Are you an idiot? secsh is the one that exists and ssh does not exists. Read the message more carefully, dude. Though actually the message is wrong and ssh can also be used as command name.
"Web safe palette" is mostly safe only for
Windows and Mac. In many Unixes the X is using
so many colors (for pixmaps etc.) that there is
too few colors left and 5*5*5 or 4*4*4 colors will
be used instead of 6*6*6. These two palettes share 8 safe colors (#000000, #FF0000, #FFFF00,...). These are the only safe colors...
Well. 10^51 means it is 10 times faster than
10^50. If you compare e.g. P75 and PIII-750.
There is a lot of games that work okay in 750 MHz
PII but are unplayable on P75. (Okay,PIII-750
is faster than P75 overclocked to 750 MHz, but this is a example only...)
Actually if it was possible to use GTK themes also in KDE it would be very good.Many GNOME mindedn people on/. are picking KDE on this move, but in my opinion this is good.
Why? If this is done well, this'll allow me to have desktop in which I can use programs from both GNOME and KDE without them being disturbingly different looking (and if even widget functionality could be imitated they would behave equally which would make the desktop easier to use.) This would be good as depending on program either GNOME version or KDE version is better and this would allow me to merge good sides of the desktop (especially if common DnD and embdedding standards are also developed.)
At least Emacs takes care of indenting pretty well.
Also the syntax it has makes it very easy language to parse indeed. It's hard to think of any other language than Scheme were it would be as easy to write metacircular parser (to write a parser for the lang in the lang).
If you want less parenthesis, choose other functional language. E.g. ML has much less parentheses. Though I myself find parenthesis helpful in following what belongs to what expression...
If you really hate parenthesis, use REAL man's functional programming language - Unlambda. It doesn't not have any parenthesis at all.:)
I think that AMD is actually wanting to stop also those overclockers at home, not only OCs fooling their customers.
If AMD is going to put the correct multiplier on the chip, they could as well make it so that it was readable using some code instead of blocking the multiplier to be exactly that. If it was done that way, it would be easy for the BIOS to tell at what speed the chip is supposed to run. It would be also easy to code a program to check for tampered BIOSes, which report wrong MHz.
It's funny that many slashdotters are supporting AMD when they do this, they would be much angrier if it was Intel would start locking the multipliers now (I know, Intel has been doing this for ages already.)
To my most important point: The processor speed is determined so that the expected life time will be specific. By overclocking it'll be decreased and by underclocking increased accordingly. They are not only stopping overclocking but also underclocking, which also tends to be useful sometimes. You might want to assure longer life time for your box. Other possible case is that you want to build a silent box (for e.g. mp3 playing, whatever where you don't want disturbing noise). There it would be good to underclock the CPU so you could use just heat sinks instead of fans to keep it cool. Also in some cases there is the kind of circumstances that underclocking is needed.
One more scenario where locked multiplier is bad: Future motherboards with higher FSB. You can't the chip to work with those. Big advantage for AMD was that even some of their AMD K6 CPUs worked with 100 MHz as theis multiplier could be decreased.
Even though underclocking/overclocking still works via FSB, it brings the other problems related to that - some devices being more unstable because of weird speed etc.
I think we have need for cross-platform GUI toolkits, whose also offer web-browsers and smaller devices such as portable phones as interface options in addition to just traditional Windows, Mac,...
Currently the best way to do that is to try to separate application from UI and to build different frontends. I sure hope we're going to get such a toolkits in near future.
Of course if you're targetting to native GUI sets and HTML and such, the descriptions of the UI should be more higher-level than in most applications, maybe containing some hints which is the preferred way to get the functionality.
Bad thing is that I don't know any toolkit this sophisticated. Maybe XUL and a set of parsers for it or something is the way to go to implement this.
> What really gets my goat is the statement comparing MS software in 1990 to 2000. That's trivial because MS completely ignored the fruits of the research of the previous 20 years. It wasn't until the advent of NT that they even began to try to do things right. But even then they blew it by integrating the GUI into the core of their OS. Grrr...
Yup. What if we'd compare Linux to what it was 10 years ago. Great improvement, eh?;)
I'd think it would be even better to separate content, logic (code) and layout? I think it's very bad in current WWW publishing practices that layout and content tend to be mixed.
XML.Apache.Org provides very good solution for this kind of stuff - Cocoon. Except for some performances issues, I've been very content to it. It e. g. offers XSP processor which is similar, but clearly superior approach compared to JSP. They're on way to Cocoon 2 and that should remove most of performance problems.
I myself tend to prefer ruby for CGIs. Its very much like Perl, but it's syntax is much cleaner and it is object oriented. There is also mod_ruby available, though it's not v1.0 yet.
Binaries (made usually with C or whatever) are often fastest to execute. So if speed is an issue that might be way to go.
But anyway that depends very much on what you're going to do.
Anyway you should consider using something else than plain CGI. Either mod_xxx (if apache), IISAPI or something if you have a need for speed.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you an idiot? secsh is the one that exists and ssh does not exists. Read the message more carefully, dude. Though actually the message is wrong and ssh can also be used as command name.
"Web safe palette" is mostly safe only for Windows and Mac. In many Unixes the X is using so many colors (for pixmaps etc.) that there is too few colors left and 5*5*5 or 4*4*4 colors will be used instead of 6*6*6. These two palettes share 8 safe colors (#000000, #FF0000, #FFFF00, ...). These are the only safe colors...
Well. 10^51 means it is 10 times faster than 10^50. If you compare e.g. P75 and PIII-750. There is a lot of games that work okay in 750 MHz PII but are unplayable on P75. (Okay,PIII-750 is faster than P75 overclocked to 750 MHz, but this is a example only...)
Only ten years of play? That's more than enough, I rarely play one game for more than two years straight.
Why? If this is done well, this'll allow me to have desktop in which I can use programs from both GNOME and KDE without them being disturbingly different looking (and if even widget functionality could be imitated they would behave equally which would make the desktop easier to use.) This would be good as depending on program either GNOME version or KDE version is better and this would allow me to merge good sides of the desktop (especially if common DnD and embdedding standards are also developed.)
Every decent slashdotter loves GPL and GNOME.
Stop sending news about politically incorrect movement.
At least Emacs takes care of indenting pretty well.
Also the syntax it has makes it very easy language to parse indeed. It's hard to think of any other language than Scheme were it would be as easy to write metacircular parser (to write a parser for the lang in the lang).
If you want less parenthesis, choose other functional language. E.g. ML has much less parentheses. Though I myself find parenthesis helpful in following what belongs to what expression...
If you really hate parenthesis, use REAL man's functional programming language - Unlambda. It doesn't not have any parenthesis at all. :)
I think that AMD is actually wanting to stop also those overclockers at home, not only OCs fooling their customers.
If AMD is going to put the correct multiplier on the chip, they could as well make it so that it was readable using some code instead of blocking the multiplier to be exactly that. If it was done that way, it would be easy for the BIOS to tell at what speed the chip is supposed to run. It would be also easy to code a program to check for tampered BIOSes, which report wrong MHz.
It's funny that many slashdotters are supporting AMD when they do this, they would be much angrier if it was Intel would start locking the multipliers now (I know, Intel has been doing this for ages already.)
To my most important point: The processor speed is determined so that the expected life time will be specific. By overclocking it'll be decreased and by underclocking increased accordingly. They are not only stopping overclocking but also underclocking, which also tends to be useful sometimes. You might want to assure longer life time for your box. Other possible case is that you want to build a silent box (for e.g. mp3 playing, whatever where you don't want disturbing noise). There it would be good to underclock the CPU so you could use just heat sinks instead of fans to keep it cool. Also in some cases there is the kind of circumstances that underclocking is needed.
One more scenario where locked multiplier is bad: Future motherboards with higher FSB. You can't the chip to work with those. Big advantage for AMD was that even some of their AMD K6 CPUs worked with 100 MHz as theis multiplier could be decreased.
Even though underclocking/overclocking still works via FSB, it brings the other problems related to that - some devices being more unstable because of weird speed etc.
Has anyone combined this with a WWW spider? A great way to find more interesting web pages. ;)
I think we have need for cross-platform GUI toolkits, whose also offer web-browsers and smaller devices such as portable phones as interface options in addition to just traditional Windows, Mac, ...
Currently the best way to do that is to try to separate application from UI and to build different frontends. I sure hope we're going to get such a toolkits in near future.
Of course if you're targetting to native GUI sets and HTML and such, the descriptions of the UI should be more higher-level than in most applications, maybe containing some hints which is the preferred way to get the functionality.
Bad thing is that I don't know any toolkit this sophisticated. Maybe XUL and a set of parsers for it or something is the way to go to implement this.
Yup. What if we'd compare Linux to what it was 10 years ago. Great improvement, eh? ;)
If you want a real OO scripting language, pick Ruby www.ruby-lang.org, avoid C-like pike.
I'd think it would be even better to separate content, logic (code) and layout? I think it's very bad in current WWW publishing practices that layout and content tend to be mixed.
XML.Apache.Org provides very good solution for this kind of stuff - Cocoon. Except for some performances issues, I've been very content to it. It e. g. offers XSP processor which is similar, but clearly superior approach compared to JSP. They're on way to Cocoon 2 and that should remove most of performance problems.
I myself tend to prefer ruby for CGIs.
Its very much like Perl, but it's syntax is
much cleaner and it is object oriented.
There is also mod_ruby available, though it's
not v1.0 yet.
Binaries (made usually with C or whatever)
are often fastest to execute. So if speed is an
issue that might be way to go.
But anyway that depends very much on what you're
going to do.
Anyway you should consider using something else than plain CGI. Either mod_xxx (if apache),
IISAPI or something if you have a need for speed.