"There are massive quantities of Baryons in a super-heated gas gloud several hundred million light years away."
So _that's_ where it went. I've been looking for this stuff for weeks. At first I thought I lost it in the woods when I went camping, but then I thought that perhaps I left it in the shed, or maybe the Dryer Gnomes absconded with it. All of this time, it was in a super-heated gas cloud millions of light years away? Who knew?
... and are they going to send it back? I'm certainly not paying for the shipping charges...
Yes, that's what I meant -- the kernel source is available, not because it's the least complex part of the OS, rather, it's available partly because it's one of the most complex pieces, and there are a lot of super-smart people on the internet who know kernel space inside and out. And believe me, it's nice having the source available... there have been times where some code I was writing was returning some strange error, and the man pages didn't give much of a clue, and Google didn't, either. I just snarfed the XNU source, grepped for the error I was seeing, and by looking at the source for the kernel function I was calling (and following the code to see what would make it return the error I was seeing), I found that I was populating a structure incorrectly.
1. Linus is not the _only_ person who looks at submitted code for Linux... there are many people, and i've met some of them. This is just disingenuous to suggest.
2. The kernel source is not available because it's the least complex part of the OS -- it's available partly because it's one of the more complex pieces, and a lot of really smart people who know their stuff in kernel space look at / debug / suggest additions for it.
3. Come on -- on a Linux box, if you don't want to compile from source, use apt or rpm or dselect or whatever.
Hey, I love my Macs (1.33ghz 12" PowerBook, 450mhz Cube, dual 1.25ghz g4) but your points are deceptive -- there are harder methods of doing things on OSX, and easier methods of doing things on Linux. You choose the best method for the desired outcome.
I am growing very intolerant of deceitful practices, fear-mongering, etc. With the RIAA, MS, SCO, and our current **cough** administration, powers seem to have aligned to try to turn me from a bright-eyed idealist looking for solutions, to a jaded, apathetic part of the problem. This makes me very angry (which is another thing I rarely was before).
Is it just me? Is being pissed at all manner of things just part of growing up?
... and is controllable via the RC (remote control) command-line interface as well. You can write some simple Perl scripts to launch one instance on the low-end hardware, and another on a more powerful machine that can stream the music to the low-end box. Not to mention, VideoLAN is open-source, and you can write a sockets interface for it if you like if you know some basic C and BSD sockets. I did it, so i'm sure you can as well.
Regarding the ripping, you can rip via any of the myriad of Linux rippers out there, and autorun will let you automagically launch a script of your own making to start le ripping, if you desire.
... because OSX doesn't always do it. OSX is wonderful (I use it all of the time) but there are some things Linux does that OSX does not:
1. AIO calls on non-file FDs i.e. sockets, pipes
2. userland calls for atomic operations (without using Carbon)
3. more current compiler support i.e. you can use any FSF version of gcc and not have to worry about having weird things happen if you mix FSF gcc with Apple's gcc
Now, #2 above can be done under OSX with a bit of PPC assembly, and as for #3, you can use FSF gcc alongside Apple's gcc, but you won't be able to make calls into Carbon / Cocoa with FSF's gcc, and Apple's gcc is always behind FSFs gcc (Apple's is 3.3, FSF is already at 3.4.2 I think, working on 4.0). FSF gcc changes eventually make it into Apple's gcc, but it takes time as Apple needs to add a lot of their own stuff that won't ever bein the FSF version.
... that MS employee's were not permitted to participate in OSS projects? Does this mean that, once they release it, they're not allowed to improve it?
I've never tried this (I don't have a Windows box), but wouldn't a quick way of searching for registry keys that programs touch be to install Cygwin and use the *nix "strings" command? i.e.
It just seems to me that this would be an obvious, but fairly effective way to quickly find all the registry points (as well as DLLs and other files) that a piece off could would touch... maybe use it in conjunction with nm as well...
OK, i'm not the biggest WIndows fan either, but come on -- this was a generous act. Besides, Mr. Gates likely was not intimately involved in creating the various Windows bugs that caused so many BSODs. Windows has come a long way. It still has a long way to go, but progress is being made.
Yikes, this is weird -- i'm suddenly _defending_ Windows a lot more than I normally do lately, even though I prefer *nix. Funky.
In 1997 I purchased a Newton 2100, hoping I could do on-the-go audio recording / editing by getting a PCMCIA card that had a SPDIF port (so I could plug in a digital microphone as well as an external DAT), get the RAM up to the point where I could edit digital audio of at least a few minutes in length, and actually find some version of Peak / Spark / etc. that would run on the little beastie. None of these things were meant to be, and I ended up using it as a PDA only.
These days, the palmtops and such are getting to this point. I'm getting excited about this again. WIndows -- blech, but if I could put Linux on it and get a SPDIF in / out, that would be monster-cool:-)
How do you do this? I've two iBooks -- a 700mhz G3 (that needed to have the mobo replaced 4 times), and a 900mhz G3 that needed it to be replaced 3 times (just got it back last week, we'll see how long it lasts). In both of these cases, I expressed dissatisfaction, and in both cases, the Apple tech support people said there was no way they could replace them, that they _needed_ to fix it just "once more" and that's it. bub. And this is _after_ I said the following:
1. I bought a dual 1.25GHz G4 -- love it
2. I bought PowerBook 12" 1.33GHz -- love it
3. I bought an iPod 40G -- love it
4. I bring the iBook to work every day, so when I don't bring it in, people notice (read: they ask why, and I say "it died" to which they retort "AGAIN?")
I adore Apple stuff, but I _abhore_ their tech support department when it comes to the iBooks. Just thinking about my (several) bad experiences with them angers me quite a lot.
... oh, but I _have_ had these problems, 6 times now (4 with an iBook 700, 2 with the 900, and counting). I bring my iBook to work everyday (it's just very cool to have a laptop *nix box with me to test C++, Perl, bash scripts, etc. on). Many have commented about it, and i've taken every opportunity to tell them what nifty machines they are. However, every 3-4 months when it's gone for a week or so, and people ask where my little white companion is, I have to tell them, "It's being repaired." "Again?" "Yes, again."
Could you kindly illuminate me as to how to get Apple to offer a replacement? This is the situation i'm in: I have an iBook 700 that has been sent back 4 times for this problem, and iBook 900 that has been sent back twice (including this latest one that happened the other day), and an iBook 900 that -- so far -- has not exhibited the problem (though it has the UV342xxxxxx serial #, i've no doubt that it will). Every time i've spoken with Apple tech support, they've told me that replacement just is not an option. Once, the representative was downright mean about it, refusing to connect me with anyone higher up in the chain of command, refusing to give me any information about himself other than his first name, etc.
I go to great lengths to put Apple in a good light to all of my friends and coworkers, but with each bad iBook experience I have (and i've had _6_ now on the iBooks with this issue), I look like a fool to others i've attempted to enlighten, and sometimes myself when I look in the mirror. Every 3 months it seems (which is the frequency that this seems to happen with mine), I have more and more difficulty proselytizing Apple to others, and myself. I don't want it to be this way.
I used to be a big fan of Windows, I thought Win32 was the coolest API, COM rocked the socks off of my ass, and why would anyone ever use... yikes, a Mac (unless they were doing audio or graphics work, but who would ever want to develop on one)?
Then the antitrust trial hit, and I found out about so many shady, potentially illegal and often downright mean things about MS. The real kicker was when they tried to fake evidence (of the Felton program destabilizing Windows 98), then backpedaled when they were caught, saying it was only a "simulation of what we've seen in the lab." That pissed me off greatly, and that is when I really started reading and learning about Linux. When Mac OSX came out, I was already familiar enough with *nix to be able to get around comfortably.
So now, I only do Windows if i'm getting paid (and even then, i'm putting the bug in people's ear about Linux). Otherwise, it's Linux or OSX. I've no real beef with Windows, but i've major issues with MS and don't want to support them in any way.
... there is a _lot_ of high-quality music out there that is not shackled by the RIAA. They are not the only game in town, by a longshot, and this is not a pipe dream... independent, non-RIAA music is as real as anything else, and a lot easier on the conscience, to boot.
Let me preface this by saying that I think Apple, generally, makes quality products, and I own 3 Macs and am happy with them. However, I had once purchased an iBook 900mhz G3, only to find that it often wouldn't wake from sleep when I opened the lid (yes, it was still on), leaving a cold restart as the only means of recovering. When talking to the Apple tech support person, I told him this; I also told them that I had an iBook 700mhz that never exhibited these symtpoms, even though it was running the same version of OSX, the same software, etc.
His responses were professional, until the point where he mentioned that the 900mhz model was 30% faster than the 700mhz model, and that could possibly justify the increase in the number of time I needed to restart. I then asked if, given two machines, one being twice as fast as the other, but crashing twice as often, these machines were equally usable. At that point he backed from his earlier statement:-)
I live in Santa Cruz, and know some of these people who were laid off recently. I don't like what SCO is doing, either... and I have fond hopes that they fail miserably with regards to their Linux IP litigations. Still, some good friends of mine are now without work, without prescription benefits, and in this jobless recovery, without much hope. I feel very badly for them.
Regards,
John, human
... the dark side of distributed computing :-)
on
Infected PCs for Rent
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I find this fascinating. Programs like SETI@home use the CPU of millions of distributed nodes to crunch SETI data -- a far more scalable solution to computing problems like this than running a big machine / cluster of your own. This article describes the same thing, except on the opposite side of the line -- millions (potentially?) of distrbuted nodes being used to do the will of spammers / virus writers / etc., a far more scalable solution than running your own spamming system.
Really, I do find this fascinating, albeit in an underhanded way.
... erm, _mature_, judging from the photo on the article. Gone are the days of the black cape and metal mask, he kinda looks like my grandfather now -- all warm and fuzzy:-)
As a primarily C / C++ developer (Windows, Linux, Mac OSX and Solaris) who has recently been writing a lot of Perl, i'm excited about this with respect to how it might expand my (limited) Perl skills. I'm finding that this language is _so_ useful for _so_ many things, many of which I (mistakenly) thought were only handled well by C / C++.
I completely concur... I do cross-platform development, and thus am familiar with both Windows and *nix systems. My choice is definitely *nix, and I run Mac OSX at home. I just wanted to comment on what appeared to be some bias against Windows given what appear to be very similar contexts. I want Linux / *nix / OSX / etc. to gain market share, definitely (I enjoy variety)... I just think that honesty and objectivity is the best way to do it.
Slashdot Mirror
So _that's_ where it went. I've been looking for this stuff for weeks. At first I thought I lost it in the woods when I went camping, but then I thought that perhaps I left it in the shed, or maybe the Dryer Gnomes absconded with it. All of this time, it was in a super-heated gas cloud millions of light years away? Who knew?
Regards,
John
"Jupiter-sized blobs of hot gas embedded in streams of material ejected ..."
Regards,
John
Yes, that's what I meant -- the kernel source is available, not because it's the least complex part of the OS, rather, it's available partly because it's one of the most complex pieces, and there are a lot of super-smart people on the internet who know kernel space inside and out. And believe me, it's nice having the source available ... there have been times where some code I was writing was returning some strange error, and the man pages didn't give much of a clue, and Google didn't, either. I just snarfed the XNU source, grepped for the error I was seeing, and by looking at the source for the kernel function I was calling (and following the code to see what would make it return the error I was seeing), I found that I was populating a structure incorrectly.
I love open source :-)
Regards,
John
OK, this is just wrong.
1. Linus is not the _only_ person who looks at submitted code for Linux ... there are many people, and i've met some of them. This is just disingenuous to suggest.
2. The kernel source is not available because it's the least complex part of the OS -- it's available partly because it's one of the more complex pieces, and a lot of really smart people who know their stuff in kernel space look at / debug / suggest additions for it.
3. Come on -- on a Linux box, if you don't want to compile from source, use apt or rpm or dselect or whatever.
Hey, I love my Macs (1.33ghz 12" PowerBook, 450mhz Cube, dual 1.25ghz g4) but your points are deceptive -- there are harder methods of doing things on OSX, and easier methods of doing things on Linux. You choose the best method for the desired outcome.
Regards,
John
"So, we're going to be making all of these neat components that people can use, right?"
"Right."
"And this will allow them to call our components from about any language that has a COM bridge, right?"
"Right."
"Um ... why do they get to have it so good?"
(long pause)
Regards,
John
Is it just me? Is being pissed at all manner of things just part of growing up?
Regards,
John
Regarding the ripping, you can rip via any of the myriad of Linux rippers out there, and autorun will let you automagically launch a script of your own making to start le ripping, if you desire.
Regards,
John
1. AIO calls on non-file FDs i.e. sockets, pipes
2. userland calls for atomic operations (without using Carbon)
3. more current compiler support i.e. you can use any FSF version of gcc and not have to worry about having weird things happen if you mix FSF gcc with Apple's gcc
Now, #2 above can be done under OSX with a bit of PPC assembly, and as for #3, you can use FSF gcc alongside Apple's gcc, but you won't be able to make calls into Carbon / Cocoa with FSF's gcc, and Apple's gcc is always behind FSFs gcc (Apple's is 3.3, FSF is already at 3.4.2 I think, working on 4.0). FSF gcc changes eventually make it into Apple's gcc, but it takes time as Apple needs to add a lot of their own stuff that won't ever bein the FSF version.
Regards,
John
Regards,
John
s/off could/of code/g
Hey, i'm just waking up :-)
Regards,
John
PugsleyButt:~/devstuff/c++ jmzorko$ strings file_to_examine
It just seems to me that this would be an obvious, but fairly effective way to quickly find all the registry points (as well as DLLs and other files) that a piece off could would touch ... maybe use it in conjunction with nm as well ...
Regards,
John
Yikes, this is weird -- i'm suddenly _defending_ Windows a lot more than I normally do lately, even though I prefer *nix. Funky.
Regards,
John
In 1997 I purchased a Newton 2100, hoping I could do on-the-go audio recording / editing by getting a PCMCIA card that had a SPDIF port (so I could plug in a digital microphone as well as an external DAT), get the RAM up to the point where I could edit digital audio of at least a few minutes in length, and actually find some version of Peak / Spark / etc. that would run on the little beastie. None of these things were meant to be, and I ended up using it as a PDA only.
These days, the palmtops and such are getting to this point. I'm getting excited about this again. WIndows -- blech, but if I could put Linux on it and get a SPDIF in / out, that would be monster-cool :-)
Regards,
John
1. I bought a dual 1.25GHz G4 -- love it
2. I bought PowerBook 12" 1.33GHz -- love it
3. I bought an iPod 40G -- love it
4. I bring the iBook to work every day, so when I don't bring it in, people notice (read: they ask why, and I say "it died" to which they retort "AGAIN?")
I adore Apple stuff, but I _abhore_ their tech support department when it comes to the iBooks. Just thinking about my (several) bad experiences with them angers me quite a lot.
Regards,
John
Regards,
John
Regards,
John
I go to great lengths to put Apple in a good light to all of my friends and coworkers, but with each bad iBook experience I have (and i've had _6_ now on the iBooks with this issue), I look like a fool to others i've attempted to enlighten, and sometimes myself when I look in the mirror. Every 3 months it seems (which is the frequency that this seems to happen with mine), I have more and more difficulty proselytizing Apple to others, and myself. I don't want it to be this way.
Regards,
John
I used to be a big fan of Windows, I thought Win32 was the coolest API, COM rocked the socks off of my ass, and why would anyone ever use ... yikes, a Mac (unless they were doing audio or graphics work, but who would ever want to develop on one)?
Then the antitrust trial hit, and I found out about so many shady, potentially illegal and often downright mean things about MS. The real kicker was when they tried to fake evidence (of the Felton program destabilizing Windows 98), then backpedaled when they were caught, saying it was only a "simulation of what we've seen in the lab." That pissed me off greatly, and that is when I really started reading and learning about Linux. When Mac OSX came out, I was already familiar enough with *nix to be able to get around comfortably.
So now, I only do Windows if i'm getting paid (and even then, i'm putting the bug in people's ear about Linux). Otherwise, it's Linux or OSX. I've no real beef with Windows, but i've major issues with MS and don't want to support them in any way.
Regards,
John
Regards,
John
His responses were professional, until the point where he mentioned that the 900mhz model was 30% faster than the 700mhz model, and that could possibly justify the increase in the number of time I needed to restart. I then asked if, given two machines, one being twice as fast as the other, but crashing twice as often, these machines were equally usable. At that point he backed from his earlier statement :-)
Regards,
John
Regards,
John, human
Really, I do find this fascinating, albeit in an underhanded way.
Regards,
John
Regards,
John
Regards,
John
I completely concur ... I do cross-platform development, and thus am familiar with both Windows and *nix systems. My choice is definitely *nix, and I run Mac OSX at home. I just wanted to comment on what appeared to be some bias against Windows given what appear to be very similar contexts. I want Linux / *nix / OSX / etc. to gain market share, definitely (I enjoy variety) ... I just think that honesty and objectivity is the best way to do it.
Regards,
John