And where did I say anything like "X sux..."? I said Wayland is going to have the benefit of the work that was done on X to create drivers, and the benefit of people on its team who generally understand those drivers. And you attacked like some sort of rabid mongoose.
I like X. I use its remote features regularly. And I'm quite satisfied with its performance. I'm going to be reluctant to switch to Wayland until it supports (directly or through XWayland) all the features I need. Nevertheless, I think I'm probably going to end up running Wayland/XWayland in the not-too-distant future. It's already installed on my system, since most of its libraries were dragged in by some package dependencies I haven't bothered to track down. And I like variety and options, so I'll probably start playing with it soon. I have tried the sample terminal client, and that seems to be working just fine.
It's still referred to as an orbit, even if it doesn't resemble a classical orbit.
What they do is more akin to being standing waves surrounding them.
Except that, unlike what's usually referred to as a wave at that level, it has nothing to do with frequency. It's more of a probability wave. But it's still subject to the exclusion principle, which really complicates matters. Two electrons can't occupy the same location, but location itself is a tricky concept at that scale.
Anyway, all of that just goes to make my point. The very small (and the very large) are not like what we experience at the human scale. Reality is not fractal in that sense.
Dig deeper, and you soon hit the Planck length, so, no. Really small things don't resemble larger things at all. That's why QM is so counter-intuitive. Heck, you don't even have to dig that deep to realize that an atom does not resemble the solar system, even though both have small things orbiting a large central mass.
For that matter, go the other way, and you hit the light-speed barrier, which has a huge effect on the way really big things work. The very large and the very small are both immensely different from each other and from things on what we consider a normal, human scale. Your notion is poetic, but contradicts most of the physics discovered since the early 20th c.
Think about the time spent by XFree86 developers over the decades writing acceleration code versus everything else, and that's the part we're missing right now.
The Wayland developers are, for the most part, the X developers, so they not only have access to all that existing X driver code that took so long to write, they're the folks who best understand that code, and know how to adapt it to a new environment. They're standing on the shoulders of giants (and in some cases, are the giants).
The biggest changes we should expect to see are in the API. Under the hood, I expect to see a whole lot of code that's identical to the current Xserver, or nearly so. As I understand it, the biggest issue right now is making sure that Wayland has the security X always lacked. Security, rather than hardware details, is probably the biggest obstacle to getting the acceleration in.
Turbo Pascal came out in 1983, two years before the first release of GNU Emacs. However, Maestro I (1975) seems to be generally credited as being the first IDE (although some argue for Dartmouth BASIC from 1964).
Except that only Ceres is big enough to have become a spheroid under the pressure of its own gravity. Which is actually a pretty significant feature (unlike the orbit nonsense), and a fairly solid reason for putting something in a separate category from "random rock".
Vesta was actually on the bubble for a while. Despite the big chunk missing from one side, the final decision about whether it would be a dwarf planet or asteroid wasn't made until the Dawn mission gave us a better close-up look.
I'm actually more interested in making Ceres an official planet. Pluto's a big comet. It comes from the Kuiper belt, and doesn't really resemble anything in the inner system. I can certainly understand giving it a different classification. Ceres, on the other hand, is more similar to Mercury than Mercury is to Jupiter, and I don't see any reason at all to classify it separately.
I can see using "cleared its orbit" to separate classes of planets, so Ceres can be a dwarf planet, but "dwarf planet" should be a type of planet! It's got planet right there in the name! We could even have other classes of planet, like Gas Giant, so the whole "Mercury is classified with Jupiter instead of Ceres" nonsense would be resolved.
Frankly, I'd just as soon see them drop any mention of orbits from the definition. Why *shouldn't* Luna and Ganymede and Titan be considered planets? They'd still be moons, but there's no reason something can't fit into more than one category.
Heck, there are so many more interesting features they could have used to define categories: does it have an atmosphere? Does it have its own satellites?
The current definition is a horrible compromise designed to piss off as many people as possible, without offering anything useful. I realize it was intended to try to rock the boat as little as possible, but it hasn't even done that!
And how the hell do you come up with two fields in the right position?
Your reading skills are weak. I said zero in the right position, but two (MD) in the right order.
And one final thing: under ISO 8601, you must only drop precision. This means, you can say 2014-03, but you can't say 03-15.
That's silly. How do I (someone who routinely uses ISO8601) describe my birthday, or any other annual event? Certainly not by reversing the order of MD from what ISO prescribes, even if ISO won't certify the result as a valid date. Christmas last year was 2013-12-25. Christmas in general is *-12-25, or 12-25 for short.
I agree that education has a value, and I still wouldn't buy this for $2400, or even $1200 or $600. When you consider that it is just video material --- it's definitely not worth so much.
Ah, well, I can't comment on this particular course, since I know nothing about it, but in general, courses designed for working professionals whose companies want them to learn new skills and continue to be useful for the company are not cheap. It's not like taking classes at your local community college.
Of course, the fact that you're talking about spending your own money suggests that you don't work at a company that values ongoing education for its employees, in which case, sucks to be you!:p;)
The same people complaining about Valve instructing people do disable SELinux are the very first people to recommend doing exactly the same thing when someone online asks "How do I do [basic thing] in Linux? It doesn't seem to be working." There isn't a single message board dedicated to Linux that isn't filled with "disable SELinux" posts.
Really? The same people? You have proof of this, I assume? 'Cause there's a hell of a lot of people using Linux these days, in all sorts of forms, and all sorts of environments. Many of these people have (and I realize this may come as a complete shock) wildly differing opinions on things! Some love SELinux, some hate it, and some are neutral. Some even think it's appropriate in some situations but not others, and these might fit in your hypothetical category, but in my experience, most of those think SELinux is mainly useful for servers, and a waste of time for personal desktop systems, which makes it unlikely that they'd be complaining in this instance.
Now I don't mind some hyperbole. I personally know several linux subforums that contain no mention of SELinux, pro or con, but I understand what you meant by your last sentence, and agree with the underlying notion, even if the words aren't literally true. But your suggestion that it's actually the same people who say "disable SELinux" who are complaining in this case strikes me as so preposterous that it needs to be challenged. You're basically trying to paint all Linux users with the hypocrite brush. (Or, at least, all those with an opinion on SELinux.) And I want some damn good evidence before I buy that line of crap!
Do you also think the people who proclaim that consoles are dead and that PC gaming is king are the same ones out buying all the new consoles? Because that makes just about as much sense. They're all gamers, and all gamers think exactly the same. Right?
Really not sure how you got modded "insightful", but hey, this is slashdot...
The kind of person who thinks an education has value?
The kind of person who prefers to learn things in an orderly fashion, rather than digging through random piles of source code and "free" advice from the internet of questionable utility and accuracy? And who is willing to pay for that privilege, or who works for a company that has a budget for ongoing education?
"The problem is that if the FSF actually intends people to use GNU code in their own creations, then giving people at least the option of relicensing that code in any way that might support their business model will go a long way towards doing that."
I don't see how what Getty is doing here (use it for free in this way, or pay money to use it some other way) is any different from what many companies are doing with GPL'd code (use it this way for free or pay money to use it some other way). Other than "in this case, it affects ME-E-E!!"
As long as the government just keeps dropping it, then the EFF can just keep spending time and money sending in motions!
And that's the sort of thing that Anti-SLAPP laws are designed to prevent. If you live somewhere that doesn't have anti-SLAPP laws, I strongly recommend never doing anything that might piss off someone with money, whether government or private.
As for the just-one-cup issue, there are dozens of other options, from single-use filters to single-cup-size presses to simple espresso machines. I have a press that doubles as a travel cup.
Folgers or another brand, etc.
I rest my case on the horrible taste issue. No one with any taste in coffee would ever mention Folgers, except as a how-NOT-to!:D
You're doing it wrong. For pure Unix, you need to start with a SysV source license. It's a little more work that way, but the results should be more than worth it!:D
Of course, it might be a bit tricky to get your hands on one at the moment, since owner Novell had a tiny falling out with exclusive license reseller SCO. Still, you might be able to pick one up on the second-hand market. I understand that Daimler-Chrysler has one they're no longer using--at least according to their response to SCO's subpoena.
There are several ways to do polymorphism in C, and those are both examples. See, for example, qsort(). The real answer to the question "how do you do polymorphism in C", though, is "awkwardly!":)
It doesn't even meet the POSIX specs which would be required (it ignores part of that just because they don't really make any sense).
Since a version of Linux was certified to meet the Single Unix Spec (SUS) years ago, simply by adding STREAMs (which Linus has refused to add to the mainstream kernel for good reason), and since SUS is far stricter than POSIX, I doubt this. (Also, STREAMs were made optional in more recent versions of the SUS, so any random vanilla Linux system might well be certifiable as a True Unix(tm) today, if anyone actually cared.)
I suspect you are A) getting your standards mixed up, and B) relying on out-of-date information, but please feel free to prove me wrong with specific examples from POSIX, if you can.
POSIX is a really low bar to meet. In fact, some elements of it were specifically designed to allow VMS to meet the standard (which is how NT was also able to do so, at one point). If you're trying to suggest that VMS or NT is a better "emulation" of Unix than Linux, I can only conclude that you've never used any of the systems in question!:)
That assumes that the devs have the time and interest to learn the ins and outs of a whole new platform. For software developers, free time is often a more precious commodity than cash. But yes, it would certainly be more productive than whining on a random internet forum.
They've also had an announcement on the front page of their website for at least a year asking for help with the Mac port. If they don't own Macs and aren't familiar with the platform, and can't test, I don't know how you think they can magically fix these things.
You do realize we're talking about the Internet Archive/Wayback Machine here? They already have backups of the old 4chan threads! This is just a way to make it easier to access that data.
The Archive, like Google, already crawls the web and caches pretty much everything. The difference is that Google replaces the contents of their caches when they crawl something a second time, while the Archive archive keeps both copies, with timestamps.
Slashdot Mirror
And where did I say anything like "X sux..."? I said Wayland is going to have the benefit of the work that was done on X to create drivers, and the benefit of people on its team who generally understand those drivers. And you attacked like some sort of rabid mongoose.
I like X. I use its remote features regularly. And I'm quite satisfied with its performance. I'm going to be reluctant to switch to Wayland until it supports (directly or through XWayland) all the features I need. Nevertheless, I think I'm probably going to end up running Wayland/XWayland in the not-too-distant future. It's already installed on my system, since most of its libraries were dragged in by some package dependencies I haven't bothered to track down. And I like variety and options, so I'll probably start playing with it soon. I have tried the sample terminal client, and that seems to be working just fine.
Actually electrons DON'T orbit nuclei.
It's still referred to as an orbit, even if it doesn't resemble a classical orbit.
What they do is more akin to being standing waves surrounding them.
Except that, unlike what's usually referred to as a wave at that level, it has nothing to do with frequency. It's more of a probability wave. But it's still subject to the exclusion principle, which really complicates matters. Two electrons can't occupy the same location, but location itself is a tricky concept at that scale.
Anyway, all of that just goes to make my point. The very small (and the very large) are not like what we experience at the human scale. Reality is not fractal in that sense.
Dig deeper, and you soon hit the Planck length, so, no. Really small things don't resemble larger things at all. That's why QM is so counter-intuitive. Heck, you don't even have to dig that deep to realize that an atom does not resemble the solar system, even though both have small things orbiting a large central mass.
For that matter, go the other way, and you hit the light-speed barrier, which has a huge effect on the way really big things work. The very large and the very small are both immensely different from each other and from things on what we consider a normal, human scale. Your notion is poetic, but contradicts most of the physics discovered since the early 20th c.
Think about the time spent by XFree86 developers over the decades writing acceleration code versus everything else, and that's the part we're missing right now.
The Wayland developers are, for the most part, the X developers, so they not only have access to all that existing X driver code that took so long to write, they're the folks who best understand that code, and know how to adapt it to a new environment. They're standing on the shoulders of giants (and in some cases, are the giants).
The biggest changes we should expect to see are in the API. Under the hood, I expect to see a whole lot of code that's identical to the current Xserver, or nearly so. As I understand it, the biggest issue right now is making sure that Wayland has the security X always lacked. Security, rather than hardware details, is probably the biggest obstacle to getting the acceleration in.
Turbo Pascal came out in 1983, two years before the first release of GNU Emacs. However, Maestro I (1975) seems to be generally credited as being the first IDE (although some argue for Dartmouth BASIC from 1964).
So, uh, yeah. :)
Except that only Ceres is big enough to have become a spheroid under the pressure of its own gravity. Which is actually a pretty significant feature (unlike the orbit nonsense), and a fairly solid reason for putting something in a separate category from "random rock".
Vesta was actually on the bubble for a while. Despite the big chunk missing from one side, the final decision about whether it would be a dwarf planet or asteroid wasn't made until the Dawn mission gave us a better close-up look.
I'm actually more interested in making Ceres an official planet. Pluto's a big comet. It comes from the Kuiper belt, and doesn't really resemble anything in the inner system. I can certainly understand giving it a different classification. Ceres, on the other hand, is more similar to Mercury than Mercury is to Jupiter, and I don't see any reason at all to classify it separately.
I can see using "cleared its orbit" to separate classes of planets, so Ceres can be a dwarf planet, but "dwarf planet" should be a type of planet! It's got planet right there in the name! We could even have other classes of planet, like Gas Giant, so the whole "Mercury is classified with Jupiter instead of Ceres" nonsense would be resolved.
Frankly, I'd just as soon see them drop any mention of orbits from the definition. Why *shouldn't* Luna and Ganymede and Titan be considered planets? They'd still be moons, but there's no reason something can't fit into more than one category.
Heck, there are so many more interesting features they could have used to define categories: does it have an atmosphere? Does it have its own satellites?
The current definition is a horrible compromise designed to piss off as many people as possible, without offering anything useful. I realize it was intended to try to rock the boat as little as possible, but it hasn't even done that!
And how the hell do you come up with two fields in the right position?
Your reading skills are weak. I said zero in the right position, but two (MD) in the right order.
And one final thing: under ISO 8601, you must only drop precision. This means, you can say 2014-03, but you can't say 03-15.
That's silly. How do I (someone who routinely uses ISO8601) describe my birthday, or any other annual event? Certainly not by reversing the order of MD from what ISO prescribes, even if ISO won't certify the result as a valid date. Christmas last year was 2013-12-25. Christmas in general is *-12-25, or 12-25 for short.
Here's a quick comparison:
Fields in the correct position: European: 1; American: 0
Fields in the correct order: European: 0; American: 2
By that measure the American style gets two things correct; twice as many as the European.
In addition, when the year is omitted (very common), the results are even more striking:
Fields correctly ordered and placed: European: none; American: all.
I don't think anyone has anything to brag about here, except perhaps the Chinese and Japanese. :)
Or: I can turn on compiler warnings and clean up any problems later.
I agree that education has a value, and I still wouldn't buy this for $2400, or even $1200 or $600. When you consider that it is just video material --- it's definitely not worth so much.
Ah, well, I can't comment on this particular course, since I know nothing about it, but in general, courses designed for working professionals whose companies want them to learn new skills and continue to be useful for the company are not cheap. It's not like taking classes at your local community college.
Of course, the fact that you're talking about spending your own money suggests that you don't work at a company that values ongoing education for its employees, in which case, sucks to be you! :p ;)
The same people complaining about Valve instructing people do disable SELinux are the very first people to recommend doing exactly the same thing when someone online asks "How do I do [basic thing] in Linux? It doesn't seem to be working." There isn't a single message board dedicated to Linux that isn't filled with "disable SELinux" posts.
Really? The same people? You have proof of this, I assume? 'Cause there's a hell of a lot of people using Linux these days, in all sorts of forms, and all sorts of environments. Many of these people have (and I realize this may come as a complete shock) wildly differing opinions on things! Some love SELinux, some hate it, and some are neutral. Some even think it's appropriate in some situations but not others, and these might fit in your hypothetical category, but in my experience, most of those think SELinux is mainly useful for servers, and a waste of time for personal desktop systems, which makes it unlikely that they'd be complaining in this instance.
Now I don't mind some hyperbole. I personally know several linux subforums that contain no mention of SELinux, pro or con, but I understand what you meant by your last sentence, and agree with the underlying notion, even if the words aren't literally true. But your suggestion that it's actually the same people who say "disable SELinux" who are complaining in this case strikes me as so preposterous that it needs to be challenged. You're basically trying to paint all Linux users with the hypocrite brush. (Or, at least, all those with an opinion on SELinux.) And I want some damn good evidence before I buy that line of crap!
Do you also think the people who proclaim that consoles are dead and that PC gaming is king are the same ones out buying all the new consoles? Because that makes just about as much sense. They're all gamers, and all gamers think exactly the same. Right?
Really not sure how you got modded "insightful", but hey, this is slashdot...
The kind of person who thinks an education has value?
The kind of person who prefers to learn things in an orderly fashion, rather than digging through random piles of source code and "free" advice from the internet of questionable utility and accuracy? And who is willing to pay for that privilege, or who works for a company that has a budget for ongoing education?
"The problem is that if the FSF actually intends people to use GNU code in their own creations, then giving people at least the option of relicensing that code in any way that might support their business model will go a long way towards doing that."
I don't see how what Getty is doing here (use it for free in this way, or pay money to use it some other way) is any different from what many companies are doing with GPL'd code (use it this way for free or pay money to use it some other way). Other than "in this case, it affects ME-E-E!!"
As long as the government just keeps dropping it, then the EFF can just keep spending time and money sending in motions!
And that's the sort of thing that Anti-SLAPP laws are designed to prevent. If you live somewhere that doesn't have anti-SLAPP laws, I strongly recommend never doing anything that might piss off someone with money, whether government or private.
You and your colleagues have horrible taste! :p
As for the just-one-cup issue, there are dozens of other options, from single-use filters to single-cup-size presses to simple espresso machines. I have a press that doubles as a travel cup.
Folgers or another brand, etc.
I rest my case on the horrible taste issue. No one with any taste in coffee would ever mention Folgers, except as a how-NOT-to! :D
You're doing it wrong. For pure Unix, you need to start with a SysV source license. It's a little more work that way, but the results should be more than worth it! :D
Of course, it might be a bit tricky to get your hands on one at the moment, since owner Novell had a tiny falling out with exclusive license reseller SCO. Still, you might be able to pick one up on the second-hand market. I understand that Daimler-Chrysler has one they're no longer using--at least according to their response to SCO's subpoena.
There are several ways to do polymorphism in C, and those are both examples. See, for example, qsort(). The real answer to the question "how do you do polymorphism in C", though, is "awkwardly!" :)
It doesn't even meet the POSIX specs which would be required (it ignores part of that just because they don't really make any sense).
Since a version of Linux was certified to meet the Single Unix Spec (SUS) years ago, simply by adding STREAMs (which Linus has refused to add to the mainstream kernel for good reason), and since SUS is far stricter than POSIX, I doubt this. (Also, STREAMs were made optional in more recent versions of the SUS, so any random vanilla Linux system might well be certifiable as a True Unix(tm) today, if anyone actually cared.)
I suspect you are A) getting your standards mixed up, and B) relying on out-of-date information, but please feel free to prove me wrong with specific examples from POSIX, if you can.
POSIX is a really low bar to meet. In fact, some elements of it were specifically designed to allow VMS to meet the standard (which is how NT was also able to do so, at one point). If you're trying to suggest that VMS or NT is a better "emulation" of Unix than Linux, I can only conclude that you've never used any of the systems in question! :)
That assumes that the devs have the time and interest to learn the ins and outs of a whole new platform. For software developers, free time is often a more precious commodity than cash. But yes, it would certainly be more productive than whining on a random internet forum.
If you look on http://www.openttd.org/en/abou... you'll see the list of supported platforms:
* *BSD, especially FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD
* Linux
* Solaris
* Windows 95/98/ME/2000/XP/Vista/7
Notice what's missing from that list? You should be glad it works at all!
They've also had an announcement on the front page of their website for at least a year asking for help with the Mac port. If they don't own Macs and aren't familiar with the platform, and can't test, I don't know how you think they can magically fix these things.
This is open source, not charity.
You do realize we're talking about the Internet Archive/Wayback Machine here? They already have backups of the old 4chan threads! This is just a way to make it easier to access that data.
The Archive, like Google, already crawls the web and caches pretty much everything. The difference is that Google replaces the contents of their caches when they crawl something a second time, while the Archive archive keeps both copies, with timestamps.
Funny, because redistribution is listed as point one in the Open Source Definition.
Since your ID# makes it clear you've been around for a while, I shouldn't have to spell out the response to this: YMBNH! :)