There is no argument that temperatures have been rising in recorded history (a short period actually)
Actually, even on this there was an argument until very recently, as the trend in the data is very faint. Only in the last five years or so have we accumulated enough data to positively assert an increase of temperature in the 0.5-5 degree Celsius over the last 150 years (yes, the range is that large, because natural variation hide trend).
Unlike Windows, which everyone knows is perfect. There's no need for extensions like DirectX. Okay, seriously. If you haven't run into any serious weaknesses in the Windows GUI model, then you haven't done any Windows GUI programming.
This goes to the core of the replies to my comment. The comment about the weakness of cut-and-paste in X has nothing to do with Windows being good or bad. You shouldn't feel obliged to defend every single design decision of Unix and OSS, just because M$ is evil.
These are independent facts, and no, Unix is not perfect. Experts in OSes have been saying this for a long time. The fact that the alternatives are generally worse do not justify those cases where Unix dropped the ball.
You want *nix to succeed? The best way we can achieve is by promptly fixing any defficiencies we might encounter in it. X is one such.
X is full of *percieved* weaknesses, which are much talked about by people who don't understand why it is the way it is.
BS. X is full or real weaknesses (bandwidth hog, subutilization of CPU at client side --otherwise known as server side in the wunnerful world of X, lack of high-level APIs, lack of standarization of components, and on and on...).
You are grasping at straws in a desperate attempt to defend the undefensible (the studies must have been flawed, or they were from beginners, or they were window users, or perhaps the users got paid to lie...)
as the previous poster said, it's not something you're used to, so it must be bad, right?
The first GUI I ever used is X, most of my day to day computing is on an X terminal. So it has nothing to do with getting used to.
I saw an academic paper late last year stating that NAT's and finer subnetting had resulted in a reduction of nearly 30% of allocated IP addresses. That is the first time I saw the "IP shortage no longer a realistic possibility" argument.
To be clear IP shortave wasn't a myth. There was a time where even conservative projections were pointing towards a dearth of IPs. A solution needed to be implemented. IPv6 was one option, NATs and subnetting was another. The market seems to have chosen this last .
No. While it is true that you can't get used to the worst interface designs (as you illustrate), one can have objective usability tests that can suggest a cut-and-paste model to be superior to another. In the case of cut and paste, the X-window model has been known to be a weakness for quite a while now.
(In fact, X windows itself is full of weaknesses, hence the overabundance of proposals to fix it QT, GNOME, Berlin, Y windows, NextStep extensions,....)
Think again. Little is right with the current cut-buffer. Support is not standard accross apps, it confuses select with cut-and-paste, cannot cut non-text objects in any standard way, and on and on..
The details of some of those efforts are under NDA, but say, to talk about one where the info is public considerthe latest effort to take on Google announced to great fanfare a few months back, and promptly followed up by an offer to purchase said company. Hardly a ringing endorsement for whatever work they've done so far.
Microsoft has thousands of employees and 50 bil in the bank, which pretty much allows them to develop any search technology they want and hire the best people in the industry.
Only problem with your theory is that I'm personally aware of nine previous failed search engine efforts from Microsoft.
Another one is that they are the result of active bacteria processes, and it takes a lot less time and raw materials to be created than currently thought.
Disconnecting the computer alone would not be a problem as the intelligent state could be replicated later. A good lawyer should easily win this one by arguing similes with anesthesia or drug induced comma. Destroying the computer and all backups associated to it would be harder. That is already illegal in some situations, say if a company is a stock broker, as per the SEC regulations. So my guess is that destroying information will be completely illegal in most settings much before we approach the era of sentient computers. This will make the whole argument moot.
- Code compiled with GCC is as free or as propietary as you want.
Actually, about six years ago we had our IP lawyers read the GPL and they felt the language was sufficiently vague in regards to GCC, that the interpretation that all code compiled with GCC should be GPL'ed couldn't be discounted.
We still went ahead and used GCC, though, since we decided the chances of a lawsuit were too small.
I actually think this is a bad thing. The best thing that can happen to the US space program is to develop a modern, more reliable alternative that is trying to be a "shuttle" to space, which never really was.
With the rapid decline of infrastructure in Russia, perhaps not long from now they will stop being able to send humans into outerspace. On our side, with the failures of the shuttles and the deep budget cuts of Bush, things do not look much better.
Perhaps in ten to fifteen years, China will be the only country sending humans into orbit.
There are universities out there where the academic offenses committee treats the professor as the guilty party while giving every available opportunity to the student to weasle out of the punishment. One can hardly blame a professor who choses not to report under those circumstances.
We designed the GNU system, from the outset in 1984, as a multi-user timesharing system with security features. An ordinary user cannot change the system software. Linux, Torvalds' 1991 kernel, followed this design as well.
There was a time when the sole mention of "security" and "unix" in the same sentence without the word "none" would have caused anybody who anything about OSes to fall to floor bawling with laughter. What has changed since? Not much on the unix side, I'll tell you. Simply people started talking up unix as a state of nirvana, and now we have well meaning kids who believe that X windows is anything else that an unmitigated disaster and that the all or nothing root model of unix makes any sense...
I'm a Unix expert. I know of at least ten different attack lines to hack unix not least of which is to use the fact that to install pretty much any program you have to become root (something that, sadly, windows is starting to emulate).
MSFT helped it only by means of providing so slow, lame and crippled implementation of their DOS APIs that anyone in his sane mind bypassed them left right and center.
Actually you got it bass-ackwards. The part of OS/2 that worked was Microsoft's. The part that didn't was IBM's. Back then IBM still evaluated it's worker's productivity using KLOCs.
Only after M$ left did IBM and a few years went by did IBM get's it act together and come out with Warp.
You are too young... back in the 80's Microsoft was good and IBM was bad. OS/2 didn't become a cause celebre among the/.-types until after the release of the GUI and more particularly Warp...
He's talking about a period circa 1988, grasshopper, when Microsoft first split with IBM... OS/2 came out around then (I certainly was using it in 1989).
Slashdot Mirror
There is no argument that temperatures have been rising in recorded history (a short period actually)
Actually, even on this there was an argument until very recently, as the trend in the data is very faint. Only in the last five years or so have we accumulated enough data to positively assert an increase of temperature in the 0.5-5 degree Celsius over the last 150 years (yes, the range is that large, because natural variation hide trend).
Unlike Windows, which everyone knows is perfect. There's no need for extensions like DirectX. Okay, seriously. If you haven't run into any serious weaknesses in the Windows GUI model, then you haven't done any Windows GUI programming.
This goes to the core of the replies to my comment. The comment about the weakness of cut-and-paste in X has nothing to do with Windows being good or bad. You shouldn't feel obliged to defend every single design decision of Unix and OSS, just because M$ is evil.
These are independent facts, and no, Unix is not perfect. Experts in OSes have been saying this for a long time. The fact that the alternatives are generally worse do not justify those cases where Unix dropped the ball.
You want *nix to succeed? The best way we can achieve is by promptly fixing any defficiencies we might encounter in it. X is one such.
X is full of *percieved* weaknesses, which are much talked about by people who don't understand why it is the way it is.
BS. X is full or real weaknesses (bandwidth hog, subutilization of CPU at client side --otherwise known as server side in the wunnerful world of X, lack of high-level APIs, lack of standarization of components, and on and on...).
You are grasping at straws in a desperate attempt to defend the undefensible (the studies must have been flawed, or they were from beginners, or they were window users, or perhaps the users got paid to lie...)
as the previous poster said, it's not something you're used to, so it must be bad, right?
The first GUI I ever used is X, most of my day to day computing is on an X terminal. So it has nothing to do with getting used to.
I saw an academic paper late last year stating that NAT's and finer subnetting had resulted in a reduction of nearly 30% of allocated IP addresses. That is the first time I saw the "IP shortage no longer a realistic possibility" argument.
To be clear IP shortave wasn't a myth. There was a time where even conservative projections were pointing towards a dearth of IPs. A solution needed to be implemented. IPv6 was one option, NATs and subnetting was another. The market seems to have chosen this last .
Its all dependant on what you're used to.
....)
No. While it is true that you can't get used to the worst interface designs (as you illustrate), one can have objective usability tests that can suggest a cut-and-paste model to be superior to another. In the case of cut and paste, the X-window model has been known to be a weakness for quite a while now.
(In fact, X windows itself is full of weaknesses, hence the overabundance of proposals to fix it QT, GNOME, Berlin, Y windows, NextStep extensions,
Little is wrong with the current cut-buffer.
Think again. Little is right with the current cut-buffer. Support is not standard accross apps, it confuses select with cut-and-paste, cannot cut non-text objects in any standard way, and on and on..
I love X...
When you are going to post such shamefull confessions, you should use "post anonymously", that is what it is there for...
There are as many reasons to love X as to love a dead goat (I call her "molly").
The details of some of those efforts are under NDA, but say, to talk about one where the info is public considerthe latest effort to take on Google announced to great fanfare a few months back, and promptly followed up by an offer to purchase said company. Hardly a ringing endorsement for whatever work they've done so far.
Microsoft has thousands of employees and 50 bil in the bank, which pretty much allows them to develop any search technology they want and hire the best people in the industry.
Only problem with your theory is that I'm personally aware of nine previous failed search engine efforts from Microsoft.
You mean to say email didn't change the way you do your day to day business?
to realise that the man pages for Unix are great documentation.
They are equally bad. In fact, most of my *nix experience is with DEC and SUN's variants, not Linux.
Unix has had good and even definitive documentation for decades.
You've gotta be kiddin!
Every kid who has made it to third year CS should know that the man pages are awful. They are neither a user manual nor technical documentation.
Another one is that they are the result of active bacteria processes, and it takes a lot less time and raw materials to be created than currently thought.
Disconnecting the computer alone would not be a problem as the intelligent state could be replicated later. A good lawyer should easily win this one by arguing similes with anesthesia or drug induced comma. Destroying the computer and all backups associated to it would be harder. That is already illegal in some situations, say if a company is a stock broker, as per the SEC regulations. So my guess is that destroying information will be completely illegal in most settings much before we approach the era of sentient computers. This will make the whole argument moot.
- Code compiled with GCC is as free or as propietary as you want.
Actually, about six years ago we had our IP lawyers read the GPL and they felt the language was sufficiently vague in regards to GCC, that the interpretation that all code compiled with GCC should be GPL'ed couldn't be discounted.
We still went ahead and used GCC, though, since we decided the chances of a lawsuit were too small.
Currently we expect Shuttles to fly in one year,
I actually think this is a bad thing. The best thing that can happen to the US space program is to develop a modern, more reliable alternative that is trying to be a "shuttle" to space, which never really was.
With the rapid decline of infrastructure in Russia, perhaps not long from now they will stop being able to send humans into outerspace. On our side, with the failures of the shuttles and the deep budget cuts of Bush, things do not look much better.
Perhaps in ten to fifteen years, China will be the only country sending humans into orbit.
There are universities out there where the academic offenses committee treats the professor as the guilty party while giving every available opportunity to the student to weasle out of the punishment. One can hardly blame a professor who choses not to report under those circumstances.
Just something to keep in mind.
We designed the GNU system, from the outset in 1984, as a multi-user timesharing system with security features. An ordinary user cannot change the system software. Linux, Torvalds' 1991 kernel, followed this design as well.
There was a time when the sole mention of "security" and "unix" in the same sentence without the word "none" would have caused anybody who anything about OSes to fall to floor bawling with laughter. What has changed since? Not much on the unix side, I'll tell you. Simply people started talking up unix as a state of nirvana, and now we have well meaning kids who believe that X windows is anything else that an unmitigated disaster and that the all or nothing root model of unix makes any sense...
I'm a Unix expert. I know of at least ten different attack lines to hack unix not least of which is to use the fact that to install pretty much any program you have to become root (something that, sadly, windows is starting to emulate).
Students who can, do.
Students who can't, flunk the course and then write dumb epigrams so they can feel better about their personal failings.
MSFT helped it only by means of providing so slow, lame and crippled implementation of their DOS APIs that anyone in his sane mind bypassed them left right and center.
Actually you got it bass-ackwards. The part of OS/2 that worked was Microsoft's. The part that didn't was IBM's. Back then IBM still evaluated it's worker's productivity using KLOCs.
Only after M$ left did IBM and a few years went by did IBM get's it act together and come out with Warp.
You are too young... back in the 80's Microsoft was good and IBM was bad. OS/2 didn't become a cause celebre among the
Windows even back then, not even NT,
He's talking about a period circa 1988, grasshopper, when Microsoft first split with IBM... OS/2 came out around then (I certainly was using it in 1989).
NT wasn't even in the radar back then.