Sex appeal is the only force left with respect to the evolution of human beings. We're far too smart to be influenced by anything less barring a catastrophic environmental change.
It is a very good book but it is *hard* for people without strong math background
Skip the proofs (I believe you Gusfield:~). You don't need to understand the proofs. I think he does a rather good job at propviding a high level description for each algorithm. And you can complement this other material from Algo books. I do NOT have a strong math backgroud but I managed to understand what was being discussed enough to implement the algorithms and understand why you would use one or a permutation of one to solve a particular problem. It's hard read but not too hard.
...you've either got to deal with the huge mess that is Word's "Save as HTML" or you lose all the pretty formatting (which does sometimes include important diagrams or tables) when it's saved as text.
Install an Apple LaserWriter Select 360 printer. You don't actually need a physical printer to do this. You just want to make the driver available. This only needs to be performed once.
To generate.ps from a.doc in Word, choose File, Print..., select the Print to file checkbox and from the Printer pull-down select the Apple LaserWriter Select 360. Hitting Print will generate a.prn file. Just rename it to.ps and send it off. You may need to undo those changes the next time you want to print normally however.
Now the user can open the.ps file with ghostview (gv) in the Unix environment.
The foundation of all windowing systems is the Model View Controller mechanism. There are surprisingly few good examples of source code or descriptions of how to actually implement such frameworks but the general idea is well know and easy to understand and appreciate.
The Model View Controller framework abstracts the three separate components of a basic user interface. The Model is the data. This might be a double subscripted array of numbers or a tree of arbitrarily complex nodes. The Controller is probably a keyboard and mouse. There would be some driver code that would deliver mouse and keyboard events to the object currently in focus (or to what ever object registered itself as an event listener). The most important and more sophisticated of these three components is the View.
The View is an area (usually rectangular) of the display device such as a monitor or printer. The key principle behind a view is that it's potentially the child of a parent View. Thus each view may contain subviews each with their own coordinate space. Within a view graphics primiatives and subviews are drawn to create arbitarily complex grapical interfaces. Because the translation to display device coordinates is handled by the graphics context passed to all drawing functions (Graphics g in Java AWT), the implementation of a subview may draw it's widget with respect to coordinates 0,0. This makes it very easy to integrate new custom widgets (widgets stands for "Window Gadgets"). So, for example a frame is a View with a border, a label, and maybe a scrollbar. It has two buttons, some text, and another frame as children. The button is a View that contains a border decor and some text... etc. This follows the process of Recursive Composition. There is a good description of Views in the BEOS documentation which unfortunately I cannot link to because BE has apprently disabled much of their site. I would appricitate it if someone could point me to a valid link to the description of the BView class.
Ironnically, this framework is repeated in software over and over where only one would really be necessary provided the API were general and flexible. For example, the X-Window system is an MVC framework. But Mozilla has it's own MVC framework for drawing GUI components. Then within Mozilla's rendering engine Gecko is another MVC framework for rendering html components.
In this last case of Gecko, I can understand why they would not want to use a generic windowing MVC API; the layout of components is very strict in that images, links, and the way text flows around components is required to behave in a certain way as to conform to the various associated standards such as CSS and DOM etc. It would be interesting and simplify things tremendously if one could reduce and refactor one unified implementation that parameterized all the different requirements of these MVC frameworks. Then custom components could be potentially integrated into previous unrelated applications (e.g. vi in xterm as the text area of an HTML page).
a stable Kernel is because the're not stable or they're not a performace enhancement. Robert Love's "preemptable kernel patch" will crash an SMP system with certain drivers. If you have a UP system or you know your hardware is kosher then you'll be OK. I don't think it's for production systems. It's more of a desktop performace enhancement. As for Rik's reverse mapping VM code, the last graphs from Safemode (it's a person), showed Andrea's VM still performed better. In fact, Rik's code still has problems on low memory systems (caused a lockup in one of Safemode's tests). But of course it's good to see these patches getting some visability. They might prove to be useful after some time.
At $3000 HP-LX is too expensive for many to experiment with...
That is only if you're afraid to do a little kernel hacking. Unless it's a binary only module (I doubt it, the're not hiding info about hardware) kernel patches should be available for Free. And really, $3000 beans isn't a whole lot for what sounds like a dreamy setup for internet boxen serving holy DNS and FTP. This is how internet services really should be ran by default. Unlike IIS that runs as user profile SYSTEM so that it can do impersonation (sorry for the M$ dig, but it's a really good example of how not to run internet services).
Re:VIA KT133 chipset?
on
Kernel 2.4.17 Out
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Does it work with the KT133a Chipset and Athlons?
This was a long standing motherboard/BIOS issue. I think VIA actually found and acknowledged that some register was getting scrambled inadvertantly but I could be thinking of another peice of hardware. It's so hard to find these messages in the lkml archives even after only a few days. At any rate, I have this board. At one time I had problems but it was difficult for me to tell if it was the VIA board or the infamous IBM Deskstar 30GB drive I had that was failing. So I RMA'd the drive, bought another SCSI drive and put my 2940UW on there with the latest BIOS update. I have not had any problems since and I tortured it pretty hard. Of coure all of this is off topic because I'm using Red Hats 2.4.7 but again, this is/was a hardware/BIOS issue.
...there are people that make a living of documenting the mes^H^H^Hprograms other people leave behind.
Sure, and more often than not the result is inferior compared to what the developer could have done in the time it took out of his or her time to explain to the technical write what the technical writer should write. A much better scenario (ideal really) is for the developer to write some raw, perhaps crude, but complete documentation minus API references, tables, illustrations, and similar. That will greatly accelerate the technical writers job of organizing and presenting the information more formally.
And remember we're talking about Free documentation here. A technical writer who was good enough to interpret someone elses code would probably write code themselves instead because they have a choice.
Re:What are the new things they are working on?
on
Linux Kernel 2.5.1 is Out
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
99% of the linux boxes out there run only 3 concurent running tasks, so the scheduler has to remain optimized for this situation
Interesting. But could this measurement be simplified to the point of being off base? A large percentage of these machines are webservers sitting idle so what do they care about scheduler optimizations? Same thoughts for single process number cruching ray tracing server farms. Shouldn't the focus be optimizing tasks that will benifit from being optimized? I know we have a few boxes that just run Java apps. I bet they would benifit from a new scheduler if the machine were a 4 way. So what are the bulk of these 99 out of 100 machines doing? They're not desktops.
Also, what prevents Kernel developers from optimizing the scheduler for a Kernel development workstation:-P
Whomever writes the code should document it. Anyone else will likely produce something that is inadequate. Only the developer who wrote the code truely understands the work right down to it's semicolons. Developers always think there code is very self explainatory but trust me when I tell you that other developers are not interested in looking at your code. This is because it's either crappy code or it's potentially nicer than something they would write but the most likely scenario is that the just want to know how to use it and move on with their own code.
Please do not obsess over organization and presentation. Users will only withstand a very basic hierarchial organzation. Just start vi, insert the standard <html> boiler plate, and start typeing. Use lots of contextual inline hyperlinks to sections of LXR'd code, hyerlinked specs, other topic documents, and related sites. Don't make people dig for this stuff. Yes, lead them by the hand. Only the largest projects need a full blown index. Have one page of intro and a page for each topic. If you introduce a new major feature or there's an issue just write up a page of html on it and add a link to it in the main page. Use lot's of lists and tables. They provide good landmarks and organize info nicely.
Most importantly just get the information out of your head so people can use it. Spending one day a week on writing up a page on some topic will do wonders for your project. There are three reasons for this. The first is simply that users will know how to use your code which is obviously a prerequasite to actually using it. Second you will understand your code better and likey become keener to it's strengths and faults in the process. If you find yourself evading a particular topic then that's the topic you should explore. Don't leave that neusance dangling over your shoulder or it will take the fun out of your work. And it might very well be an artifact of an issue with the code or application. Third, colleagues and users will ask fewer questions and be able to contribute intellegently to the discussions and sumit useful problem reports.
Documentation is so very important, your code is virtually useless to anyone except you if you don't. Finally, if you spell as well as I do, use a spell checker;-P
AbiWord isn't trying to build a word processor around any particular format.
Crap. You just pick apart each format and mush it into whatever form you need at that particular moment. If you had an internal tree representation acting as a common denominator for all serialized forms you could load one format and save to any other. The quality of your implementation is dependant on how much information is preserved in the translation. This is an incremental process so the code should still extract useful data even if youre serialization routines are not complete (instead of completely barfing when an unknown structure is encountered like wvware does).
But import/export is a very boring and uniteresting part of a Word Processor.
What are you talking about? Serialization and deserialization is the key to releasing the information in a document. Do you really think people care more about the damn styles used? Rendering and formatting is secondary. If you don't support rendering some node in the tree, skip it or put an empty View with no children there as a place holder. Skip the styles you don't quite understand for later.
And by the way, the MSWord document format is insanely difficult for mere mortals to understand.
No it's not. I know another MS spec that makes the MSWord97 spec look like a childrens book and it's pretty damn good. They do a good job at communicating the criticals in these "specs". One thing that MS does rather well at is documenting there stuff (e.g. msdn). Yeah, it's not good enough to implement directly from but what do you want; a HOWTO already? Quite frankly it would all be very boring if there was nothing left to be reverse engineered.
I'm sorry guys, I have looked at your code. And it does not take long to see that you do not have the abstractions I'm talking about. This project is all in the design. I'm not going to write a viewer because I think that is clearly a separable project (I'm just exploring Tree *DOC_decode(FILE *in)/void DOC_encode(FILE *out, Tree *tree)) but if I were I might look at projects like BView from BEOS, the W3C's Scaleable Vector Grphics, and other examples of MVC frameworks that use a tree for a model. Of course I could be a little off here because I've spent so little time on the project but I have a feeling you guys are going to get bogged down with details that transcend your code if you don't separate your peas and carrots.
I don't believe this for a second. Word is complex, but I've looked at the Microsoft Word 97 Binary File Format spec (and spent a good week starting to write my own parser) and I don't see the big deal. This stuff is not that hard. Parsing it is actually pretty easy (yes Werner, you were right, a yacc parser is useless). The hard part has nothing to do with Word. These guys are trying to write a word processor which is more about rendering and efficient editing than how it serializes it's state. But there going about it in completely the wrong way. The're trying to build a word processor around the Word format. Separate your peas and carrots guys. Don't limit your exectations to the abilities of Word. These guys should be exploring the proven priciples behind rendering and editors, find a good data structure to represent a document and then deserialize and serialize documents to and from that data structure (a tree) into whatever format you want include.doc,.ps,.html,....
Of course, the server could be the victim of the exploit, which could then send links to everyone on the person's buddy list...
Links to where? Back to the infected webserver? You don't have propagation because you're not infecting new servers. Not unless the webserver is doubling as the victims PC but that isn't very common and such sites do not get a lot of hits.
The bug hasn't been exploited. It hasnt caused huge problems. MSFT is coming out with a fix BEFORE hackers could find a way to exploit it.
I don't think it matters. Of the browsers affected, how many do you think will receive this patch? It's too late.
Regardless, the issue will not become serious because it requires a server to deliver the payload and that's not something anyone would do willingly without advertising themselves as the attacker.
This isn't much different from the Netscape Java SocketImpl problem that would allow servers to connect back to your machine and look at your files (albeit harmless by comparison).
... posts like this are obvious representations of old farts with some serious insecurities.
Ok, ok, don't get bent. I'm not putting him down for being a teenager. And I'm 29 BTW. I may be insecure but not about my age:~)
But you have to think for a second that a teenager is maintaining the freaking main Linux Kernel already. That's some pretty serious pressure. Then again it's probably just computer program to him so it shouldn't matter right? Don't come cryn' to me when the kid turns out like Gary Coleman;-P
I know this really, shouldn't matter; if you're qualified, you should be given a chance. But this person looks *very* young. He must have spent quite a significant part of his life in front of a CRT. That's not a good way to make a balanced human being.
Do you really want a version of Office for Linux? Really?
I heard that when they ported IE to Solaris that it required all sorts of crazy Win support stuff. I don't know about you but I'm not going to put an AUTOEXEC.BAT file on my Linux box.
Digitizing at 16bit/44.1khz "CD quality" commits absolute horrors on the subtleties of good tone
Actually, according to the spec you can negotiate up to 192kHz at the expense of only four channels as opposed to 32 at 48kHz. No matter, I agree, as a programmer and owner of a Les Paul 59 Reissue plugging into a Marshall and cutting loose is what it's about and always will be. However, if you're experimenting with digital effects, or want custom setups for the road, I would imagine just having a linux box connected to a hub of intruments and a mixer connected to your PA might be a rather pleasant setup to work with. I would consider this progress. And the spec looks very genuine. I wonder how long it will be before there are linux drivers so you can just plug right into a hub on your LAN.
Re:More a proof of concept than a finished product
on
This is IT?
·
· Score: 2
But by the time it gets to about $500, sign me up.
Bah. This is nothing new. My grandmother has one of these and it was only like 50 bucks.
You won't find anyone. A prerequisite is that they find you. To pass the torch it will invariably be necessary that the candadate become interested in the project on their own recognisence. This is just human nature. They need to feel like they discovered it in a way thus making it important by induction. To say that you have done everything with the project and that your "done" is not going to enlightlen anyone to step up. Programmers are rather finiky about what they will put work into for free (and you can forget about good programmers). Remember when your grandmother gave you those coins and told you she though you should start collecting too? You didn't did you? Whereas if she had layed them out when you came over and didn't say anything and was kooth about it you just might have become interested in that coin collection. If she was really slick about it (and it was a good coin collection) you'd probably start asking her about her will.
Seriously. It's 4:30am here in New Jersey and the sky is crystal clear. I went out for a smoke and almost broke my neck but I caught about 4-5 trails while I was out there. Cold though. Berrr.
Slashdot Mirror
Sex appeal is the only force left with respect to the evolution of human beings. We're far too smart to be influenced by anything less barring a catastrophic environmental change.
It is a very good book but it is *hard* for people without strong math background
:~). You don't need to understand the proofs. I think he does a rather good job at propviding a high level description for each algorithm. And you can complement this other material from Algo books. I do NOT have a strong math backgroud but I managed to understand what was being discussed enough to implement the algorithms and understand why you would use one or a permutation of one to solve a particular problem. It's hard read but not too hard.
Skip the proofs (I believe you Gusfield
...you've either got to deal with the huge mess that is Word's "Save as HTML" or you lose all the pretty formatting (which does sometimes include important diagrams or tables) when it's saved as text.
.ps from a .doc in Word, choose File, Print ..., select the Print to file checkbox and from the Printer pull-down select the Apple LaserWriter Select 360. Hitting Print will generate a .prn file. Just rename it to .ps and send it off. You may need to undo those changes the next time you want to print normally however.
.ps file with ghostview (gv) in the Unix environment.
Install an Apple LaserWriter Select 360 printer. You don't actually need a physical printer to do this. You just want to make the driver available. This only needs to be performed once.
To generate
Now the user can open the
The Model View Controller framework abstracts the three separate components of a basic user interface. The Model is the data. This might be a double subscripted array of numbers or a tree of arbitrarily complex nodes. The Controller is probably a keyboard and mouse. There would be some driver code that would deliver mouse and keyboard events to the object currently in focus (or to what ever object registered itself as an event listener). The most important and more sophisticated of these three components is the View.
The View is an area (usually rectangular) of the display device such as a monitor or printer. The key principle behind a view is that it's potentially the child of a parent View. Thus each view may contain subviews each with their own coordinate space. Within a view graphics primiatives and subviews are drawn to create arbitarily complex grapical interfaces. Because the translation to display device coordinates is handled by the graphics context passed to all drawing functions (Graphics g in Java AWT), the implementation of a subview may draw it's widget with respect to coordinates 0,0. This makes it very easy to integrate new custom widgets (widgets stands for "Window Gadgets"). So, for example a frame is a View with a border, a label, and maybe a scrollbar. It has two buttons, some text, and another frame as children. The button is a View that contains a border decor and some text ... etc. This follows the process of Recursive Composition. There is a good description of Views in the BEOS documentation which unfortunately I cannot link to because BE has apprently disabled much of their site. I would appricitate it if someone could point me to a valid link to the description of the BView class.
Ironnically, this framework is repeated in software over and over where only one would really be necessary provided the API were general and flexible. For example, the X-Window system is an MVC framework. But Mozilla has it's own MVC framework for drawing GUI components. Then within Mozilla's rendering engine Gecko is another MVC framework for rendering html components.
In this last case of Gecko, I can understand why they would not want to use a generic windowing MVC API; the layout of components is very strict in that images, links, and the way text flows around components is required to behave in a certain way as to conform to the various associated standards such as CSS and DOM etc. It would be interesting and simplify things tremendously if one could reduce and refactor one unified implementation that parameterized all the different requirements of these MVC frameworks. Then custom components could be potentially integrated into previous unrelated applications (e.g. vi in xterm as the text area of an HTML page).
Wrong! IIS does not run as system!
.NET worker process run, anyway? Well, as of this writing, it runs as SYSTEM. Yikes!
We'll it depends. This article explains it all but at one point the author says:
Where does the ASP
The article is from Nov 2001. This is WRT web services with authentication options on.
a stable Kernel is because the're not stable or they're not a performace enhancement. Robert Love's "preemptable kernel patch" will crash an SMP system with certain drivers. If you have a UP system or you know your hardware is kosher then you'll be OK. I don't think it's for production systems. It's more of a desktop performace enhancement. As for Rik's reverse mapping VM code, the last graphs from Safemode (it's a person), showed Andrea's VM still performed better. In fact, Rik's code still has problems on low memory systems (caused a lockup in one of Safemode's tests). But of course it's good to see these patches getting some visability. They might prove to be useful after some time.
At $3000 HP-LX is too expensive for many to experiment with...
That is only if you're afraid to do a little kernel hacking. Unless it's a binary only module (I doubt it, the're not hiding info about hardware) kernel patches should be available for Free. And really, $3000 beans isn't a whole lot for what sounds like a dreamy setup for internet boxen serving holy DNS and FTP. This is how internet services really should be ran by default. Unlike IIS that runs as user profile SYSTEM so that it can do impersonation (sorry for the M$ dig, but it's a really good example of how not to run internet services).
Does it work with the KT133a Chipset and Athlons?
This was a long standing motherboard/BIOS issue. I think VIA actually found and acknowledged that some register was getting scrambled inadvertantly but I could be thinking of another peice of hardware. It's so hard to find these messages in the lkml archives even after only a few days. At any rate, I have this board. At one time I had problems but it was difficult for me to tell if it was the VIA board or the infamous IBM Deskstar 30GB drive I had that was failing. So I RMA'd the drive, bought another SCSI drive and put my 2940UW on there with the latest BIOS update. I have not had any problems since and I tortured it pretty hard. Of coure all of this is off topic because I'm using Red Hats 2.4.7 but again, this is/was a hardware/BIOS issue.
...there are people that make a living of documenting the mes^H^H^Hprograms other people leave behind.
Sure, and more often than not the result is inferior compared to what the developer could have done in the time it took out of his or her time to explain to the technical write what the technical writer should write. A much better scenario (ideal really) is for the developer to write some raw, perhaps crude, but complete documentation minus API references, tables, illustrations, and similar. That will greatly accelerate the technical writers job of organizing and presenting the information more formally.
And remember we're talking about Free documentation here. A technical writer who was good enough to interpret someone elses code would probably write code themselves instead because they have a choice.
No shit.
99% of the linux boxes out there run only 3 concurent running tasks, so the scheduler has to remain optimized for this situation
:-P
Interesting. But could this measurement be simplified to the point of being off base? A large percentage of these machines are webservers sitting idle so what do they care about scheduler optimizations? Same thoughts for single process number cruching ray tracing server farms. Shouldn't the focus be optimizing tasks that will benifit from being optimized? I know we have a few boxes that just run Java apps. I bet they would benifit from a new scheduler if the machine were a 4 way. So what are the bulk of these 99 out of 100 machines doing? They're not desktops.
Also, what prevents Kernel developers from optimizing the scheduler for a Kernel development workstation
Whomever writes the code should document it. Anyone else will likely produce something that is inadequate. Only the developer who wrote the code truely understands the work right down to it's semicolons. Developers always think there code is very self explainatory but trust me when I tell you that other developers are not interested in looking at your code. This is because it's either crappy code or it's potentially nicer than something they would write but the most likely scenario is that the just want to know how to use it and move on with their own code.
;-P
Please do not obsess over organization and presentation. Users will only withstand a very basic hierarchial organzation. Just start vi, insert the standard <html> boiler plate, and start typeing. Use lots of contextual inline hyperlinks to sections of LXR'd code, hyerlinked specs, other topic documents, and related sites. Don't make people dig for this stuff. Yes, lead them by the hand. Only the largest projects need a full blown index. Have one page of intro and a page for each topic. If you introduce a new major feature or there's an issue just write up a page of html on it and add a link to it in the main page. Use lot's of lists and tables. They provide good landmarks and organize info nicely.
Most importantly just get the information out of your head so people can use it. Spending one day a week on writing up a page on some topic will do wonders for your project. There are three reasons for this. The first is simply that users will know how to use your code which is obviously a prerequasite to actually using it. Second you will understand your code better and likey become keener to it's strengths and faults in the process. If you find yourself evading a particular topic then that's the topic you should explore. Don't leave that neusance dangling over your shoulder or it will take the fun out of your work. And it might very well be an artifact of an issue with the code or application. Third, colleagues and users will ask fewer questions and be able to contribute intellegently to the discussions and sumit useful problem reports.
Documentation is so very important, your code is virtually useless to anyone except you if you don't. Finally, if you spell as well as I do, use a spell checker
Is there any fix for the Nautilus problems on RH 7.2? If I turn Nautilus off the icons and right-click menu go with it.
AbiWord isn't trying to build a word processor around any particular format.
Crap. You just pick apart each format and mush it into whatever form you need at that particular moment. If you had an internal tree representation acting as a common denominator for all serialized forms you could load one format and save to any other. The quality of your implementation is dependant on how much information is preserved in the translation. This is an incremental process so the code should still extract useful data even if youre serialization routines are not complete (instead of completely barfing when an unknown structure is encountered like wvware does).
But import/export is a very boring and uniteresting part of a Word Processor.
What are you talking about? Serialization and deserialization is the key to releasing the information in a document. Do you really think people care more about the damn styles used? Rendering and formatting is secondary. If you don't support rendering some node in the tree, skip it or put an empty View with no children there as a place holder. Skip the styles you don't quite understand for later.
And by the way, the MSWord document format is insanely difficult for mere mortals to understand.
No it's not. I know another MS spec that makes the MSWord97 spec look like a childrens book and it's pretty damn good. They do a good job at communicating the criticals in these "specs". One thing that MS does rather well at is documenting there stuff (e.g. msdn). Yeah, it's not good enough to implement directly from but what do you want; a HOWTO already? Quite frankly it would all be very boring if there was nothing left to be reverse engineered.
I'm sorry guys, I have looked at your code. And it does not take long to see that you do not have the abstractions I'm talking about. This project is all in the design. I'm not going to write a viewer because I think that is clearly a separable project (I'm just exploring Tree *DOC_decode(FILE *in)/void DOC_encode(FILE *out, Tree *tree)) but if I were I might look at projects like BView from BEOS, the W3C's Scaleable Vector Grphics, and other examples of MVC frameworks that use a tree for a model. Of course I could be a little off here because I've spent so little time on the project but I have a feeling you guys are going to get bogged down with details that transcend your code if you don't separate your peas and carrots.
I am not a troll.
I don't believe this for a second. Word is complex, but I've looked at the Microsoft Word 97 Binary File Format spec (and spent a good week starting to write my own parser) and I don't see the big deal. This stuff is not that hard. Parsing it is actually pretty easy (yes Werner, you were right, a yacc parser is useless). The hard part has nothing to do with Word. These guys are trying to write a word processor which is more about rendering and efficient editing than how it serializes it's state. But there going about it in completely the wrong way. The're trying to build a word processor around the Word format. Separate your peas and carrots guys. Don't limit your exectations to the abilities of Word. These guys should be exploring the proven priciples behind rendering and editors, find a good data structure to represent a document and then deserialize and serialize documents to and from that data structure (a tree) into whatever format you want include .doc, .ps, .html, ....
Of course, the server could be the victim of the exploit, which could then send links to everyone on the person's buddy list...
Links to where? Back to the infected webserver? You don't have propagation because you're not infecting new servers. Not unless the webserver is doubling as the victims PC but that isn't very common and such sites do not get a lot of hits.
The bug hasn't been exploited. It hasnt caused huge problems. MSFT is coming out with a fix BEFORE hackers could find a way to exploit it.
I don't think it matters. Of the browsers affected, how many do you think will receive this patch? It's too late.
Regardless, the issue will not become serious because it requires a server to deliver the payload and that's not something anyone would do willingly without advertising themselves as the attacker.
This isn't much different from the Netscape Java SocketImpl problem that would allow servers to connect back to your machine and look at your files (albeit harmless by comparison).
sounds like that new backbone of theirs is working
... posts like this are obvious representations of old farts with some serious insecurities.
:~)
;-P
Ok, ok, don't get bent. I'm not putting him down for being a teenager. And I'm 29 BTW. I may be insecure but not about my age
But you have to think for a second that a teenager is maintaining the freaking main Linux Kernel already. That's some pretty serious pressure. Then again it's probably just computer program to him so it shouldn't matter right? Don't come cryn' to me when the kid turns out like Gary Coleman
I know this really, shouldn't matter; if you're qualified, you should be given a chance. But this person looks *very* young. He must have spent quite a significant part of his life in front of a CRT. That's not a good way to make a balanced human being.
Do you really want a version of Office for Linux? Really?
I heard that when they ported IE to Solaris that it required all sorts of crazy Win support stuff. I don't know about you but I'm not going to put an AUTOEXEC.BAT file on my Linux box.
Digitizing at 16bit/44.1khz "CD quality" commits absolute horrors on the subtleties of good tone
Actually, according to the spec you can negotiate up to 192kHz at the expense of only four channels as opposed to 32 at 48kHz. No matter, I agree, as a programmer and owner of a Les Paul 59 Reissue plugging into a Marshall and cutting loose is what it's about and always will be. However, if you're experimenting with digital effects, or want custom setups for the road, I would imagine just having a linux box connected to a hub of intruments and a mixer connected to your PA might be a rather pleasant setup to work with. I would consider this progress. And the spec looks very genuine. I wonder how long it will be before there are linux drivers so you can just plug right into a hub on your LAN.
But by the time it gets to about $500, sign me up.
Bah. This is nothing new. My grandmother has one of these and it was only like 50 bucks.
You won't find anyone. A prerequisite is that they find you. To pass the torch it will invariably be necessary that the candadate become interested in the project on their own recognisence. This is just human nature. They need to feel like they discovered it in a way thus making it important by induction. To say that you have done everything with the project and that your "done" is not going to enlightlen anyone to step up. Programmers are rather finiky about what they will put work into for free (and you can forget about good programmers). Remember when your grandmother gave you those coins and told you she though you should start collecting too? You didn't did you? Whereas if she had layed them out when you came over and didn't say anything and was kooth about it you just might have become interested in that coin collection. If she was really slick about it (and it was a good coin collection) you'd probably start asking her about her will.
Seriously. It's 4:30am here in New Jersey and the sky is crystal clear. I went out for a smoke and almost broke my neck but I caught about 4-5 trails while I was out there. Cold though. Berrr.