it isn't a cite at all, and you're defending that it is a cite
It isn't properly cited/tagged, but otherwise it is cited.
The list of wikipedia pages that supposedly cite ACM articles is a clear lie
The page makes no such claims, and *I* certainly never referred to it as conclusive document listing cites of ACM publications. You're arguing against something you imagined, and furthermore, something that is completely and totally besides the point of this discussion.
you accuse "bias and/or unwillingness to read TFA," you mean the paywalled article, right?
No, just the WP article. You clearly just found the first external link, and failed to see the part where it is cited.
I checked ONE and it was a lie.
No, it wasn't. It might not have been what you wanted/expected to find, but you're still completely wrong in your claim.
Check first and make sure I accidentally clicked the only lie, before you defend the list on that basis
Completely straw man. Changing the discussion to some perceived flaw in one source of info to distract from the topic. I have not, and never will "defend the list". It is insignificant. You're the one spouting a lot of nonsense.
I suspect, based on other comments here, that this is a typical sort of exchange a person should be prepared to be subjected to whenever discussing the ACM with its few fans.
I have never had any connection to the ACM. I just figured I could very quickly find a bit of objective info to give the discussion some context. You've generously turned it into a lot of pointless distraction and insane rants.
As a researcher in brain computer interfaces (BCI), I have to disagree with the more literal interpretation of your statement that the best games link your brain with pure cerebral responses to gameplay.
Slashdot... it's a lot like Central Park... except PhDs may stop by at any time to painstakingly pick-apart the logical and factual errors in the rant of the crazy homeless guy that's yelling at the pigeons.
Games are not selling because they were overall fucking terrible. Stores lose a ton of money on having merchandise they couldn't sell.
No, stores bought a bunch of fucking terrible games that wouldn't sell, because it was common practice that unsold units could be returned to the manufacturer for refund, so they didn't expect any downside. A ton of sham game companies sprung up over-night, unloaded a ton of merchandise on toy stores, cashed the check, and then closed-up shop before anybody asked about returns.
The stores set themselves up for a failure, and the video game industry was only involved because it was the hot market at the time... kinda like smartphones today.
The last time sharing was the norm, it caused the entire industry to collapse.
It was retailers falling for the stupid scams, that caused the collapse.
Nintendo, as it turns out, were the ones who led the industry's recovery, largely by instituting strict third party licensing. Sid Meier considers the Nintendo "Seal of Quality" one of the three most important innovations in gaming history because of the impact that it had.
Yes, and it was important at the time, when people had very little confidence in the quality of games, games were expensive, and there were no magazines doing reviews, services that allowed gamer rentals, etc., etc.
IMHO, whatever high standards Nintendo may have set in the 80s, were gone in one fell swoop, with the flood of crap games on the PSX.
And PC games never had a central authority, yet they did just fine.
With the Wii they realized they couldn't keep up with the PS and Xbox.
They don't try (at all) to keep up on raw benchmark-type specs. That helps them sell their consoles at a profit instead of a loss. And yet the Wii really caught on, and looked like it was going to take over the world. The pundits were talking non-stop about how genius Nintendo was... until the Kinect and Move were rushed to market in response, and took the wind out of Nintendo's sales.
Instead of trying to get people to buy their consoles for their games they should switch to just making games.
Because that has worked out so incredibly well for Sega over the past decade???
You might as well say that all 3 should pack it in, and just make games for PCs and smartphones/tablets.
Why stick with VMS when you can get the same Dave Cutler design by rotating everything one letter forward, forming the WNT at the core of Windows Server?
And when you want a SpaceX rocket, why not go buy a Tesla car instead?
I am surprised that people still want to use OpenVMS.
OpenVMS is the most mature microkernel OS out there. You can have flaky hardware, flaky drivers, flaky software, and it'll just keep running perfectly, restarting whatever services as need, as often as needed. You can't make it panic.
It also has more advanced clustering than most people believe exists... A server's full state is replicated in real-time, so a hardware failure doesn't even need to be handled by applications, they just think everything has been running for the past decade...
OpenVMS has ridiculous uptimes, over a decade, even on heavily utilized systems. Far longer than anything else out there.
cron. And it turns out, it has an ACM link in the external links, but it does NOT cite an ACM article, properly or otherwise
Yes, it does cite an ACM article from the late 70s, as the inspiration for improved versions of crond, which performed better, and were extended to all system users, not just root as early crond did.
And is the link related to cron? I'm going with no, because it doesn't sound related
That's just your own bias and/or unwillingness to read TFA.
"Robert Brown, reviewing this [ACM] article, [...] created an implementation [...] and this multi-user cron went into use at Purdue in late 1979."
It seems that rather than all those wiki pages citing ACM publications, somebody from ACM has spammed all those articles with unrelated links.
You checked on ONE out of hundreds, completely misunderstood everything about it, and are jumping to a conclusion that requires paranoid conspiracy fantasies.
That's based on the premise that the model T was less expensive than a horse
No, it's based on the premise of the Model-T being the cheapest possible automobile.
It's not obvious that the automobile would take off, though the piles of horse feces in city streets should have been a hint. But it is obvious that the best chance anybody has, starting a new market, is to go for the least-expensive possible vehicle.
otherwise Ford wouldn't have been the only one in the USA doing it so cheaply/successfully for the better part of 10 years.
Ford found a way to do it very cheaply, that had escaped all others. There were plenty of other car makers out there, and once they adopted the assembly-line model, they started competing with Ford, too.
The old Henry Ford saying goes (not that he necessarily said it) "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses".
Of course faster horses weren't an option. And what were the early cars, other than bare-bones "horseless carriages"? It's not as if the Model-T was a Ferrari in an age of wagons.
Consumers almost always choose "cheaper" when the price is significant. Designing the cheapest possible car, within the confines of the engineering of the day, seems like an obvious choice, and basically what they did.
Half of your customers buy the iPhone. All those people who said, "Oh, I'm going to buy QWERTY," boom, take them out of the equation."
Funny, because Sprint has pushed the iPhone harder than anyone. The cut-rate prices with the iPhone, even on already-cut-rate services like Sprint's Virgin Mobile, are tempting. They practically PAY YOU to take an iPhone. There were articles about how they were contractually required to sell X iPhones from their deal with Apple, but it sounds like they had to undermine the rest of their business to get it done.
I also specified Android, since almost nobody wants feature phones or Windows, which returned just EIGHT. Then I required LTE, which brought it down to just FOUR:
LG Enact (Available on Verizon)
LG Mach (no longer available, Sprint)
LG Optimus F3Q (Available on T-Mobile)
Samsung Stratosphere / Galaxy Metrix 4G (For sale on Amazon, not listed as available by Verizon. YMMV)
and, despite the findings of your rigorous "informal online survey", there actually ISN'T that much demand for such a device.
Sliders made up 30% of US phone sales, a short time ago. There's no mistaking those numbers. There are a large number of people who want them. Perhaps they, like me, are reluctantly sticking with older sliders, waiting for a compelling device to come out. Maybe a few are reluctantly accepting non-sliders, with no other options from work or their preferred carrier.
Hell, I'd have switched to Republic Wireless, or Ting, or others, if they had a compelling Android slider available with their service. I never even considered an iPhone, for their omission. Lots of companies are losing decent chunks of money, for ignoring this market.
I was planning to sign-up with T-Mobile, too, and delayed for being unable to find a slider for myself, and the plan isn't such a good deal with fewer people on it. I later realized they had just one, but their website doesn't have it classified correctly, so you get no results when you narrow it down to Android and Qwerty, but I find their service less-compelling today, so several potential customers were lost.
Coke and Pepsi both have sold mini-cans, about 8oz, for quite a few years. It's up to the convenience stores you visit to choose to stock them, or not. And if they determine that they can't make a profit on them, they shouldn't stock what YOU happen to want.
Of course you also have the option of throwing an ice chest in your car, stocked with whatever sizes of soda you prefer. You could save tons of money, and entirely eliminate waste, by buying 3 litre bottles of generic sodas for $1, and using whatever size cup/bottle you prefer.
Or you could just drink water... Cold water and crushed/cubed ice in the door of my refrigerator, with a 5 year filter to eliminate the bad chlorine taste, is easily the best and most convenient option for drinking I've found.
For some flavor, drink powders (iced-tea, lemonade, hawaiian punch, tang, gatorade, etc.) are far cheaper than buying water that's been trucked across the country, and can be mixed into drinks in whatever sizes or strengths you happen to prefer. They even sell "stick" packs to be dumped into bottles of water, though you're far better off if you reuse and refill any water bottles you buy.
I don't have any problem with that argument, as long as those who espouse it are honest and up-front about it, instead of claiming peering disputes are something new, and a criminal conspiracy, or other such utterly baseless bull.
Do you not remember the catastrophe that was gcc 2.95?
2.95 was a very good compiler. You're thinking of 2.96, but that was all the fault of RedHat using a snapshot instead of a stable release. Can't really blame the GCC folks for that.
GCC is terminally broken for ever and ever and ever.
GCC is a mess that has been getting consistently worse since 3.0. It's so bad that compiling GCC with GCC, with any CPU optimizations enabled, produces a non-working compiler. It just keeps getting bigger and slower, and has a great many proprietary GCC-isms that open source developers keep using, not even realizing they're bugs.
The crappiness of GCC has driven tons of people away, and spurred the development of LLVM, tcc, and others.
I've seen fewer bugs in GCC than any other production compiler ever.
Either you're not looking (myopia is fun), or you have very little experience with other modern compilers.
End result, the GCC people will fix this bug in short order
With this much publicity, they might... But major bugs that get reported, but don't hit the/. front page, and often linger for year after year.
The success of Linux is 100% built off the success of GCC. There have been no other credible compilers for Linux throughout the majority of its existence
Only true if you drink rms' kool-aid... Otherwise, any of the proprietary compilers out there would have done the job just fine. Or Linux developers would have put some effort into getting another compiler up-to-par for their purposes if nothing had been available, kinda like they did with the kernel...
And now, the competition is just waiting to break-through and rid us of all the GCC nonsense.
Your first paragraph is a pointlessly incredulous waste of time.
The rest is vastly exaggerating the difficulty... There are several very small open source multicast file distribution software packages out there that already do all of this, and work perfectly. It is not a major technical feat.
Verizon providing free access to Netflix is the logical conclusion of your attitude. You don't care about the technical details, and just want everything handed to you. That gives upstream services the upper hand to demand absolutely anything and everything from Verizon, including making them build-out their network as cheaper ISPs put more burden on Verizon, or even making Verizon pay for access, lest they lose customers.
There's never been any such exceptions to peering arrangements before. End of story. You think the way the internet has always worked should change, but don't want to admit it.
Consider it the other way around. Level-3 certainly wouldn't be jumping at the chance to offer free-peering with some tiny ISP. Is that a "fraudulent business practice" from Level-3?
Slashdot Mirror
It isn't properly cited/tagged, but otherwise it is cited.
The page makes no such claims, and *I* certainly never referred to it as conclusive document listing cites of ACM publications. You're arguing against something you imagined, and furthermore, something that is completely and totally besides the point of this discussion.
No, just the WP article. You clearly just found the first external link, and failed to see the part where it is cited.
No, it wasn't. It might not have been what you wanted/expected to find, but you're still completely wrong in your claim.
Completely straw man. Changing the discussion to some perceived flaw in one source of info to distract from the topic. I have not, and never will "defend the list". It is insignificant. You're the one spouting a lot of nonsense.
I have never had any connection to the ACM. I just figured I could very quickly find a bit of objective info to give the discussion some context. You've generously turned it into a lot of pointless distraction and insane rants.
Slashdot... it's a lot like Central Park... except PhDs may stop by at any time to painstakingly pick-apart the logical and factual errors in the rant of the crazy homeless guy that's yelling at the pigeons.
No, stores bought a bunch of fucking terrible games that wouldn't sell, because it was common practice that unsold units could be returned to the manufacturer for refund, so they didn't expect any downside. A ton of sham game companies sprung up over-night, unloaded a ton of merchandise on toy stores, cashed the check, and then closed-up shop before anybody asked about returns.
The stores set themselves up for a failure, and the video game industry was only involved because it was the hot market at the time... kinda like smartphones today.
It was retailers falling for the stupid scams, that caused the collapse.
Yes, and it was important at the time, when people had very little confidence in the quality of games, games were expensive, and there were no magazines doing reviews, services that allowed gamer rentals, etc., etc.
IMHO, whatever high standards Nintendo may have set in the 80s, were gone in one fell swoop, with the flood of crap games on the PSX.
And PC games never had a central authority, yet they did just fine.
They don't try (at all) to keep up on raw benchmark-type specs. That helps them sell their consoles at a profit instead of a loss. And yet the Wii really caught on, and looked like it was going to take over the world. The pundits were talking non-stop about how genius Nintendo was... until the Kinect and Move were rushed to market in response, and took the wind out of Nintendo's sales.
Because that has worked out so incredibly well for Sega over the past decade???
You might as well say that all 3 should pack it in, and just make games for PCs and smartphones/tablets.
And when you want a SpaceX rocket, why not go buy a Tesla car instead?
OpenVMS is the most mature microkernel OS out there. You can have flaky hardware, flaky drivers, flaky software, and it'll just keep running perfectly, restarting whatever services as need, as often as needed. You can't make it panic.
It also has more advanced clustering than most people believe exists... A server's full state is replicated in real-time, so a hardware failure doesn't even need to be handled by applications, they just think everything has been running for the past decade...
OpenVMS has ridiculous uptimes, over a decade, even on heavily utilized systems. Far longer than anything else out there.
http://www.uptimes-project.org...
http://www.osnews.com/comments...
Yes, it does cite an ACM article from the late 70s, as the inspiration for improved versions of crond, which performed better, and were extended to all system users, not just root as early crond did.
That's just your own bias and/or unwillingness to read TFA.
"Robert Brown, reviewing this [ACM] article, [...] created an implementation [...] and this multi-user cron went into use at Purdue in late 1979."
You checked on ONE out of hundreds, completely misunderstood everything about it, and are jumping to a conclusion that requires paranoid conspiracy fantasies.
Here's a quick list of Wikipedia articles which probably cite ACM publications:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/ind...
No, it's based on the premise of the Model-T being the cheapest possible automobile.
It's not obvious that the automobile would take off, though the piles of horse feces in city streets should have been a hint. But it is obvious that the best chance anybody has, starting a new market, is to go for the least-expensive possible vehicle.
Ford found a way to do it very cheaply, that had escaped all others. There were plenty of other car makers out there, and once they adopted the assembly-line model, they started competing with Ford, too.
Of course faster horses weren't an option. And what were the early cars, other than bare-bones "horseless carriages"? It's not as if the Model-T was a Ferrari in an age of wagons.
Consumers almost always choose "cheaper" when the price is significant. Designing the cheapest possible car, within the confines of the engineering of the day, seems like an obvious choice, and basically what they did.
Funny, because Sprint has pushed the iPhone harder than anyone. The cut-rate prices with the iPhone, even on already-cut-rate services like Sprint's Virgin Mobile, are tempting. They practically PAY YOU to take an iPhone. There were articles about how they were contractually required to sell X iPhones from their deal with Apple, but it sounds like they had to undermine the rest of their business to get it done.
I also specified Android, since almost nobody wants feature phones or Windows, which returned just EIGHT. Then I required LTE, which brought it down to just FOUR:
LG Enact (Available on Verizon)
LG Mach (no longer available, Sprint)
LG Optimus F3Q (Available on T-Mobile)
Samsung Stratosphere / Galaxy Metrix 4G (For sale on Amazon, not listed as available by Verizon. YMMV)
Sliders made up 30% of US phone sales, a short time ago. There's no mistaking those numbers. There are a large number of people who want them. Perhaps they, like me, are reluctantly sticking with older sliders, waiting for a compelling device to come out. Maybe a few are reluctantly accepting non-sliders, with no other options from work or their preferred carrier.
Hell, I'd have switched to Republic Wireless, or Ting, or others, if they had a compelling Android slider available with their service. I never even considered an iPhone, for their omission. Lots of companies are losing decent chunks of money, for ignoring this market.
I was planning to sign-up with T-Mobile, too, and delayed for being unable to find a slider for myself, and the plan isn't such a good deal with fewer people on it. I later realized they had just one, but their website doesn't have it classified correctly, so you get no results when you narrow it down to Android and Qwerty, but I find their service less-compelling today, so several potential customers were lost.
Not sure where this rant came from, but...
Coke and Pepsi both have sold mini-cans, about 8oz, for quite a few years. It's up to the convenience stores you visit to choose to stock them, or not. And if they determine that they can't make a profit on them, they shouldn't stock what YOU happen to want.
http://online.wsj.com/news/art...
Of course you also have the option of throwing an ice chest in your car, stocked with whatever sizes of soda you prefer. You could save tons of money, and entirely eliminate waste, by buying 3 litre bottles of generic sodas for $1, and using whatever size cup/bottle you prefer.
Or you could just drink water... Cold water and crushed/cubed ice in the door of my refrigerator, with a 5 year filter to eliminate the bad chlorine taste, is easily the best and most convenient option for drinking I've found.
For some flavor, drink powders (iced-tea, lemonade, hawaiian punch, tang, gatorade, etc.) are far cheaper than buying water that's been trucked across the country, and can be mixed into drinks in whatever sizes or strengths you happen to prefer. They even sell "stick" packs to be dumped into bottles of water, though you're far better off if you reuse and refill any water bottles you buy.
This discussion is all about data going from: Netflix --> Level-3 --> Verizon
How are you getting Verizon --> Verizon out of this, and how is that relevant to Netflix?
I don't have any problem with that argument, as long as those who espouse it are honest and up-front about it, instead of claiming peering disputes are something new, and a criminal conspiracy, or other such utterly baseless bull.
Funny you say that, just after dismissing all the facts I mentioned.
2.95 was a very good compiler. You're thinking of 2.96, but that was all the fault of RedHat using a snapshot instead of a stable release. Can't really blame the GCC folks for that.
RMS is in for a nasty surprise when Linux distros start using all the BSD libs and userland, and shun the unnecessary GNU equivalents.
mksh is far superior to bash, anyhow.
GCC is a mess that has been getting consistently worse since 3.0. It's so bad that compiling GCC with GCC, with any CPU optimizations enabled, produces a non-working compiler. It just keeps getting bigger and slower, and has a great many proprietary GCC-isms that open source developers keep using, not even realizing they're bugs.
The crappiness of GCC has driven tons of people away, and spurred the development of LLVM, tcc, and others.
Either you're not looking (myopia is fun), or you have very little experience with other modern compilers.
With this much publicity, they might... But major bugs that get reported, but don't hit the /. front page, and often linger for year after year.
Only true if you drink rms' kool-aid... Otherwise, any of the proprietary compilers out there would have done the job just fine. Or Linux developers would have put some effort into getting another compiler up-to-par for their purposes if nothing had been available, kinda like they did with the kernel...
And now, the competition is just waiting to break-through and rid us of all the GCC nonsense.
So he actually called it, "pure and utter sht"?
Your first paragraph is a pointlessly incredulous waste of time.
The rest is vastly exaggerating the difficulty... There are several very small open source multicast file distribution software packages out there that already do all of this, and work perfectly. It is not a major technical feat.
Verizon providing free access to Netflix is the logical conclusion of your attitude. You don't care about the technical details, and just want everything handed to you. That gives upstream services the upper hand to demand absolutely anything and everything from Verizon, including making them build-out their network as cheaper ISPs put more burden on Verizon, or even making Verizon pay for access, lest they lose customers.
There's never been any such exceptions to peering arrangements before. End of story. You think the way the internet has always worked should change, but don't want to admit it.
Consider it the other way around. Level-3 certainly wouldn't be jumping at the chance to offer free-peering with some tiny ISP. Is that a "fraudulent business practice" from Level-3?