No dipshit, the only "agenda" I have to push is that for a modern, user-friendly performant Linux. I encourage and am supportive of things that make it happen. If we want to talk about "agenda" then you can start with yourself because you leap out of the woodwork on every Wayland post going all the way back beyond 2012 to whine and spread fud about it.
Wayland and Weston dropped 1.0.x and 1.1.0 early in 2013 before Mir was announced. The protocol format was frozen, the core functionality was frozen, there was a client/server implementation, there was a reference window manager. So Wayland was an actual functioning, demonstrable system that upstreams proceeded to make work with their own code. Even the GTK and QT backends were in a working state of development in 2013. Full desktops began appearing in development form from 2014 onwards. Fedora defaulted to Wayland in 2016. This is not conjecture, it is very easy to verify.
Samsung makes good hardware and then ruins it with firmware packed full of useless features and crapware. Frankly I doubt it matters if the S8 has a "dedicated button" or whether it responds to voice commands or not because nobody asked for the feature and very few are going to start using it whether it is there or not.
The wheel-reinventing was a direct consequence of their phone ambitions. They wanted the phone / tablet cake all to themselves so they put bits into the stack that were encumbered with GPL3 for everyone else while they could do with them as they saw fit.
Upstream projects and contributors had a problem with this and so the work of maintaining Mir and backends for upstream projects was pushed back on Ubuntu. Then when the phone flopped all the stuff became surplus to requirements.
I think they would have enjoyed more success with their mobile platform to have used Wayland in the first place. They wouldn't have had to hire so many people to work on it, wouldn't have alienated other contributors, and would probably still have held stewardship of their mobile platform. Even if it still flopped it would have been a cheaper flop than the one they're facing now.
Look at the price of tickets that you can reschedule compared to those that you can't. It's already factored into the price and nothing to do with this.
If a plane has 100 seats and they know on average that 4 people won't show up they might be inclined to sell a couple of extra seats. It's free money, especially since tickets on a nearly-full aircraft sell for more money than those on an empty one.
It must be profitable even after compensating every one that they bump.
I see it becoming another Second Life. Heavily monetized, heavily hyped, with headlines about people buying land / designs for huge sums of money. Then it'll crash and burn the way SL did.
It'll be shame to see it happen because Minecraft is great for kids but the more they monetize it the suckier it gets.
Boeing is contractually obliged to deliver aircraft to agreed specifications such as weight, takeoff speed, cruising speed etc. subject to penalties if they don't. A large aircraft probably has hundreds of parts milled or cast from solid material that could potentially be printed with a honeycomb / lattice saving a huge amount of weight.
That's where the cost savings lie - avoiding the penalties of failing to meet their contract and delivering a faster, more fuel efficient aircraft.
They could probably produce something which looks and feels extremely close to the existing Unity using GNOME shell. They're not forced to take the default behaviour if they don't want it although that is not a bad decision either. Perhaps they'll also dump Mir while they're at it.
I expect all the Switch does when docked is run at a higher clock rate. The extra heat combined with the confined space interfering with dissipation could potentially warp the case if the software is not monitoring the temperature properly and taking measures to avoid it.
Maybe they can resolve the issue in firmware by cranking up the fan more aggressively. Maybe people are just stuck with the problem and it can be added to all the rest.
It's a stupid idea. People work for a couple of years in a company and move on, yet they're suppose to have a foreign object inserted into them that remains for the rest of their life? Sane companies issue swipe cards, key fobs or similar to their employees.
The same could be said for gcc, clang or a bunch of other non-C++ languages. Most toolchains are produced by compiling themselves with previous iterations. Yes, perhaps you could potentially devise a test to prove that gcc wasn't doing something nefarious by comparing the output of gcc compiled with gcc to gcc compiled with evilcc but does that happen? And even if it happens for gcc, does it happen for every language that forms part of a modern distribution.
That said I think it would be beneficial to see another implementation of Rust. A single impl does increase the risk of allowing problems to slip through and a separate impl could catch some problems. At the end of the day the two should be interchangeable.
I'm not suggesting artificially raising the barrier, but if the people contributing don't understand type-safety, pointer-safety, etc. then does stripping all that out so they can contribute actually make better code? I would suggest that it actually achieves the opposite, long-term.
It doesn't strip out type safety. It is a strongly typed language. In some ways more strongly typed than C or C++ because it doesn't allow you to cast things except some numeric types. What the language does allow you to do is skip the type declaration if the compiler can infer it from your code but it still enforces that type. So you couldn't assign a variable to be a bool or an int from two branches of a conditional for example.
Pointer safety isn't an issue because you don't use pointers in safe programming. You can use a reference, a bit like in C++ but not a pointer. And the thing you hold a reference to is guaranteed to be there thanks to compiler lifetime checks. In a sense it forces the programmer to think more carefully about who creates and owns objects and their lifetime because they're not going to get past the compiler until they do.
BTW Rust does support pointers and casting but you have to use them from explicit unsafe blocks. So if I absolutely knew some chunk of memory was a kind of type I could force the compiler to trust me. Likewise if I had to talk with a C-library which returned NULL or took NULL as an arg I can do that too. However Rust is safe by default..
Then why isn't such a thing part of the standard? Or at least in such common use that it is a defacto part of the standard?
If you were writing a real world application that pulled in half a dozen libs, then each of those is going to do different things with varying degrees of rigor plus your own code. Even the most scrutinized code in the world contains buffer overflow vulns so chances are your application does too. That probably doesn't matter for a game. It matters a lot for a system process or something facing the internet like a browser or an anonymizing protocol.
An entire class of problems in C simply don't exist in Rust because it has proper intrinsic types for strings and arrays. Static info is enforced at compile time. The length of strings / arrays is enforced at runtime. Lifetime / borrow checking means you can't inadvertently read or write to garbage either. Rust is no panacea but it shuts down a pile of problems that plague C and C++. It's not hard to see why some people are beginning to advocate its use.
A tiny mistake in C++ can be just as fatal. Besides which C++ is mostly a superset of C so it can make all the mistakes that C allows and a whole heap of its own on top.
The Rust compiler is written in Rust, i.e. its self hosting. It was originally written in OCaml but has been ported to itself for a long time.
However it emits bitcode which is optimized and transformed into machine code by LLVM. So after code has passed the multitude of safety checks in the front end it shares a substantial portion of its toolchain with Clang and other languages that make use of LLVM.
In the UK VAT is included to the retail price of items. So when Tesco sells Horizon: Beyond Dawn brand new for £44 it includes 20% or £8.80 of tax so its effectively only £35.20 them. Their profit is £35.20 less costs and the wholesale price. So if the wholesale price was £30, their profit less costs is £5.20.
Meanwhile CeX sell the Horizon: Beyond Dawn USED for £44. They bought it from someone for £29. They only pay a reduced VAT of 16.67% on the £15 buy / sell margin so the VAT is £2.50 and therefore their profit less costs is £12.50.
This is why its so egregious. CeX are making obscene margins from selling used games and not even having the good grace to offer a discount on them vs brand new in other places. I'd agree overall they're slightly better than Gamestop (and GAME) but only slightly and that's damning with faint praise since these other outlets are pulling the same con.
I don't know how CeX prices stuff in the US but I wouldn't be surprised if there were tax codes that benefited the sale of second hand goods there too.
If the Galaxy S8 shipped with removable batteries then it wouldn't matter half as much if some were faulty. They could simply ship out replacements. Embarrassing yet but nowhere near as embarrassing as having to recall, refund and junk every single device.
It was their desire to copy Apple and build obsolescence into their devices with sealed in batteries that tripped them up. The Note 7 became obsolete a lot sooner than even they were expecting.
Slashdot Mirror
No dipshit, the only "agenda" I have to push is that for a modern, user-friendly performant Linux. I encourage and am supportive of things that make it happen. If we want to talk about "agenda" then you can start with yourself because you leap out of the woodwork on every Wayland post going all the way back beyond 2012 to whine and spread fud about it.
I was paying attention at the time.
What's hilarious is you know all this.
No it didn't. Wayland (and Weston) had reached 1.0 were working even as Mir was announced. As you well know.
Samsung makes good hardware and then ruins it with firmware packed full of useless features and crapware. Frankly I doubt it matters if the S8 has a "dedicated button" or whether it responds to voice commands or not because nobody asked for the feature and very few are going to start using it whether it is there or not.
Upstream projects and contributors had a problem with this and so the work of maintaining Mir and backends for upstream projects was pushed back on Ubuntu. Then when the phone flopped all the stuff became surplus to requirements.
I think they would have enjoyed more success with their mobile platform to have used Wayland in the first place. They wouldn't have had to hire so many people to work on it, wouldn't have alienated other contributors, and would probably still have held stewardship of their mobile platform. Even if it still flopped it would have been a cheaper flop than the one they're facing now.
It's unclear to me why anyone would quit if they're about to be laid off. Chances are they'll get some kind of severance.
Look at the price of tickets that you can reschedule compared to those that you can't. It's already factored into the price and nothing to do with this.
Most people would drive forwards without turns for more than 25% of their journeys. Self drive vehicles should be able handle this reliably by 2030.
It must be profitable even after compensating every one that they bump.
It'll be shame to see it happen because Minecraft is great for kids but the more they monetize it the suckier it gets.
That's where the cost savings lie - avoiding the penalties of failing to meet their contract and delivering a faster, more fuel efficient aircraft.
They could probably produce something which looks and feels extremely close to the existing Unity using GNOME shell. They're not forced to take the default behaviour if they don't want it although that is not a bad decision either. Perhaps they'll also dump Mir while they're at it.
I expect all the Switch does when docked is run at a higher clock rate. The extra heat combined with the confined space interfering with dissipation could potentially warp the case if the software is not monitoring the temperature properly and taking measures to avoid it. Maybe they can resolve the issue in firmware by cranking up the fan more aggressively. Maybe people are just stuck with the problem and it can be added to all the rest.
It can be easily removed by not having it inserted in the first place.
It's a stupid idea. People work for a couple of years in a company and move on, yet they're suppose to have a foreign object inserted into them that remains for the rest of their life? Sane companies issue swipe cards, key fobs or similar to their employees.
That said I think it would be beneficial to see another implementation of Rust. A single impl does increase the risk of allowing problems to slip through and a separate impl could catch some problems. At the end of the day the two should be interchangeable.
I'm not suggesting artificially raising the barrier, but if the people contributing don't understand type-safety, pointer-safety, etc. then does stripping all that out so they can contribute actually make better code? I would suggest that it actually achieves the opposite, long-term.
It doesn't strip out type safety. It is a strongly typed language. In some ways more strongly typed than C or C++ because it doesn't allow you to cast things except some numeric types. What the language does allow you to do is skip the type declaration if the compiler can infer it from your code but it still enforces that type. So you couldn't assign a variable to be a bool or an int from two branches of a conditional for example.
Pointer safety isn't an issue because you don't use pointers in safe programming. You can use a reference, a bit like in C++ but not a pointer. And the thing you hold a reference to is guaranteed to be there thanks to compiler lifetime checks. In a sense it forces the programmer to think more carefully about who creates and owns objects and their lifetime because they're not going to get past the compiler until they do.
BTW Rust does support pointers and casting but you have to use them from explicit unsafe blocks. So if I absolutely knew some chunk of memory was a kind of type I could force the compiler to trust me. Likewise if I had to talk with a C-library which returned NULL or took NULL as an arg I can do that too. However Rust is safe by default..
Rust compiles to native machine code. Performance is comparable to C or C++.
If you were writing a real world application that pulled in half a dozen libs, then each of those is going to do different things with varying degrees of rigor plus your own code. Even the most scrutinized code in the world contains buffer overflow vulns so chances are your application does too. That probably doesn't matter for a game. It matters a lot for a system process or something facing the internet like a browser or an anonymizing protocol.
An entire class of problems in C simply don't exist in Rust because it has proper intrinsic types for strings and arrays. Static info is enforced at compile time. The length of strings / arrays is enforced at runtime. Lifetime / borrow checking means you can't inadvertently read or write to garbage either. Rust is no panacea but it shuts down a pile of problems that plague C and C++. It's not hard to see why some people are beginning to advocate its use.
A tiny mistake in C++ can be just as fatal. Besides which C++ is mostly a superset of C so it can make all the mistakes that C allows and a whole heap of its own on top.
However it emits bitcode which is optimized and transformed into machine code by LLVM. So after code has passed the multitude of safety checks in the front end it shares a substantial portion of its toolchain with Clang and other languages that make use of LLVM.
It's only dumb if you didn't grasp the point.
Meanwhile CeX sell the Horizon: Beyond Dawn USED for £44. They bought it from someone for £29. They only pay a reduced VAT of 16.67% on the £15 buy / sell margin so the VAT is £2.50 and therefore their profit less costs is £12.50.
This is why its so egregious. CeX are making obscene margins from selling used games and not even having the good grace to offer a discount on them vs brand new in other places. I'd agree overall they're slightly better than Gamestop (and GAME) but only slightly and that's damning with faint praise since these other outlets are pulling the same con.
I don't know how CeX prices stuff in the US but I wouldn't be surprised if there were tax codes that benefited the sale of second hand goods there too.
It was their desire to copy Apple and build obsolescence into their devices with sealed in batteries that tripped them up. The Note 7 became obsolete a lot sooner than even they were expecting.