No, it would be more likely to show potential programmers that they are bad or have no real talent at programming before they invest time and money on tertiary studies in programming and get locked in. If your not doing as well as students who don't really care you will get the message. It also will show people that they have some ability. Finding out how good you are at various classes is pretty much the whole purpose of the last years at secondary school.
It pretty much is one language, you just have to pick you prefered syntax.
There are a few minor differences but almost any statement in any of the 3 support languages has a functional equlivlent in the other 2.
Of course if for some deluded reason you chose the C++ frontend you can also mix in superior regular C++. Anyone who uses C++/CLI for anything other than compadiblity reasons should be isolated and forced to exculsively program in it untill they see the error of their thinking.
If you feel it's just engineering, then maybe it's time for a change or perhaps some home project that reawakens the magic and art of programming for you again.
I don't think you understand the meaning of word engineering. Engineering and art are not mutually exclusive.
From a professional engineering perceptive what you are calling art is far closer to engineering than what you are calling engineering and once you start repeating processes without redesigning them you are no longer engineering at all.
Except we have to do this in bash as our top level language. Bash is good for calling executables in a control sequence, but lacks the features to make it easy to use a standard c api. It is not reasonable to expect the average admin to mix together all the features the kernel can offer (that list is just the beggining) in an imperative language.
That aside, will people please stop this constant masturbation about startup times? There are way, way, way more important things to deal with than edging out a few more seconds.
systemd has was not developed for start-up times. The only way a Linux project gets this kind of funding and momentum is for the server. Better startup times are just show how shit sysV is. systemd enables distros and admins to start using features in the kernel (cgroups, constrains....) that would otherwise be unnecessary prohibitively difficult to implement in a generic imperative language.
Another way of looking at the situation is sysV is constraining everyones options to use otherwise available features to users.
... We need more scripting not less...
When that scripting is boilerplate, this is an unnecessary waste of time for the user and maintainer. If you really need some scripting for something nonstandard you can still call it inside an systemd service file.
The fuse would blow regardless of the power supply....
You short a battery and it generally explodes as well. The advantage here is with the quick charge time you could get away with storing less energy in your phone.
Without a special API you can't guarantee that you overwrote the right section of storage (wear leveling and copy on write). But as reve_etrange said, just deleting the file would be a very good start.
How hard could it be to store it in RAM as it is received and then zero out the memory when finished. Sure it is not remotely hack proof but at least when it is broken you can only get new photos.
Or if you don't have the RAM to store the pic store an encryption key.
If the variation among how people drive is high, it doesn't matter what you pick, the measurements will always be inaccurate for most users.
It is most accurate in the middle, rather than as an extreme outlier, it would think the middle 80 percent fit to a bell curve. It is biased towards cars that are designed for the max speed of the 60s rather than today. You encourage designing cars to be geared for a lower max speed.
Looking at the variation it must cause some cars efficiency to be rated wrongly showing them incorrectly worse or better than another car.
So you get the CAFE mileage for a trip with the same urban non-urban split without causing congestion?
There are too many ways in which people drive, and any choice of a standard is arbitrary.
Yes but you can arbitrary chose the average or median trip from samples.
If you have a middle trip then people can judge for themselves if they will be under or over and at the actual interstate limits which car is the most efficient. An urban, non-urban split in the rating would be useful as well.
That's just stupid. It makes sense only if there is a (commonly known) conversion factor (or more generally a function of CAFE) that gives a reasonably accurate of what you can actually expect (knowing that tests expect you to drive somewhat conservatively). It looks even worse when the CAFE value is so inaccurate for real world driving that it can not be used to compare different cars fuel efficiency.
When you have such a poor estimate of fuel efficiency that consumers should not be using to make decisions with, consumers can no longer chose cars based on their fuel efficiency and it improves at a slower rate.
Atoms are still comparable in price, its an issue but not the major one. They probably have spare old fab tech to make these. The main problem with this is that A15s are more powerful than atoms, both absolute and per watt. Also, the graphics in these is likely to be terrible to top it off.
The race to the bottom as complained about by tech reviewers (get the product for free), is the quality and value of the high end is reduced because the market is smaller due to people choosing a cheap option. With less competition and economy of scale in the high end there are less options with lower value.
Hypothetically if the cheep options were removed from market and you could only buy laptops that meet the ultabook spec, you would see a lot more diversity and value of Ultabooks.
Mercedes, BMW, Smeg fridges or Learjet aircraft.
These are strong brands like Apple that have universal brand recognition, OEMs don't really have this. Yes, some are more reliable than others but to the general public its still a windows laptop.
Just in case it did not come through, I think the race to the bottom is a good thing for the average consumer and me personally.
It's Win (x86) vs ChromeOS and Android vs RT. ChromeOS is cheaper because ARM hardware is much cheaper than x86 and Android is cheaper because it has lower hardware requirements and no office bundling.
MS has to do something about lowering the storage and other requirement for windows if it wants to compete at the 250 dollar point with a useable offering.
A Macbook is not God's Chosen Computer -- there are plenty of ways to leave Apple in the dust hardware-wise.
But can an OEM reliably sell them in MacBook like numbers and make significant margins. The hardware spec is the easy part.
A notebook with 2560x1600 13.3-17" display would turn heads.
Yes but it would be limited to the people who understand and tolerate or work around the DPI issues with windows who are willing to fork out the money to buy it when you can something that can the job for a quarter of the price.
The range of price and quality hardware in the PC market is amazing and does not support your "race to the bottom" hypothesis.
Its not my hypothesis, its the biasing way of saying most consumers would prefer a significantly cheaper product that can still do the job, and that this hurts the options for people buying expensive computers. I think the evidence of the "race to the bottom" is the amazon top sellers: http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Computers-Accessories-Laptop/zgbs/pc/565108 No windows PCs over 600 dollar on the first page right next to Macbooks for about double the price.
Yes the amazon results are not unbiased but just because companies are selling Ultrabooks it does mean they are being bought buy the general population and are reaching MacBook sales numbers. There are some Lenovos and ASUSs on the next page that reach 1000 but the average person appears to be happy with a 400 to 600 dollar laptop.
Especially if PC hardware continues its relentless race to the crap commodity bottom & Apple can resist the urge to do the same with its hardware.
The race to the bottom happens because the consumer wants and will buy cheap products. The only reason they will pay more is if the cheap product is not good enough. The problem is that Android and ChromeOS can go far lower than windows can. Future generations of ARM chromebooks are far more of a threat to Microsoft than Apple will ever be.
The apple brand is too strong for OEMs to make significant sales at that price-point so they need to go lower. If you can go lower than everyone else while still providing an adequate product then you corner 30 to 50 percent of the market. If the race to the bottom is not happening then anti trust laws should be brought out.
the kind of performance we're talking about is likely to be of the easily-parallelizable kind
I'm not. The OS you chose is independent from raw computational performance. This is about you saying that phone has enough power to run win 7 and do something useful at the same time. ARM has only just reached Atom level performance, which is capable of running windows 7 but struggles to justify it over an OS with generic applications, such as basic chromeOS/Linux installs.
Your CPU is massively more powerful than your phones, that's my main point. The average speedup of a quad core is well under 200%, they are only really useful for batch jobs. I would think you memory bandwidth is higher as well. The latest Samsung processors are better than atoms i remember now.
Graphics are for games and desktop effects that you can turn off.
Because in almost all complex user-level applications are still bound by single core performance. Sure you can multitask and get some application a little faster but actually using all those 4 cores at once is pretty rear on a desktop/cellphone. Quad cores on phones is a marketing gimmick or a niche area.
What are these group policies that Linux can't replicate? I'm curious: I looked it up on google, but the descriptions are fairly high level and seems like they'd translate reasonably well.
I said difficult, not that you could not. There's probably some context based permissions that benjy is referring to.
Restart Manager is and installer api for restarting services while updating files to prevent restarting the whole OS. Linux deb/rpm installers can just call syscontrol and restart the service using the same call as the user.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it would be more likely to show potential programmers that they are bad or have no real talent at programming before they invest time and money on tertiary studies in programming and get locked in. If your not doing as well as students who don't really care you will get the message. It also will show people that they have some ability.
Finding out how good you are at various classes is pretty much the whole purpose of the last years at secondary school.
It pretty much is one language, you just have to pick you prefered syntax.
There are a few minor differences but almost any statement in any of the 3 support languages has a functional equlivlent in the other 2.
Of course if for some deluded reason you chose the C++ frontend you can also mix in superior regular C++. Anyone who uses C++/CLI for anything other than compadiblity reasons should be isolated and forced to exculsively program in it untill they see the error of their thinking.
If you feel it's just engineering, then maybe it's time for a change or perhaps some home project that reawakens the magic and art of programming for you again.
I don't think you understand the meaning of word engineering. Engineering and art are not mutually exclusive.
From a professional engineering perceptive what you are calling art is far closer to engineering than what you are calling engineering and once you start repeating processes without redesigning them you are no longer engineering at all.
Except we have to do this in bash as our top level language. Bash is good for calling executables in a control sequence, but lacks the features to make it easy to use a standard c api.
It is not reasonable to expect the average admin to mix together all the features the kernel can offer (that list is just the beggining) in an imperative language.
That aside, will people please stop this constant masturbation about startup times? There are way, way, way more important things to deal with than edging out a few more seconds.
systemd has was not developed for start-up times. The only way a Linux project gets this kind of funding and momentum is for the server. Better startup times are just show how shit sysV is. ....) that would otherwise be unnecessary prohibitively difficult to implement in a generic imperative language.
systemd enables distros and admins to start using features in the kernel (cgroups, constrains
Another way of looking at the situation is sysV is constraining everyones options to use otherwise available features to users.
... We need more scripting not less...
When that scripting is boilerplate, this is an unnecessary waste of time for the user and maintainer. If you really need some scripting for something nonstandard you can still call it inside an systemd service file.
This is a poor example as the alternatives copy Microsoft Office. No one is copying T-SQL so a MS chosen curriculum will encourage lock-in.
The fuse would blow regardless of the power supply....
You short a battery and it generally explodes as well. The advantage here is with the quick charge time you could get away with storing less energy in your phone.
Its the Sydney Morning Herald, they have a low journalistic standard.
Without a special API you can't guarantee that you overwrote the right section of storage (wear leveling and copy on write). But as reve_etrange said, just deleting the file would be a very good start.
How hard could it be to store it in RAM as it is received and then zero out the memory when finished. Sure it is not remotely hack proof but at least when it is broken you can only get new photos.
Or if you don't have the RAM to store the pic store an encryption key.
If the variation among how people drive is high, it doesn't matter what you pick, the measurements will always be inaccurate for most users.
It is most accurate in the middle, rather than as an extreme outlier, it would think the middle 80 percent fit to a bell curve. It is biased towards cars that are designed for the max speed of the 60s rather than today. You encourage designing cars to be geared for a lower max speed.
Looking at the variation it must cause some cars efficiency to be rated wrongly showing them incorrectly worse or better than another car.
So you get the CAFE mileage for a trip with the same urban non-urban split without causing congestion?
There are too many ways in which people drive, and any choice of a standard is arbitrary.
Yes but you can arbitrary chose the average or median trip from samples.
If you have a middle trip then people can judge for themselves if they will be under or over and at the actual interstate limits which car is the most efficient. An urban, non-urban split in the rating would be useful as well.
That's just stupid. It makes sense only if there is a (commonly known) conversion factor (or more generally a function of CAFE) that gives a reasonably accurate of what you can actually expect (knowing that tests expect you to drive somewhat conservatively).
It looks even worse when the CAFE value is so inaccurate for real world driving that it can not be used to compare different cars fuel efficiency.
When you have such a poor estimate of fuel efficiency that consumers should not be using to make decisions with, consumers can no longer chose cars based on their fuel efficiency and it improves at a slower rate.
Atoms are still comparable in price, its an issue but not the major one. They probably have spare old fab tech to make these.
The main problem with this is that A15s are more powerful than atoms, both absolute and per watt. Also, the graphics in these is likely to be terrible to top it off.
Maybe it is the name. X got stuck on 11 as well.
The race to the bottom as complained about by tech reviewers (get the product for free), is the quality and value of the high end is reduced because the market is smaller due to people choosing a cheap option. With less competition and economy of scale in the high end there are less options with lower value.
Hypothetically if the cheep options were removed from market and you could only buy laptops that meet the ultabook spec, you would see a lot more diversity and value of Ultabooks.
Mercedes, BMW, Smeg fridges or Learjet aircraft.
These are strong brands like Apple that have universal brand recognition, OEMs don't really have this. Yes, some are more reliable than others but to the general public its still a windows laptop.
Just in case it did not come through, I think the race to the bottom is a good thing for the average consumer and me personally.
It's Win (x86) vs ChromeOS and Android vs RT. ChromeOS is cheaper because ARM hardware is much cheaper than x86 and Android is cheaper because it has lower hardware requirements and no office bundling.
MS has to do something about lowering the storage and other requirement for windows if it wants to compete at the 250 dollar point with a useable offering.
A Macbook is not God's Chosen Computer -- there are plenty of ways to leave Apple in the dust hardware-wise.
But can an OEM reliably sell them in MacBook like numbers and make significant margins. The hardware spec is the easy part.
A notebook with 2560x1600 13.3-17" display would turn heads.
Yes but it would be limited to the people who understand and tolerate or work around the DPI issues with windows who are willing to fork out the money to buy it when you can something that can the job for a quarter of the price.
The range of price and quality hardware in the PC market is amazing and does not support your "race to the bottom" hypothesis.
Its not my hypothesis, its the biasing way of saying most consumers would prefer a significantly cheaper product that can still do the job, and that this hurts the options for people buying expensive computers.
I think the evidence of the "race to the bottom" is the amazon top sellers:
http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Computers-Accessories-Laptop/zgbs/pc/565108
No windows PCs over 600 dollar on the first page right next to Macbooks for about double the price.
Yes the amazon results are not unbiased but just because companies are selling Ultrabooks it does mean they are being bought buy the general population and are reaching MacBook sales numbers. There are some Lenovos and ASUSs on the next page that reach 1000 but the average person appears to be happy with a 400 to 600 dollar laptop.
Especially if PC hardware continues its relentless race to the crap commodity bottom & Apple can resist the urge to do the same with its hardware.
The race to the bottom happens because the consumer wants and will buy cheap products. The only reason they will pay more is if the cheap product is not good enough. The problem is that Android and ChromeOS can go far lower than windows can. Future generations of ARM chromebooks are far more of a threat to Microsoft than Apple will ever be.
The apple brand is too strong for OEMs to make significant sales at that price-point so they need to go lower. If you can go lower than everyone else while still providing an adequate product then you corner 30 to 50 percent of the market. If the race to the bottom is not happening then anti trust laws should be brought out.
Because that's two steps instead of one.
VPNs are no more secure than SSH, just make SSH as secure as you need it.
the kind of performance we're talking about is likely to be of the easily-parallelizable kind
I'm not. The OS you chose is independent from raw computational performance. This is about you saying that phone has enough power to run win 7 and do something useful at the same time. ARM has only just reached Atom level performance, which is capable of running windows 7 but struggles to justify it over an OS with generic applications, such as basic chromeOS/Linux installs.
Your CPU is massively more powerful than your phones, that's my main point. The average speedup of a quad core is well under 200%, they are only really useful for batch jobs. I would think you memory bandwidth is higher as well.
The latest Samsung processors are better than atoms i remember now.
Graphics are for games and desktop effects that you can turn off.
Because in almost all complex user-level applications are still bound by single core performance.
Sure you can multitask and get some application a little faster but actually using all those 4 cores at once is pretty rear on a desktop/cellphone. Quad cores on phones is a marketing gimmick or a niche area.
What are these group policies that Linux can't replicate? I'm curious: I looked it up on google, but the descriptions are fairly high level and seems like they'd translate reasonably well.
I said difficult, not that you could not. There's probably some context based permissions that benjy is referring to.
Restart Manager is and installer api for restarting services while updating files to prevent restarting the whole OS. Linux deb/rpm installers can just call syscontrol and restart the service using the same call as the user.