most of us wouldn't have made a mistake the first time around. Lots of other man pages are even worse in this respect, I've even grabbed the source code for some utilities and looked at the source code to determine what form it expects the input to be in.
Practical example: the man page for ln says that the syntax is "ln (source) (destination)". Of course, the "source" is actually what the link is POINTING TO, and the "destination" is the name of the link. Most people (including me) thought that it was the other way around, and made a mistake the first few times around. If the man page had an example section that showed "Example: ln -s
Conclusion: *ALL* man pages that refer to commands that take command line input should have EXAMPLES of it being invoked. I'm not talking about a "HOW-TO" level of explantation, I'm talking about another 4 or 5 lines of the man page. It makes a BIG difference.
".It has happened in the US already...pass out wake up with a note telling you to call an ambulance NOW because your kidneys are GONE...."
m
This is an urban legend:
http://www.snopes.com/horrors/robbery/kidney.ht
gives more information about it.
Yes, I understand what you're talking about with RPM'S introducing library incompatibilities..
But there's nothing that says that you need to use binary rpm's in the first place! Just do what I do...download the source for EVERYTHING, compile it once, and never have library problems again...
Any time I have had a library problem, a simple recompile fixes everything.
Debian's apt-get will grab the source for you in the same way that BSD grabs source for you.
Ok...what is WITH all these posts about turning women into stone and ((insert woman's name) NAKED AND PETRIFIED!)
Obviously, there's an inside joke that I haven't heard yet.
As in Phish, Live Dave Matthews, Live Bruce Hornsby, Live Greatful Dead...and your OWN music.
Those are allowed to be freely distributed.
I guess I'm one of the "lucky ones" by your description. (I find Stevie Nicks in her current state to be very very attractive).
"Females on IRC (or net personal ads, the most common places for people to meet) are, on the average, substantially less attractive than society as a whole. i.e. the odds are good that the woman you meet on IRC will be fat or ugly."
I've never found that to be the case...especially looking at the picture galleries of different irc channels.
"If you can even manage to love your fat one, love can only make her seem slightly more attractive - beauty to awesome beauty, but grotesque fatness only to tolerable fatness."
I can't help but find something very disturbing in that comment...especially the "even manage" part. If physical appearance is THAT important in you LOVING someone..then you're going to have trouble sustaining a relationship throughout the aging process. Love is loving the mannerisms and the thought process and the personality of the person...she could be in a different body...but if she has the same mannerisms and the same personality and the same thought process, then I would think of her as the same person.
"So, watch out for those IRC girls. Bring your favorite intoxicant when you go to see them, if they're not attractive then you will be able to numb/alter your senses enough to want to have sex with them. (Which usually they will encourage, since they have noticed a pattern, sober men don't want to sleep with them)."
Now this is just bluntly insulting an entire group of people that you have not met at all. The rest of your comment may have been moderately thoughtful..this part is just made to insult and hurt and cause injury.
May I assume that you met a woman online, you then met her in real life, and you were somewhat tramatized by her not meeting your physical expectations, and because of that, you now feel obliged to write this comment as a way to work off your anger?
I think you need some mild psychological help, like a talk with a friend or something.
Maybe Dave's just TIRED, as *I* am, of having to support Windows...getting blamed when it craps out again and won't do something even though it should be able to, and corrupts itself and crashes and doesn't install correctly...and we, with all of our computer knowledge can't do SHIT because it's all closed and all propritary and made by people who think that "User Friendly" means "Don't give people ANY options...assume EVERYTHING..and then blow up in the fucking middle of the install when one of your stupid assumptions aren't met."
There's a REASON that we switched from Windows to Linux, and yet, we get pulled kicking and screaming into windows idiocy by clueless family members (and unfortunately) people that we actually love like our wife.
His policy of not giving support for Windows idiocy saved his wife AND himself from 3 years of torment, and now he's being forced to go back to windows idiocy by clueless web site operators...otherwise his wife wouldn't feel a need to go back to windows.
I think that his policy of only supporting Linux was correct...it taught his wife what REALLY WORKS and what is REALLY STABLE. He's angry as hell because that is being changed, not because his policy wasn't originally correct.
Before you say that he is mean, think of all the pain and suffering he saved his wife from for 3 years.
"Windows 95 Upgrade? WTF are you UPG'ing Win 95 FROM? 3.1??"
Yes, that's what the upgrade was from.
"As far as Win2K being a "business OS" -- AFAIK this was supposed to be the "Grand Unified Theory" of Windoze... the "one platform fits all" operating system designed as a clear upgrade path from both 98 and NT."
But it's not. They changed their minds..and there will be at least one more release of backwards compatible windows.
I don't think they'll ever get away from backwards compatibility...unless they emulate it. If there's anything that Y2K proves, people will NEVER get rid of software, no matter HOW old it is.
Win95... approx $99.00.
No...that was the Upgrade price.
The price for a "Full" version of Windows 95 (as it said on the box, "Windows 95 for machines without windows") was $189 at the time that Windows 95 was released at Computer City. (I was working there at the time).
"If you go and fight/die for your country at 18, the bars on millitary bases allow 18-year-olds in."
:P
Really? They'll allow you to come in and drink after you die for your country? How nice of them.
"Error: W_GetNumForName: SWITCHES not found!"
The code that prints this message is in w_wad.c:
int W_GetNumForName(char *name)
{
int i;
i = W_CheckNumForName(name);
if (i == -1)
I_Error("W_GetNumForName: %s not found!", name);
return i;
}
Have any studies been done relating the percentage of PHB's in upper-management of a company with the success of that company? Unless PHB's really do benefit a company in some way (upper management communication?), I would hope that they would eventually be naturally selected out.
:P
Since everyone seems to hate the PHB, I wonder how they get hired/promoted in the first place. I would have to say that a company with a large amount of PHB's amounts to a house of cards..there'd be no way that I would want to work for that kind of company, because eventually, something would be thrown at it that it could not handle.
In the meantime, I've found a way to deal with PHB's, keep a technical manager between you and them at all times.
(For ECES 281 at CWRU)
This is a good textbook, the one thing that it really lacks is examples of how to do the homework problems at the end of each chapter.
Sure, you scan back through chapter after chapter and eventually you see how to do it, but it doesn't come easily at all.
So what IS true? Correct the mis-information here and people will read it and know the truth.
The only way I could ever imagine it being "taught" is through "sunday school"...which really isn't school...it's just indoctronation.
I most certainly could not see creationism being taught in a "real" class..like A.P Bio...there's no academic rigour to apply to it, no scientific studies done on any of the postulates...even the "religion" courses that I took had more rigour involved then this.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that you can "teach" a scientific theory, and verify it through experimentation (that's what those "labs" were for after all). You can only "read" religious theories, or state what they are...the reasoning behind it shouldn't really be teachable material, except maybe for history class.
There's s limit to how much can be controlled by one entity, and a lot of money can be made by small-detail oriented companies serving their niche.
And then some customers prefer to deal with small companies. Not all people like to shop at Walmart, Tops and Kohls.
That when CEO's are "playing" golf...what they are REALLY trying to do is cut business deals with suppliers, other companies, etc...which IS hard work.
Just because they look like they're playing doesn't mean that they just haven't found a more efficient way of talking with other businesses.
"People capable of ridiculous statements like "Anything run by the government usually doesn't work.""
Ok, I challenge you to name ONE thing (other then coercion) that the government does better then the private sector.
The only reason that the government exists is to coerce people..in otherwords, times when we need a law enforcement person to help get rid of that robber violating our right to property.
Education should NOT be about coercion, therefore, the government should not be in Education.
"Why should my taxes, as a non-parent, go to pay for some kid's Jesus-conditioning?"
Not all private schools are christian or religious schools...I went to two private schools that were completely non-religious....and a HELL of a lot better then the public schools I had gone to before then.
A song that is actually DECENT comes on while you're holding...and 5 seconds into it...
*click*
"Your call IS important to us. Please continue to hold. Your call will be answered in the order that it was received."
*10 seconds of silence*
*5 seconds of the decent song* then...
*click*...*repeat cycle*
WHY do they do this? This is more annoying than the WORST hold music that could possibly be played. I can't just put the phone on speakerphone and keep working on whatever I was working on before because I keep getting distracted by the damn *click* making me think that an actual human being has picked up the phone.
I'm willing to wait on hold as long as I can do something ELSE while on hold. Tricking me into thinking that they have actually answered the phone when they haven't is insulting and annoying, and makes me much MORE resentful of the hold time.
In cases like this (a DoM (Denial of Moderation) attack), someone should just mail rob about it and have him moderate all of it down so we don't lose the ability to moderate other parts of the thread.
Umm, no subject, no body, no nothing.
Why does slash allow null comments to be posted?
wow. Looks like somebody discovered the "yes" command.
It's hard for somebody to get a job and get on with their lives in this world unless they are allowed to drive. 18 is simply too old, too long to wait before people are allowed to be responsible.
Good luck trying to say that "underaged" people shouldn't have sex.