but if his program fails to meet the expected functionality in the program specifiction, then his program fails to meet the user requirements.
For example, I stumbled upon a socket bug in NT4. I can't just ignore this bug and pretend my software is correct because users expect my program's features to work on Windows 95, 98, NT4, and 2000. So now my code has a hack to workaround this NT4 bug. btw, the bug was that WSAEnumNetworkEvents() always returns with the FD_CONNECT bit set for sockets, even after my code already finished connecting the socket.:-(
Even if Naur proved his program correct, about 5% of bugs are caused by operating system, library, or hardware bugs. He would still need to test. For example from work, I work on a Win32 program that uses sockets. Windows 95, NT4, and 2000 have slightly different Winsock bugs.:-(
Most programmers use (formally or informally) the scientific process to debug software defects. They witness unexpected behaviour, create a reproducible test, postulate a cause, compare the new test results with the expected/control results. Are programmers now scientists when debugging, but not when writing new code?
I'm just curious, how does one interpret Apple's version numbers? I'm used to Microsoft's four number scheme (for example, I'm using IE version 5.00.2920.00) and Linux's three number scheme (Linux 2.4.2)
I faced a similar problem of generating non-repeating random numbers in a project at work. Where can I find more info about this algorithm of using modular division?
I'm typing on a PC keyboard on a computer bought less than 12 months ago. Unfortunatley, this keyboard has a RESET button. It's located where the PrintScreen button should be. If you accidentally brush against the button when trying to hit Backspace, your computer immediately shuts down! I use Windows 2000 and it doesn't give you a chance to abort. On Day 2, I removed this key.;-)
Since you recommended Interbase, have you used both the commercial and open source versions? Now that Interbase is open sourced, is Borland still continuing develop?
I've also heard that there is an Interbase code fork called Firebird. Do you know anything about Firebird?
The FBI must be paying their young undercover cops a lot to get pepper sprayed in the face.
Though without protesters, police would not be able to play with their expensive guns or, worse, some of them might lose their jobs. A peaceful world is NOT in police's interest; they would lose their jobs.
ReiserFS and NFS. The various problems that have bit (a small number of) ReiserFS users in 2.4 are being cleared up. But one larger problem remains: ReiserFS, as shipped in 2.4, does not support NFS. That limitation gets in the way of quite a few people who would like to use ReiserFS, but who also need to be able to export their filesystems.
For the short term, those who are not afraid of kernel patches can have a look at this message from Neil Brown describing where to get the patches he has made available. They are still under development, but they provide "reasonable NFS service" in their current state.
The picture for the longer term is a bit less clear. Neil has a plan for proper support of NFS with ReiserFS, and for improving NFS service in general. It is, however, a large change, requiring tweaks to every filesystem which needs to support NFS. Filesystem changes tend to make kernel hackers nervous, especially in the middle of a stable kernel series. And, in fact, Alan Cox responded that he was not interested in such an extensive patch.
Those who are curious about the troubles with NFS should look at Neil's justification for the changes. It is a lengthy, detailed, and well-argued discussion of how the current NFS implementation fails to mesh well with the various Linux filesystems, and exactly what needs to be fixed to make things work better. It was persuasive enough that Alan agreed that the approach made sense - for the 2.5 kernel series.
Thus, the 2.4 kernel may never support exporting of ReiserFS filesystems over NFS. Those who need this capability will have to apply the patch themselves. That is, if the distributors do not apply the patch themselves before shipping the 2.4 kernel. SuSE, at least, applied such a patch when it shipped ReiserFS with 2.2, so it would not be surprising to see that happen again.
Here's an interesting presentation by Felix von Leitner called "Writing Small and Fast Software". Unfortunately, it's a PDF but it's worth reading. Felix is the author of the "diet" libc, a lowfat reimplementation of libc inspired by DJ Bernstein's minimalist C coding style (qmail, djbdns).
!This program cannot be run in DOS mode.
Rich[:
.text
`.data
.rsrc
WSOCK32.dll
ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US GetConsoleMode
CreateFileA
KERNEL32.dll
@(#) SOMEONE SET US UP THE BOMB exe\ftp.dbg
!SEINEEW ERA SREENIGNE EPACSTEN .exe
Slashdot Mirror
but if his program fails to meet the expected functionality in the program specifiction, then his program fails to meet the user requirements.
:-(
For example, I stumbled upon a socket bug in NT4. I can't just ignore this bug and pretend my software is correct because users expect my program's features to work on Windows 95, 98, NT4, and 2000. So now my code has a hack to workaround this NT4 bug. btw, the bug was that WSAEnumNetworkEvents() always returns with the FD_CONNECT bit set for sockets, even after my code already finished connecting the socket.
I'm thinking of moving from Potato to Woody, but I can't find which kernel version Woody uses.
:)
Won't the analog HDTV standrad be obsolesced in a few years by the inevitable digital/internet TV?
Even if Naur proved his program correct, about 5% of bugs are caused by operating system, library, or hardware bugs. He would still need to test. For example from work, I work on a Win32 program that uses sockets. Windows 95, NT4, and 2000 have slightly different Winsock bugs. :-(
Most programmers use (formally or informally) the scientific process to debug software defects. They witness unexpected behaviour, create a reproducible test, postulate a cause, compare the new test results with the expected/control results. Are programmers now scientists when debugging, but not when writing new code?
I'm just curious, how does one interpret Apple's version numbers? I'm used to Microsoft's four number scheme (for example, I'm using IE version 5.00.2920.00) and Linux's three number scheme (Linux 2.4.2)
I faced a similar problem of generating non-repeating random numbers in a project at work. Where can I find more info about this algorithm of using modular division?
thanks!
I'm typing on a PC keyboard on a computer bought less than 12 months ago. Unfortunatley, this keyboard has a RESET button. It's located where the PrintScreen button should be. If you accidentally brush against the button when trying to hit Backspace, your computer immediately shuts down! I use Windows 2000 and it doesn't give you a chance to abort. On Day 2, I removed this key. ;-)
There is such thing as "half an atom". Maybe researchers can create a transistor using just a few electrons.
chris
When you activate your Microsoft products, your registration key will obviously be stored on some Microsoft license server.
Since you recommended Interbase, have you used both the commercial and open source versions? Now that Interbase is open sourced, is Borland still continuing develop?
I've also heard that there is an Interbase code fork called Firebird. Do you know anything about Firebird?
thanks!
Computer science is to computers as astronomy is to telescopes.
banner ad hell: http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-4950711.html? tag=tp_pr
:-(
cnet's ads are so big, IE slows to a crawl as it attempts to repaint the huge Flash ad. Try scrolling down the page. ouch..
The FBI must be paying their young undercover cops a lot to get pepper sprayed in the face.
Though without protesters, police would not be able to play with their expensive guns or, worse, some of them might lose their jobs. A peaceful world is NOT in police's interest; they would lose their jobs.
http://www.lwn.net/2001/0222/kernel.php3
ReiserFS and NFS. The various problems that have bit (a small number of) ReiserFS users in 2.4 are being cleared up. But one larger problem remains: ReiserFS, as shipped in 2.4, does not support NFS. That limitation gets in the way of quite a few people who would like to use ReiserFS, but who also need to be able to export their filesystems.
For the short term, those who are not afraid of kernel patches can have a look at this message from Neil Brown describing where to get the patches he has made available. They are still under development, but they provide "reasonable NFS service" in their current state.
The picture for the longer term is a bit less clear. Neil has a plan for proper support of NFS with ReiserFS, and for improving NFS service in general. It is, however, a large change, requiring tweaks to every filesystem which needs to support NFS. Filesystem changes tend to make kernel hackers nervous, especially in the middle of a stable kernel series. And, in fact, Alan Cox responded that he was not interested in such an extensive patch.
Those who are curious about the troubles with NFS should look at Neil's justification for the changes. It is a lengthy, detailed, and well-argued discussion of how the current NFS implementation fails to mesh well with the various Linux filesystems, and exactly what needs to be fixed to make things work better. It was persuasive enough that Alan agreed that the approach made sense - for the 2.5 kernel series.
Thus, the 2.4 kernel may never support exporting of ReiserFS filesystems over NFS. Those who need this capability will have to apply the patch themselves. That is, if the distributors do not apply the patch themselves before shipping the 2.4 kernel. SuSE, at least, applied such a patch when it shipped ReiserFS with 2.2, so it would not be surprising to see that happen again.
I don't know who you are. I don't know anyone from the USSR.
Corel doesn't have a focused business model.
Whistler Beta 1?
I've heard the Debian's next release is codenamed Sid, but which Toy Story character was Sid? I've never seen the movies.
If a Linux program sets /proc flags or uses an ioctl(), is that still a "normal" system call?
Here's an interesting presentation by Felix von Leitner called "Writing Small and Fast Software" . Unfortunately, it's a PDF but it's worth reading. Felix is the author of the "diet" libc, a lowfat reimplementation of libc inspired by DJ Bernstein's minimalist C coding style (qmail, djbdns).
c:\winnt\system32>strings ftp.exe
!This program cannot be run in DOS mode.
Rich[:
.text
`.data
.rsrc
WSOCK32.dll
ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US
GetConsoleMode
CreateFileA
KERNEL32.dll
@(#) SOMEONE SET US UP THE BOMB
exe\ftp.dbg
!SEINEEW ERA SREENIGNE EPACSTEN
.exe