Too many users have never heard of USENET or think it's the same thing as Google Groups.
With a proper newsreader, many of the "issues" that folks have with the medium are solved, and it doesn't take a terribly complex score file to do it (depending on the specific kooks being filtered, of course).
For me, USENET is still the first place I go to find answers to technical questions, and it's still one of the fastest and most interesting ways to converse on the modern internet.
I've always used my real e-mail address when posting to USENET, and I've only had one issue in the past ten years (some idiot tossed out various forged postings using other people's e-mail addresses including mine, and which resulted his ISP eventually cancelling his account).
BTW, USENET has nothing to do with the web except where it interfaces with places like Google Groups. And real USENET news clients are text-based.:-)
Just as with operating systems, the look and feel of different types/brands of toy bricks is something you have to experience firsthand before you can really appreciate the differences.
We had Lego-brand bricks while I was growing up in the 60's/70's, and I have a fairly sizable collection that I've added to over the years, but perhaps five years ago I grabbed a couple of sets of MegaBlocks out of curiosity. I found them to be better than I expected, and they seem to work just fine for the types of things I tend to build (structures for RPGs and that sort of thing). Now I have 30-40k pieces of the things in addition to my 20k pieces of Legos.:-)
Try them. Your initial impression might be confirmed, but you might be pleasantly surprised as well.
When I started working as a contract programmer right out of school 17 years ago, both my employer and the client site required their IT people to wear dress shirts and ties.
That is no longer the case. These days, I wear dress slacks and a polo shirt, which is a lot more comfortable.
The dress code doesn't really impact how well one can write code, etc., but the additional comfort is nice to have.
Interesting. Linux has arguably been more successful at competing with Windows on the desktop front than any operating system since IBM's 32-bit OS/2 offerings in the early and mid 1990's, and the level of attention Microsoft has been paying to Linux confirms that observation.
Instead of tossing out flippant insults, perhaps you should come out of your cave and actually test the wind. Redmond is losing inertia, my friend, and even casual PC users are starting to realize that there has to be something better out there. And there is.:-)
I've been Microsoft-free for 13 years. It can be done.
Because Fortran programming works in some contexts
on
Unit Test Your Aspects
·
· Score: 1
The flight ops system I worked on at a major airline only a few years ago is written in Fortran and runs in a mainframe transaction environment that gets rid of common problems like buffer overflows and that provides a nice event-driven environment in which users obtain or enter data on quick-hitting text screens.
For what it's used for, the general environment is very well tailored for the task, and the code in question tends to be a mix of simple text parsing and fairly complex computations, so a language like Fortran with a few specialized text parsing library routines turns out to be an excellent choice!
With appropriate coding standards (e.g., make all variables global, but equivalence them to a single integer array so one can easily initialize all variables in a given program at the top to avoid reentrancy errors) it isn't all that hard, but one *does* have to create and then FOLLOW a decent set of coding standards to make it work.
This is true of all languages, not just Fortran.
We had some pretty good automated testing/scripting facilities on the mainframe in the late 1980's when I first started coding professionally at Unisys, and it's a shame that more developers aren't made familiar with such tools. They can make regression testing a lot easier!
Hmmm. You may be correct -- I'd have to look at the actual contract to verify.:-) But since we have the right to copy the photos in any way we wish, that strikes me as having the copyrights to the material. We can even grant others that same right if we wish.
Yup, but thankfully it isn't universally true that all photographers keep the copyright -- our wedding photographer provided the option to buy the copyright to the photos she took, so when all was said and done we had the prints, the negatives, and the right to make copies however we wish. However, she retained the right to use the photos in her promotional materials.
Most photographers wanted to retain copyright and provided no options, which is why we didn't give them our business.:-)
Instead of removing all references to gets() in existing code and keeping the faulty gets() in the standard C library, why not just improve gets() to make it secure and proprgate the new version?
Or has that also been done?
I don't write a lot of C code, so I really don't know...
The 2200/500 was a CMOS version of the 2200/900, and both ran OS2200. Their newer Clearpath boxes still run OS2200, and have a JVM as well as other interesting things (native CIFS support, etc.).
The newer Clearpaths also have x86 processors on the same box as the 2200 processors, and can run both OS2200 and Linux concurrently. Hopefully someone will find that architecture combination useful.
I played GURPS as recently as a year or so ago, but I was mainly thinking of games that I was playing back in the early/mid 80's. Paranoia, though. Heh. Yeah, that one *is* a lot of fun! Send in the clones...:-):-)
...that in some ways it's a shame that D&D gets the headlines like it does.
Who remembers Traveller? I mean the little black books, now, not MegaTraveller or any of the other newer versions. Or Chaosium's RuneQuest? The Fantasy Trip? Chivalry & Sorcery?
How about Boot Hill?
I miss playing TFT. Eat my 1-die Wizard's Wrath you scurvy proooootwaddle!!!!! Oops, it's a tough one, and smart(?) enough to dodge. Better make it two dice.:-)
Why not accomplish things that Windows can't which will appeal to the mainstream desktop market?
Like what?
Quite honestly, I think preloads would trump any of that stuff anyway. Make Linux the default OS, and it will take over the world. All many users want to do at home is read e-mail, surf the web, play some games, and maybe keep track of their recipes or checkbook or digital photos or something. Linux can already do those things just fine.
For my wife, The Sims was enough for her to get her own PC. A Windows PC. One game is all it took, but it's a very good game with no Linux equivalent that I'm aware of.
I also have a lot of friends and relatives who are otherwise not really into PCs (and are thus not "hobbyists" by any stretch) but who have one or more kids, and *that* is what drives their interest in buying games.
Admittedly they aren't a demographic which is likely to change their OS, but right now Linux isn't even on the table as far as they're concerned.
What's a Cedega? If I haven't even heard of it, how much difference do you think it makes for a non-hobbyist PC user?
Linux already accomplishes a lot of things that Windows can't accomplish, but that fact has done very little to increase its market share on the desktop outside of hobbyists and early adopters.
The key to Linux's success in the home market is games. Without games, it really doesn't matter what features it has -- people won't buy it.
The key to Linux's success in the business market is twofold: a recognized solution in basic office applications (OpenOffice might well be the required wedge there), and recognition on the part of the business purchaser than Linux is in fact a better generalized desktop solution than the status quo for other types of vertical applications.
OS-specific features are far down the list for most people. Far far down the list...
What's the market share for all versions of MacOS? At best, it's roughly the same.
While even 6% is hardly a large percentage compared to the 90% or so enjoyed by versions of Microsoft Windows, being the second or even third most popular choice qualifies as more than a "niche" in terms of its overall impact.
I'm not sure I've seen that one. As far as I know, filenames which didn't fall within the 8.3 FAT16 filename convention were simply rendered invisible to DOS programs running in a standard VDM, and of course DOS and older Windows programs wouldn't choose to use anything but 8.3 filenames by definition so it would be a complete nonissue in most cases.
I also know the fact that DOS programs couldn't see longer filenames on HPFS partitions was an issue for folks who wanted to use DOS-based filemanagers and such on non-FAT partitions, but at least one IFS exists to solve that "problem" as well, meaning the issue with with OS/2's initial IFS implementation, not a general problem that wasn't solvable.
Partition Magic 1.0 through 6.0 or so was able to do FAT16->HPFS conversions in place without any need to move the data. Rather slick.
People forget that it started life as an OS/2 utility.
Ah, the "backwards comptibility" card...
on
Vista To Get Symlinks?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Sorry, but that dog don't hunt this time. It's trivial to write a filesystem driver to create a virtual drive letter for legacy applications that would need such while at the same time making useful things available like true loing filenames, symbolic links, etc.
That's the same excuse that they used for using FAT32 in Win9x, but OS/2 proved them wrong even before the first Win9x release when OS/2 2.0 allowed DOS and Windows programs to install and run on an HPFS partition. Even Windows 3.1 itself could be installed under OS/2 on HPFS!
...because that filesystem is actually DOCUMENTED, meaning other operating systems can actually read and write to it without having to blindly trust some blackbox implementation of a filesystem driver.
Slashdot Mirror
Too many users have never heard of USENET or think it's the same thing as Google Groups.
With a proper newsreader, many of the "issues" that folks have with the medium are solved, and it doesn't take a terribly complex score file to do it (depending on the specific kooks being filtered, of course).
For me, USENET is still the first place I go to find answers to technical questions, and it's still one of the fastest and most interesting ways to converse on the modern internet.
I've always used my real e-mail address when posting to USENET, and I've only had one issue in the past ten years (some idiot tossed out various forged postings using other people's e-mail addresses including mine, and which resulted his ISP eventually cancelling his account).
:-)
BTW, USENET has nothing to do with the web except where it interfaces with places like Google Groups. And real USENET news clients are text-based.
...is that the slotted ends of the sticks kept on snapping off when we made swords and daggers out of Tinkertoy sticks and wheels. :-)
We probably went through a half-dozen sets doing that...
Just as with operating systems, the look and feel of different types/brands of toy bricks is something you have to experience firsthand before you can really appreciate the differences.
:-)
We had Lego-brand bricks while I was growing up in the 60's/70's, and I have a fairly sizable collection that I've added to over the years, but perhaps five years ago I grabbed a couple of sets of MegaBlocks out of curiosity. I found them to be better than I expected, and they seem to work just fine for the types of things I tend to build (structures for RPGs and that sort of thing). Now I have 30-40k pieces of the things in addition to my 20k pieces of Legos.
Try them. Your initial impression might be confirmed, but you might be pleasantly surprised as well.
When I started working as a contract programmer right out of school 17 years ago, both my employer and the client site required their IT people to wear dress shirts and ties.
That is no longer the case. These days, I wear dress slacks and a polo shirt, which is a lot more comfortable.
The dress code doesn't really impact how well one can write code, etc., but the additional comfort is nice to have.
Interesting. Linux has arguably been more successful at competing with Windows on the desktop front than any operating system since IBM's 32-bit OS/2 offerings in the early and mid 1990's, and the level of attention Microsoft has been paying to Linux confirms that observation.
:-)
Instead of tossing out flippant insults, perhaps you should come out of your cave and actually test the wind. Redmond is losing inertia, my friend, and even casual PC users are starting to realize that there has to be something better out there. And there is.
I've been Microsoft-free for 13 years. It can be done.
The flight ops system I worked on at a major airline only a few years ago is written in Fortran and runs in a mainframe transaction environment that gets rid of common problems like buffer overflows and that provides a nice event-driven environment in which users obtain or enter data on quick-hitting text screens.
For what it's used for, the general environment is very well tailored for the task, and the code in question tends to be a mix of simple text parsing and fairly complex computations, so a language like Fortran with a few specialized text parsing library routines turns out to be an excellent choice!
With appropriate coding standards (e.g., make all variables global, but equivalence them to a single integer array so one can easily initialize all variables in a given program at the top to avoid reentrancy errors) it isn't all that hard, but one *does* have to create and then FOLLOW a decent set of coding standards to make it work.
This is true of all languages, not just Fortran.
We had some pretty good automated testing/scripting facilities on the mainframe in the late 1980's when I first started coding professionally at Unisys, and it's a shame that more developers aren't made familiar with such tools. They can make regression testing a lot easier!
Hmmm. You may be correct -- I'd have to look at the actual contract to verify. :-) But since we have the right to copy the photos in any way we wish, that strikes me as having the copyrights to the material. We can even grant others that same right if we wish.
Yup, but thankfully it isn't universally true that all photographers keep the copyright -- our wedding photographer provided the option to buy the copyright to the photos she took, so when all was said and done we had the prints, the negatives, and the right to make copies however we wish. However, she retained the right to use the photos in her promotional materials.
:-)
Most photographers wanted to retain copyright and provided no options, which is why we didn't give them our business.
Instead of removing all references to gets() in existing code and keeping the faulty gets() in the standard C library, why not just improve gets() to make it secure and proprgate the new version?
Or has that also been done?
I don't write a lot of C code, so I really don't know...
The 2200/500 was a CMOS version of the 2200/900, and both ran OS2200. Their newer Clearpath boxes still run OS2200, and have a JVM as well as other interesting things (native CIFS support, etc.).
The newer Clearpaths also have x86 processors on the same box as the 2200 processors, and can run both OS2200 and Linux concurrently. Hopefully someone will find that architecture combination useful.
The 16-bit OS/2 was a joint MS/IBM project, but the 32-bit OS/2 was not, and that's the one which is typically still in use. The MS code is long gone.
Care to provide a specific definition for me? This link might help:
http://www.onelook.com/?w=niche&ls=a
Hint: even Windows has a "niche", and is thus a "niche OS".
I played GURPS as recently as a year or so ago, but I was mainly thinking of games that I was playing back in the early/mid 80's. Paranoia, though. Heh. Yeah, that one *is* a lot of fun! Send in the clones... :-) :-)
Thanks. I was guessing it was something like that, but I really didn't know. :-)
...that in some ways it's a shame that D&D gets the headlines like it does.
:-)
Who remembers Traveller? I mean the little black books, now, not MegaTraveller or any of the other newer versions. Or Chaosium's RuneQuest? The Fantasy Trip? Chivalry & Sorcery?
How about Boot Hill?
I miss playing TFT. Eat my 1-die Wizard's Wrath you scurvy proooootwaddle!!!!! Oops, it's a tough one, and smart(?) enough to dodge. Better make it two dice.
Why not accomplish things that Windows can't which will appeal to the mainstream desktop market?
Like what?
Quite honestly, I think preloads would trump any of that stuff anyway. Make Linux the default OS, and it will take over the world. All many users want to do at home is read e-mail, surf the web, play some games, and maybe keep track of their recipes or checkbook or digital photos or something. Linux can already do those things just fine.
For my wife, The Sims was enough for her to get her own PC. A Windows PC. One game is all it took, but it's a very good game with no Linux equivalent that I'm aware of.
I also have a lot of friends and relatives who are otherwise not really into PCs (and are thus not "hobbyists" by any stretch) but who have one or more kids, and *that* is what drives their interest in buying games.
Admittedly they aren't a demographic which is likely to change their OS, but right now Linux isn't even on the table as far as they're concerned.
What's a Cedega? If I haven't even heard of it, how much difference do you think it makes for a non-hobbyist PC user?
Linux already accomplishes a lot of things that Windows can't accomplish, but that fact has done very little to increase its market share on the desktop outside of hobbyists and early adopters.
The key to Linux's success in the home market is games. Without games, it really doesn't matter what features it has -- people won't buy it.
The key to Linux's success in the business market is twofold: a recognized solution in basic office applications (OpenOffice might well be the required wedge there), and recognition on the part of the business purchaser than Linux is in fact a better generalized desktop solution than the status quo for other types of vertical applications.
OS-specific features are far down the list for most people. Far far down the list...
What's the market share for all versions of MacOS? At best, it's roughly the same.
While even 6% is hardly a large percentage compared to the 90% or so enjoyed by versions of Microsoft Windows, being the second or even third most popular choice qualifies as more than a "niche" in terms of its overall impact.
I'm not sure I've seen that one. As far as I know, filenames which didn't fall within the 8.3 FAT16 filename convention were simply rendered invisible to DOS programs running in a standard VDM, and of course DOS and older Windows programs wouldn't choose to use anything but 8.3 filenames by definition so it would be a complete nonissue in most cases.
I also know the fact that DOS programs couldn't see longer filenames on HPFS partitions was an issue for folks who wanted to use DOS-based filemanagers and such on non-FAT partitions, but at least one IFS exists to solve that "problem" as well, meaning the issue with with OS/2's initial IFS implementation, not a general problem that wasn't solvable.
Partition Magic 1.0 through 6.0 or so was able to do FAT16->HPFS conversions in place without any need to move the data. Rather slick.
People forget that it started life as an OS/2 utility.
Sorry, but that dog don't hunt this time. It's trivial to write a filesystem driver to create a virtual drive letter for legacy applications that would need such while at the same time making useful things available like true loing filenames, symbolic links, etc.
That's the same excuse that they used for using FAT32 in Win9x, but OS/2 proved them wrong even before the first Win9x release when OS/2 2.0 allowed DOS and Windows programs to install and run on an HPFS partition. Even Windows 3.1 itself could be installed under OS/2 on HPFS!
Besides, I think
...because that filesystem is actually DOCUMENTED, meaning other operating systems can actually read and write to it without having to blindly trust some blackbox implementation of a filesystem driver.
FAT filesystems have had hard links since the beginning, but CHKDSK doesn't like 'em... :-)