Re:how much stuff with this break?
on
GCC 3.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
The gcc 2.96 stuff was a RedHat-only f.u.b.a.r. mess. They took a development snapshot, called it 2.96 and released it to an unsuspecting public. Don't blame the gcc folks for RedHats probably very unwise decision.
Re:FOR loops: a question, ANSI C++, C++98, C++99..
on
GCC 3.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
This is controlled on the command line with -ffor-scope and -fno-for-scope. This has been around for a while (at least since 2.8.1 days) when the spec wasn't that firm on this (in fact gcc's default has changed).
I'm assuming the state of the art has been advanced since, but I remember something like this for the DEC Alpha. Nobody made NT on Alpha software (I know a little bit about this, I was the webmaster for an Alpha NT beastie). I seem to remember some tool like this. It wouldn't compile-as-you-go but would compile pages or some weird subset. Cool part of it was the first time you hit a section of new code, you got a fault and the app died. But then the runtime would see that and recompile that section of code. I can just see some sysadmin telling his boss "Yeah, we've only got to run it a couple hundred times more and most code paths will be exercized and it should almost never die after that."
Musta worked well. You see Alphas running NT all over the place.
Port 70 now blocked for http access
on
Mozilla 0.9.1 Out
·
· Score: 1
Our internal site is at port 70, from back in the days when we had the external server on the same machine at port 80. Now Mozilla decides that using 70 is bad for security reasons and blocks me out.
Yeah, maybe it shoulda been on another port from the beginning (8888 was being used, I forgot about other ones) but still weird that it's blocked out. I still feel it's a valid choice. We have a fairly important collection of CGI scripts on our internal server and I can't just change the port in the conf file without breaking a lot of things. I guess I need to keep netscape or IE around to fill out my timesheet and other stuff.
Microsoft perceives Linux (Apple, Novell, Sun) as a threat spreads lies and half-truths about it.
Users of said technology get up in arms.
If users have a forum they will vent their frustrations
Forum will normally be like minded persons, so nothing will actually be accomplished.
Forum will contain n-million like minded posts pointing out specific Microsoft F.U.D. points.
Forum will get so heavy that most folks won't bother reading after first two posts, or browse at +3.
Tempers will be raised. Flames wares will be waged.
Microsoft will continue to do as it pleases, mostly because people don't really care as long as they can open and print Word documents, their CD-RWs have drivers, and most games run on some Win32 platform.
Other than gnashing your teeth, and giving slashdot a lot of hits, what does this accomplish? What are people going to do? There are discussions that educate, that add info. The posts I've read all talk about how balmer is wrong. Of course he is (hell MS ftp is from BSD sources, hows that work into him saying open source means no commercial distribution) but unless you actually change something, it's just venting.
libpr0n is the Mozilla image rendering library. The developers decided to call it what it's gonna be used for 95% of the time anyway. Check out the site at http://www.libpr0n.com/. The humor didn't stop at just the lib name.
We used WinCVS at my last job. Now up to 1.2. Works decent, at my last job even the engineers weren't all that technical (gee, wonder if that's why we havent' made any money) and works OK.
I had something similar, I think a lot of folks can say that, though instead of just eBay, I read Slashdot. Mohan read The Onion.
I think the basic problem with the dotcom thing was ignorance, thinking that the Net changes all the rules. One rule it didn't change; a disorganized business school grad with no management experience can't run a successful company. Teambuilding exercises don't replace respect for coworkers and management.
I don't want to come off like a jerk here, but I don't think we should feel sorry for Mr. Wadler. I sure as hell don't feel sorry for me. I went to Cali, leaving Chicago my only ever home, to do a startup. I knew it was risky, that 80% of new ventures fail within 2 years or whatever. I sacrificed, worked long hours. Diving deep into work wasn't a problem - I didn't know anybody in SF anyway. I went through the Emperor has no clothes thing (my CEO royally screwed up and nearly missed a meeting with investment bankers right when we needed cash the most, we didn't get it). There was a pseudo-triumverate of folks who I thought were smart. Then they started getting canned because of lack of good attitude. Hell, CFO told the first to go that she wasn't smiling enough. You get fired for not smiling? Then our lead client programmer gets forced out, I'll always remember walking through the urine stained streets of SF's Tenderloin to wipe out his drive on a warn Sunday morning. My year was soon up, and I left at a year and a day, just long enough for my worthless options to vest.
But this Jesus metaphor has gotta go. I walked into this myself. I dedicated my time to this, nobody forced me to do anything. I took a risk, a possible huge upside countered by a very probable got nothing. I got nothing. No problem. I realize that above all I have choices. I have more choices available to me than maybe 99% of the folks on the planet (wanna tell some kid dying of measles or some other ridiculously preventable disease in the Congo and see how much sympathy you get?). And I made one. I wan't killed by it, I had fun in a new city, went to some dot-com parties before their VC money ran out totally. And I learned from it too, my anger control is much better than before. So don't cry for me Argentina. I worked long hours by choice, and the folks I worked for just didn't get it. And I chose to leave once it didn't work for me.
Re:What's up with bad mouthing UNIX?
on
Cracking OSX
·
· Score: 1
And I didn't see anything in the article about Linux, which has had some highly public worms recently. And I didn't see anything about BSD on PDPs, upon which the Morris worm took out a major portion of the then-existing Internet.
It's an article about Mac OS X security. Not Microsoft. Mac OS "classic" (previous to OS X) was secure by not having anything really to exploit. No shells, few net daemons, for years TCP/IP wasn't standard and very few Macs were on the Net so any cracks couldn't touch it anyway. Now you have a situation where all that has changed. Scripts will be written. KiddieZ will run them. People will get rooted. Instead of burying heads and saying "he he, it's not Microsoft" and ignoring problems, worry about fixing them.
They get money up front for a concert, insult the queen so the promoter doesn't want them anymore, and get bought out to not perform. So basically they get paid twice and the only "work" they do is insult the queen on a parade. Hmm, better than my day job.
FreeBSD is also available via anonymous FTP from mirror sites in the following countries: Argentina, Australia, Austria,... Thailand, Elbonia, the Ukraine and the United Kingdom, among others.
Makes it easier for Dilbert to get his FreeBSD when he's working on site.
Dammit, forgot my point in that question:
Wouldn't that mean that new clients would be required to filter like this? So either nobody updates and nobody filters, or Napster says old clients don't work and people walk away in droves.
Questin: I thought the server was only for DB lookups and the actual file transfer would be peer to peer. That's why if two sides are firewalled you can't transfer (it can't use the server as a conduit). So wound't this mean the client has to handle the fingerprint? When someone asked for a file, the responding client would have to check with a central DB of fingerprints and then allow/deny the transfer, or am I missing something.
Random Comment:
I'm not a big fan of Alanis Morisette but she had a telling comment. She said that folks talk to Napster, and the RIAA, adn both sides say they're for 'the artists' but the artists themselves are a third, separate group, and sometimes but not always have their interests aligned with a particular side.
All of this ad stuff is kinda cool/strange for me. I was working at an Internet adverstising firm that tried to solve a lot of the problems of relevancy and targetting. It was a good initial idea, but never took off. Part was inexperience, of every member of the team. Part was plain ol' management incompetence (our arguments were legendary, and they'll be passed as oral history for generations to come). And we also got flattened by the Dow being shitcanned. I honestly believe if we were out 6-12 months earlier with the inflated and unrealistic stock market at that time, internal problems or not, we'd have IPO'd, and I'd be writing this from a beach and be trying not to spill my fru-fru drink with and umbrella on my laptop with cellular modem.
It was a cool design, folks choose their ads. Majorly different than DoubleClick, which has to guess all the time what folks want. The more info they have, in theory the better guesses they can make but more DB crunching they have to do. In our system, they told us what they wanted (well, picked form what was available). I wrote the server, and it was all C array lookup tables. We served off of a single Dell 700 or so MHz box.
I think one problem with Internet advertising is a flawed model. Other advertising is there for brand awareness. There's no 'clickthrough' on a magazine page. You look, you're reminded of it. It's worked, the really ugly gym shoes I'm wearing as I type I bought because of an ad. Did I rush out to buy the shoes when I saw the ad? No. I was reading my magazine (and bitching about too many ads too). Digital Convergence and the Evil CueCat wanted to get away from this and actually link reading to a direct action, but will fail because it doesn't realize that it's interrupting people, making them turn on their computer and load some stupid software for the advertisers benefit.
The "revenue by clickthrough" model has a serious flaw: it depends on counting people who were willing to be interrupted in their flow of work. If I'm on a site, I'm usually looing for something. I don't want to be distracted by shopping on eBay or whatever, so I'm not clicking on an eBay banner. Other times, I go specifically to eBay, because I'm there to buy stuff, partially because of seeing some ad earlier. Interuption based advertising (called interstitials) don't get around the basic problem of interrupting my initial task. Just distracts me more, and I'd be mad for it.
And the net will survive. Certain sites will still be around, for love or whatever. Other sites will try various pay models, but the net isn't going away.
Slashdot Mirror
www.salsadot.org because it's spicier.
The gcc 2.96 stuff was a RedHat-only f.u.b.a.r. mess. They took a development snapshot, called it 2.96 and released it to an unsuspecting public. Don't blame the gcc folks for RedHats probably very unwise decision.
Maybe Mel wrote the first gcc in hex in his head.
see Options Controlling C++ dialect in the manual.
I recall AMD doing a deal with Transmeta, but I forgot where I read it.
I see from another comment this was called FX32. Sucked by any name....
Musta worked well. You see Alphas running NT all over the place.
Yeah, maybe it shoulda been on another port from the beginning (8888 was being used, I forgot about other ones) but still weird that it's blocked out. I still feel it's a valid choice. We have a fairly important collection of CGI scripts on our internal server and I can't just change the port in the conf file without breaking a lot of things. I guess I need to keep netscape or IE around to fill out my timesheet and other stuff.
Other than gnashing your teeth, and giving slashdot a lot of hits, what does this accomplish? What are people going to do? There are discussions that educate, that add info. The posts I've read all talk about how balmer is wrong. Of course he is (hell MS ftp is from BSD sources, hows that work into him saying open source means no commercial distribution) but unless you actually change something, it's just venting.
libpr0n is the Mozilla image rendering library. The developers decided to call it what it's gonna be used for 95% of the time anyway. Check out the site at http://www.libpr0n.com/. The humor didn't stop at just the lib name.
We used WinCVS at my last job. Now up to 1.2. Works decent, at my last job even the engineers weren't all that technical (gee, wonder if that's why we havent' made any money) and works OK.
The G is for Goddard.
I think the basic problem with the dotcom thing was ignorance, thinking that the Net changes all the rules. One rule it didn't change; a disorganized business school grad with no management experience can't run a successful company. Teambuilding exercises don't replace respect for coworkers and management.
I don't want to come off like a jerk here, but I don't think we should feel sorry for Mr. Wadler. I sure as hell don't feel sorry for me. I went to Cali, leaving Chicago my only ever home, to do a startup. I knew it was risky, that 80% of new ventures fail within 2 years or whatever. I sacrificed, worked long hours. Diving deep into work wasn't a problem - I didn't know anybody in SF anyway. I went through the Emperor has no clothes thing (my CEO royally screwed up and nearly missed a meeting with investment bankers right when we needed cash the most, we didn't get it). There was a pseudo-triumverate of folks who I thought were smart. Then they started getting canned because of lack of good attitude. Hell, CFO told the first to go that she wasn't smiling enough. You get fired for not smiling? Then our lead client programmer gets forced out, I'll always remember walking through the urine stained streets of SF's Tenderloin to wipe out his drive on a warn Sunday morning. My year was soon up, and I left at a year and a day, just long enough for my worthless options to vest.
But this Jesus metaphor has gotta go. I walked into this myself. I dedicated my time to this, nobody forced me to do anything. I took a risk, a possible huge upside countered by a very probable got nothing. I got nothing. No problem. I realize that above all I have choices. I have more choices available to me than maybe 99% of the folks on the planet (wanna tell some kid dying of measles or some other ridiculously preventable disease in the Congo and see how much sympathy you get?). And I made one. I wan't killed by it, I had fun in a new city, went to some dot-com parties before their VC money ran out totally. And I learned from it too, my anger control is much better than before. So don't cry for me Argentina. I worked long hours by choice, and the folks I worked for just didn't get it. And I chose to leave once it didn't work for me.
It's an article about Mac OS X security. Not Microsoft. Mac OS "classic" (previous to OS X) was secure by not having anything really to exploit. No shells, few net daemons, for years TCP/IP wasn't standard and very few Macs were on the Net so any cracks couldn't touch it anyway. Now you have a situation where all that has changed. Scripts will be written. KiddieZ will run them. People will get rooted. Instead of burying heads and saying "he he, it's not Microsoft" and ignoring problems, worry about fixing them.
She seems to be doing all of the VxD support as Mickeysoft moves to the NT driver model.
Q4 '03: Holy Hand Grenade
Q1 '04: Chip that says "neeee!"
Once again, proving the stereotype that geeks always quote Monty Python.
They get money up front for a concert, insult the queen so the promoter doesn't want them anymore, and get bought out to not perform. So basically they get paid twice and the only "work" they do is insult the queen on a parade. Hmm, better than my day job.
Won't Kill them, but at least will make them useful.
FreeBSD is also available via anonymous FTP from mirror sites in the following countries: Argentina, Australia, Austria, ... Thailand, Elbonia, the Ukraine and the United Kingdom, among others.
Makes it easier for Dilbert to get his FreeBSD when he's working on site.
Dammit, forgot my point in that question:
Wouldn't that mean that new clients would be required to filter like this? So either nobody updates and nobody filters, or Napster says old clients don't work and people walk away in droves.
Random Comment: I'm not a big fan of Alanis Morisette but she had a telling comment. She said that folks talk to Napster, and the RIAA, adn both sides say they're for 'the artists' but the artists themselves are a third, separate group, and sometimes but not always have their interests aligned with a particular side.
It was a cool design, folks choose their ads. Majorly different than DoubleClick, which has to guess all the time what folks want. The more info they have, in theory the better guesses they can make but more DB crunching they have to do. In our system, they told us what they wanted (well, picked form what was available). I wrote the server, and it was all C array lookup tables. We served off of a single Dell 700 or so MHz box.
I think one problem with Internet advertising is a flawed model. Other advertising is there for brand awareness. There's no 'clickthrough' on a magazine page. You look, you're reminded of it. It's worked, the really ugly gym shoes I'm wearing as I type I bought because of an ad. Did I rush out to buy the shoes when I saw the ad? No. I was reading my magazine (and bitching about too many ads too). Digital Convergence and the Evil CueCat wanted to get away from this and actually link reading to a direct action, but will fail because it doesn't realize that it's interrupting people, making them turn on their computer and load some stupid software for the advertisers benefit.
The "revenue by clickthrough" model has a serious flaw: it depends on counting people who were willing to be interrupted in their flow of work. If I'm on a site, I'm usually looing for something. I don't want to be distracted by shopping on eBay or whatever, so I'm not clicking on an eBay banner. Other times, I go specifically to eBay, because I'm there to buy stuff, partially because of seeing some ad earlier. Interuption based advertising (called interstitials) don't get around the basic problem of interrupting my initial task. Just distracts me more, and I'd be mad for it.
And the net will survive. Certain sites will still be around, for love or whatever. Other sites will try various pay models, but the net isn't going away.
Counter intelligence program
Or was that Coprocessor for Intel Pentium Pro?
I get old, and the voices in my head get harder to hear....
Whats worse, having all that legalese in there, or the company that gets sued because it isn't?
And run a Linux app on FreeBSD...