Expose works fine under the new system hit F9. As for spaces you still have virtual desktops and the applications support them better. What's gotten worse? And In particular each physical display has its own set of virtual displays rather than having them span. That's an upgrade.
Agreed it wouldn't matter. Though it is worth noting that both the NSA and DEA agree that almost all parallel construction is regarding the DEA not the NSA.
Absolutely, Perl has some organizational features. But many of the techniques that Perl encourages for short programs work against good organization. The longer the program the more strict you want the language to be. The reason people complain is that those features allowed Perl to handle applications style programs without all the features you would want A few bolt ons don't solve Perl's problems. Ultimately an entirely different language the right thing for large projects.
You don't use your password much your browser remembers on/. for a long time. Besides after 14 years you could just pick an easy to remember password and use that.
Re:sure you want to go with 'undead' ?
on
Perl Is Undead
·
· Score: 2
There never was something like a Perl kickstarter project where they put forward a "for $500k we can finish Perl 6 in one year". This is a two way street.
Re:sure you want to go with 'undead' ?
on
Perl Is Undead
·
· Score: 1
I think a lot of Perl 5's issues would have been fixed had the focus not shifted to Perl 6. Perl had a very active community. There is nothing about the ideas behind Ruby on Rails that couldn't have happened in Perl. Perl had a community 10x the size of Ruby and Python's combined. The Perl 6 community had a long track record of success and focused everyone's attention on Perl6. I was OK with learning Perl 5.6 features. But there has been a ton since then I didn't learn and I didn't learn them because I was waiting on the better way to do them in Perl 6.
Re:Yes, Perl is indeed dead and rotting
on
Perl Is Undead
·
· Score: 1
COBOL has been passing since the 1970s. You probably want to use another analogy. Perl5 will be very lucky if it passes as slowly as COBOL.
Perl remember originated with short system automation scripts a replacement for Sed and AWK. It wasn't uncommon for a Perl script to be one line
perl -e... in a shell script. And then of course a replacement for shell scripting. Perl handled 20 line programs wonderfully. But what works well at 20 lines doesn't work so well at 2000 lines. Perl took on new problem domains.
C written in BCPL Later C written in B Later C written in NB
Most popular modern C interpreter whose key components written in CIL (an artificial object oriented assembly) 2nd most popular modern C interpreter whose key components are written in llc & lli
At this point what's the advantage in not pushing through? Perl 6 already Osborned Perl5. Perl6 is a heck of a huge upgrade. After 14 years there has been a tremendous amount of progress (about 1/5th the pace it should have had but still it has happened).
Re:sure you want to go with 'undead' ?
on
Perl Is Undead
·
· Score: 2
There has been at least 2 huge shifts in culture in/. since I've been around and I think I was part of the 2nd wave that replaced the original/. crowd. I suspect a lot of the guys with sigs 200k and below were enthusiasts about Perl. In 2000 I would have called Perl my favorite language. By 2005 when Pugs came out I was a Haskell fan so the idea of a dynamic language with the fluidity of Perl having many of the powerful idioms of Haskell (what Perl 6 sort of has) was tremendous. A computer project that takes 14 years is unacceptably slow. We should have had Perl6 a decade ago. People in 2000 believed that in 2004 we'd be hearing that Perl 6 was ready and Perl 5 was legacy. That not having happened changed hearts and minds.
There is nothing irrational with opinions being guided by changing facts.
No. CA's root certificate was never on a publicly accessible server. This was an idea thrown around at the time as an example but the example isn't true. Besides most websites have reissued certificates and most users have gotten the new ones. Most important websites also have additional checks which make man in the middle hard to do. Is somebody somewhere going to get hit? Sure. There is a big target area. But this was an easy to fix problem (though widely spread) and it was addressed quickly and effectively.
Honestly it is a plus for open source. When they did drop the ball the able to own and thus fix it very fast.
Many exploits existed for years and we don't know how long the bad guys had them. That's the nature of the thousands of exploits that come out. All the time you see new exploits dating back to Windows Server 2002. The reason you are so freaked is because you don't know about the others.
As proving stuff you haven't proven anything. You are just asserting. As for Canada it was a teenager trying it out. He didn't do anything. Nothing much happened. The fact that this was the first example that comes to mind proves my point.
The person who wrote the bug has described at length where the bug came from. The source code, and email history at the time obviously supports the very non paranoid origin that it came from a performance tweak to avoid allocating and deallocating memory. There was no NSA involvement.
Really Heartbleed was one of the worst security disasters we've had? Based on what? How many exploits were there? What was the financial cost? How long did it remain? How many systems were compromised? There is no indications that it was one of the worst security disasters based on any metric.
This is an obvious troll but OpenSSL had a subtle problem that was easily remedied. It wasn't proven to be total shit. Rather is was proven to be a human creation and thus imperfect.
That would be good to read. I was on the internet starting about 1988 and heavily by 1992. Once the AOLers came on the internet in swarms I never had much problem with the business. What changed the structure of the internet was the move away from academia to the general public IMHO not so much business.
Gladly, we can kill online ads through ad blockers so the revenue stream for such a magazine doesn't support it as a sustainable "business".
There is far more content today, more diverse and more knowledgeable than there was then. It is very much like the switch from Britannica to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is 100x larger and with web links allows people to more successfully research far more topics than Britannica ever could. Those magazines were geared towards selling readers to advertisers just as much as conferences today exist to sell attendees to sponsors.
However much the technology improves WANs won't go faster than the speed of light. A perfect network and you are still talking around 17ms to get across the USA. Make lots of round trips and application performance sucks. Use touch interfaces and humans start noticing around 1ms of latency and don't like latency over 10ms. You can't fix the problem with X11.
Slashdot Mirror
Expose works fine under the new system hit F9. As for spaces you still have virtual desktops and the applications support them better. What's gotten worse? And In particular each physical display has its own set of virtual displays rather than having them span. That's an upgrade.
True but the NSA doesn't care trying people in court. I think that overwhelms everything else they just aren't involved in criminal prosecutions much.
Agreed it wouldn't matter. Though it is worth noting that both the NSA and DEA agree that almost all parallel construction is regarding the DEA not the NSA.
The NSA isn't trying to convict in a court of law. What's admissible matters less to them.
http://www.xojo.com/
http://runrev.com/
Absolutely, Perl has some organizational features. But many of the techniques that Perl encourages for short programs work against good organization. The longer the program the more strict you want the language to be. The reason people complain is that those features allowed Perl to handle applications style programs without all the features you would want A few bolt ons don't solve Perl's problems. Ultimately an entirely different language the right thing for large projects.
You don't use your password much your browser remembers on /. for a long time. Besides after 14 years you could just pick an easy to remember password and use that.
There never was something like a Perl kickstarter project where they put forward a "for $500k we can finish Perl 6 in one year". This is a two way street.
I think a lot of Perl 5's issues would have been fixed had the focus not shifted to Perl 6. Perl had a very active community. There is nothing about the ideas behind Ruby on Rails that couldn't have happened in Perl. Perl had a community 10x the size of Ruby and Python's combined. The Perl 6 community had a long track record of success and focused everyone's attention on Perl6. I was OK with learning Perl 5.6 features. But there has been a ton since then I didn't learn and I didn't learn them because I was waiting on the better way to do them in Perl 6.
COBOL has been passing since the 1970s. You probably want to use another analogy. Perl5 will be very lucky if it passes as slowly as COBOL.
Good comment. You should get an account.
Perl remember originated with short system automation scripts a replacement for Sed and AWK. It wasn't uncommon for a Perl script to be one line
perl -e... in a shell script.
And then of course a replacement for shell scripting. Perl handled 20 line programs wonderfully. But what works well at 20 lines doesn't work so well at 2000 lines. Perl took on new problem domains.
C written in BCPL
Later C written in B
Later C written in NB
Most popular modern C interpreter whose key components written in CIL (an artificial object oriented assembly)
2nd most popular modern C interpreter whose key components are written in llc & lli
The Perl6 interpreter has pretty good compatibility with Perl5. They are doing that so that Perl6 can use most Perl5 modules.
At this point what's the advantage in not pushing through? Perl 6 already Osborned Perl5. Perl6 is a heck of a huge upgrade. After 14 years there has been a tremendous amount of progress (about 1/5th the pace it should have had but still it has happened).
There has been at least 2 huge shifts in culture in /. since I've been around and I think I was part of the 2nd wave that replaced the original /. crowd. I suspect a lot of the guys with sigs 200k and below were enthusiasts about Perl. In 2000 I would have called Perl my favorite language. By 2005 when Pugs came out I was a Haskell fan so the idea of a dynamic language with the fluidity of Perl having many of the powerful idioms of Haskell (what Perl 6 sort of has) was tremendous. A computer project that takes 14 years is unacceptably slow. We should have had Perl6 a decade ago. People in 2000 believed that in 2004 we'd be hearing that Perl 6 was ready and Perl 5 was legacy. That not having happened changed hearts and minds.
There is nothing irrational with opinions being guided by changing facts.
No. CA's root certificate was never on a publicly accessible server. This was an idea thrown around at the time as an example but the example isn't true. Besides most websites have reissued certificates and most users have gotten the new ones. Most important websites also have additional checks which make man in the middle hard to do. Is somebody somewhere going to get hit? Sure. There is a big target area. But this was an easy to fix problem (though widely spread) and it was addressed quickly and effectively.
Honestly it is a plus for open source. When they did drop the ball the able to own and thus fix it very fast.
Many exploits existed for years and we don't know how long the bad guys had them. That's the nature of the thousands of exploits that come out. All the time you see new exploits dating back to Windows Server 2002. The reason you are so freaked is because you don't know about the others.
As proving stuff you haven't proven anything. You are just asserting. As for Canada it was a teenager trying it out. He didn't do anything. Nothing much happened. The fact that this was the first example that comes to mind proves my point.
The person who wrote the bug has described at length where the bug came from. The source code, and email history at the time obviously supports the very non paranoid origin that it came from a performance tweak to avoid allocating and deallocating memory. There was no NSA involvement.
Really Heartbleed was one of the worst security disasters we've had? Based on what? How many exploits were there? What was the financial cost? How long did it remain? How many systems were compromised? There is no indications that it was one of the worst security disasters based on any metric.
That would be good to read. I was on the internet starting about 1988 and heavily by 1992. Once the AOLers came on the internet in swarms I never had much problem with the business. What changed the structure of the internet was the move away from academia to the general public IMHO not so much business.
There is far more content today, more diverse and more knowledgeable than there was then. It is very much like the switch from Britannica to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is 100x larger and with web links allows people to more successfully research far more topics than Britannica ever could. Those magazines were geared towards selling readers to advertisers just as much as conferences today exist to sell attendees to sponsors.
However much the technology improves WANs won't go faster than the speed of light. A perfect network and you are still talking around 17ms to get across the USA. Make lots of round trips and application performance sucks. Use touch interfaces and humans start noticing around 1ms of latency and don't like latency over 10ms. You can't fix the problem with X11.
GP is right, it did ship with the OS. It was on the DVDs in the extras folders.