...and beat your wife after he father doesn't pay you enough to marry her.
Just kidding... almost.
You'd be nuts to leave medicine, esp for IT. If you are that gungho, learn to program and get into some medical related development like MRI imaging or some such - where you can be in the code AND know the medical angles.
So one could infer from your post that XP's security is as good as Linux if the admin knows what (s)he is doing......which I have found to be true in some respects.
Oh, one more thing... I was under the impression that the POSIX subsystem from XP on was deprecated... so yeah YOUR point (not mine) about there not being threading support there just may be true.
Ah ha... I didn't even read it you are right. I have been a SFU user for quite a while... but my company stopped buying new seats at 3.0... the main reason being the lack of threading support.
So someone should mod my original post down (while I am probably correct about the compatibility layer, thar be Win32 threads underneath) my original premise was, well, wrong!
-fomit-frame-pointer will cause lots of goofiness on Cygwin. Perhaps this is why he omitted it.
However, he probably should not have omitted them for VC++ in that case.
Howeverhowever, VC++ will optimize them away anyway in most (many? some?) cases.
Howeverhoweverhow... ok that is getting stupid... I have run many benchmarks comparing sources built on gcc and VC++ on the same machine (dual boot RH Linux 9 gcc 3.3.1 and VC 7.1). VC++ generally beats gcc across the board, even runnin unoptimized code aganst gcc optimized.
True, but the quote from the topic that leaps to mind is, "The authors have chosen to use the POSIX standard Bourne shell ('bash', available on many *nix systems, is a superset of the POSIX standard). That seems the right decision, given that it is so universally available and usually the default shell."
Sh is a little spartan also... not to argue the relative merits of the various shells (my work requires us to use tcsh of all things) but the posters point about portability was, well, ridiculous.
It seems to me that they can go ahead and go after FreeBSD - they already lost a lawsuit (with AT&T I think) and had to rewrite substantial portions of their code as a result.
I just wish we knew which parts of Linux to rewrite... just rewrite it and be done with it (even if the charges are BS in the first place).
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm?
Opps - those would be, my results using MSN Search....
My results:
Results 1-15 of about 14189782 containing "linux"
Results 1-15 of about 20457949 containing "Microsoft"
Or so the numerous Slashdot topics would lead me to believe.
Does that mean Open Source (or atleast Linux) tramples human rights also?
...and beat your wife after he father doesn't pay you enough to marry her.
Just kidding... almost.
You'd be nuts to leave medicine, esp for IT. If you are that gungho, learn to program and get into some medical related development like MRI imaging or some such - where you can be in the code AND know the medical angles.
My landlord.
Just keep telling yourself that.
The Mad Cow is a British culinary delight. flu seems to be an Asian treat.
India is self sufficient in cereal grains only, China in nothing. One dry season and the flow of sacks of grain from Kansas begins.
America feeds this planet GM pigs regardless.
Take away our jobs, we'll take away your food.
Hmm.
So one could infer from your post that XP's security is as good as Linux if the admin knows what (s)he is doing... ...which I have found to be true in some respects.
Oh, one more thing... I was under the impression that the POSIX subsystem from XP on was deprecated... so yeah YOUR point (not mine) about there not being threading support there just may be true.
Ah ha... I didn't even read it you are right. I have been a SFU user for quite a while... but my company stopped buying new seats at 3.0... the main reason being the lack of threading support.
So someone should mod my original post down (while I am probably correct about the compatibility layer, thar be Win32 threads underneath) my original premise was, well, wrong!
A shallow compatibility layer. I like it better than Cygwin, but that is just me.
-fomit-frame-pointer will cause lots of goofiness on Cygwin. Perhaps this is why he omitted it.
However, he probably should not have omitted them for VC++ in that case.
Howeverhowever, VC++ will optimize them away anyway in most (many? some?) cases.
Howeverhoweverhow... ok that is getting stupid... I have run many benchmarks comparing sources built on gcc and VC++ on the same machine (dual boot RH Linux 9 gcc 3.3.1 and VC 7.1). VC++ generally beats gcc across the board, even runnin unoptimized code aganst gcc optimized.
Perhaps that is why they inserted the work "like".
"Virus like activity can be translates" as "DDOS worm".
...come to think of it.
Now that you can legally buy music online, people are (or atleast seem to be).
Why did it take the misuc industry meatheads so long to offer a legal alternative for something people clearly wanted (and were willing to pay for)?
...a fad that is going away all on its own.
Put away your coffee machine at home.
Give away your unused coffee.
Get rid of your mug at work, preferably on the day before the long weekend of cold turket begins.
Good luck.
True, but the quote from the topic that leaps to mind is, "The authors have chosen to use the POSIX standard Bourne shell ('bash', available on many *nix systems, is a superset of the POSIX standard). That seems the right decision, given that it is so universally available and usually the default shell."
Sh is a little spartan also... not to argue the relative merits of the various shells (my work requires us to use tcsh of all things) but the posters point about portability was, well, ridiculous.
Run your non trivial bash script under csh.
Hmm.....
1) give away their software for free, all the while producing new versions and patching old versions
...and still have billions in reserve.
2) produce a completely free Linux distro with documentation and plug and play
and 3) completely rewrite Linux, no.. make that unix... from scratch
They are not going under anytime soon.
Tipping point. Yeah right.
Hell yeah I'd keep that number for the epic once every two years booty call.
It seems to me that they can go ahead and go after FreeBSD - they already lost a lawsuit (with AT&T I think) and had to rewrite substantial portions of their code as a result.
I just wish we knew which parts of Linux to rewrite... just rewrite it and be done with it (even if the charges are BS in the first place).
...don't know what they use, but they have the answer!
...not that we are abandoning Linux.
We were told to set up some FreeBSD boxes and build - which we did with very few changes.
QA will be running regression tests on FreeBSD, but from a developers point of view everything SEEMS to be running fine.
So to us it doesn't matter - we could hop to the other open source OS if need be with little impact... but we aren't planning on it.
This took very little effort - at the very least we have another maketing bullet now.