Not only is Georgi Markov a Bulgarian but he was killed on the birthday of the Bulgarian head of state and the Communist party then.
Just like Politkovskaya which death Litvinenko was investigating was killed on Putin's birthday. It's supposedly a gift from the secret services to their leader.
The last time I checked it was entirely possible to read and write ascii text and Microsoft Works documents from within Word
It depends what you call acsii - the first 128 characters or the entire (extended) 256. There's no way to transfer cyrillic texts from a DOS to a Windows Word.
Welcome to my website! As European Competition Commissioner, my job is to preserve and develop effective competition in the European market in order to ensure that consumers benefit from products and services of excellent quality at competitive prices. It is also my duty to guarantee that taxpayers' money is not used to distort competition when public authorities grant subsidies to businesses.
Requiring firms to compete with each other fosters innovation, increases economic efficiency and, consequently, enhances the competitiveness of the European economy. Over time, this contributes to the creation of jobs and to greater welfare in Europe.
The abolition of monopolies in the telecommunications and airline sectors and the control of abuses of market power in these areas, which have brought about cheaper phone calls and a boom in promotional airfares, are examples of the concrete benefits of freeing up the competitive forces in the market.
I've read a lot of code in my life, and I can see that you're one of those 'clever' programmers, who chips away at readibility, on the theory that it'll make for slightly faster code. In fact, all you've accomplished is making yourself feel superior while generating harder to maintain code. '(!(' is hard to read.
Everything but that. I'm not trying to be 'clever' here. I'm trying to produce more simple code by eliminating one operation.
Never mind the compiler. John Harrison is absolutely right about the ability of the average compiler to optimize that code.
It is all about the reader of the code. Is it less readable to have two operations instead of three, and to skip one negation? To me, it isn't, and having an additional pair of parenthesis doesn't bother me as much as it bothers other people.
Your way is harder for me to read. Anyhow I would be shocked if modern compilers are unaware of de Morgan's law and don't optimize such that the complied code is the same in either case.
Ok, this is obviously a matter of taste.
Nevertheless it seems to me that you add another point to my thesis. This is a kernel code after all. Wouldn't it be better if the assembler output matches the C source more closely in case one decides to dive in it?
Strange, I am just an ignorant code monkey, but I would never write it like this. I much prefer:
if (!(cam && cam->ops))
return -ENODEV;
Yes, there is one more pair of parenthesis, but only one negation which makes the code to be understood faster by humans, and involves two operations instead of three which could also help the compiler to produce better code.
Giving away your product for free is not a good way to make money. Even Redhat doesn't do that.
Yes, they do. Under what license do you think are rpm, ntsysv, sndconfig? They even pay sallaries to people that work on projects that are not RH's.
I don't understand the idea that software should be free- especially since I am a software developer.
It can be paid and free at the same time. I myself am a software developer. Most of the things that I've written were on a temporary contract - just payed to do the job. And guess what, when they payed me the agreed sum, they stopped paying.
Wouldn't it be a conflict of interest if I had decided to write everything so that they would need me constantly, and subscribe with me?
And something more - woudn't it be a good idea from their part to open the source that they already have, and begin to build upon what they are using completely free of charge? I certainly woudn't mind - a prestigious project in my CV would look quite good, even though I may only have started it.
The "Black Box" approach towards a library, or a daemon works fine most of the time but what happens when you have to resolve conflicts? What happens when you want to shut down (even temporarily) a service or two but don't know which one? And even when your guess is right, you still don't know what other things that service provides?
Whether you admit ir, or not, Windows developers are forced to treat the whole system as a Black Box. I find it a pathetic excuse to say: "We provide every information you need except for what we consider irrelevant for the developers. What you don't find in the MSDN clearly belongs to the Dummies category. You don't wan't to look as a dummy, do you? Now, stop asking!"
MSDN Library [microsoft.com] is the best single reference for everything Microsoft.
Well, I don't find it fair that you were modded as a troll. You may be just misinformed.
I can tell you that _any_ decent *nix gives you complete knowledge of what is going on in your machine. Without having to look at source code, without having to go to some central repository of information.
Now, press Ctrl-Alt-Del in your favorite Windows and take a look at the name of the services. Try to enter any of them in the MSDN search. What do you see? Do they tell you what that service does? How is it started? How can you stop it?
Do you still praise MSDN so high when you see that they don't even tell you the basics?
This does not sound like it is aimed at the core slashdot crowd...
Go check this interview (supplied by another/.-er). It's in German but he says he uses Mac for graphics and Linux for everything else, and won't touch Windows. The interviewer crowns him as the Father of Open Source, but he says that although he's a big fan of it, he's just a contributer.
Is RedHat really such a good distro for corporate needs, or is it merely that it has a big name so everyone buys it? I always think of RedHat as the distro that's been around forever, even though no one seems to use it
Now that's funny! Google uses RedHat, FYI. What bigger presence on the net could you find?
I prefer Mandrake, but that's another story.
---
I'd love to take you out tonight, honey, but I've got some/. comments to moderate.
Slashdot Mirror
Science methods exclude any feelings, gut related included. Thought that would be obvious, but it turned out that it wasn't.
The only guy who got the sarcasm, was a real scientist with a PhD, according to his site. He got downvoted as well in the knee jerk avalanche.
I find the /s tag to be offensive, but I guess some people need it.
Stupid scientists conspiring to keep their jobs.
Not only is Georgi Markov a Bulgarian but he was killed on the birthday of the Bulgarian head of state and the Communist party then. Just like Politkovskaya which death Litvinenko was investigating was killed on Putin's birthday. It's supposedly a gift from the secret services to their leader.
I've always wondered why rendering of scalable icons isn't relegated to the font server. Seems to me that all the needed code is already there.
Demand native viruses: http://www.lwfug.org/~abartoli/virus-writing-HOWTO /_html/
My bad. This code could never be optimized the way I suggested.
If cam==0, cam->ops is meaningless. In user space it would result in a SIGSEGV. I don't know what would happen in the kernel (oops, panic?)
The way C works the second test is done only when the first gives 'true'. That allows writing the two tests in one 'if' statement.
Everything but that. I'm not trying to be 'clever' here. I'm trying to produce more simple code by eliminating one operation.
Never mind the compiler. John Harrison is absolutely right about the ability of the average compiler to optimize that code.
It is all about the reader of the code. Is it less readable to have two operations instead of three, and to skip one negation? To me, it isn't, and having an additional pair of parenthesis doesn't bother me as much as it bothers other people.
Ok, this is obviously a matter of taste.
Nevertheless it seems to me that you add another point to my thesis. This is a kernel code after all. Wouldn't it be better if the assembler output matches the C source more closely in case one decides to dive in it?
Strange, I am just an ignorant code monkey, but I would never write it like this. I much prefer:
if (!(cam && cam->ops)) return -ENODEV;
Yes, there is one more pair of parenthesis, but only one negation which makes the code to be understood faster by humans, and involves two operations instead of three which could also help the compiler to produce better code.
Yes, they do. Under what license do you think are rpm, ntsysv, sndconfig? They even pay sallaries to people that work on projects that are not RH's.
It can be paid and free at the same time. I myself am a software developer. Most of the things that I've written were on a temporary contract - just payed to do the job. And guess what, when they payed me the agreed sum, they stopped paying.
Wouldn't it be a conflict of interest if I had decided to write everything so that they would need me constantly, and subscribe with me?
And something more - woudn't it be a good idea from their part to open the source that they already have, and begin to build upon what they are using completely free of charge? I certainly woudn't mind - a prestigious project in my CV would look quite good, even though I may only have started it.
Why don't you at least try? It worked with Netscape. Someone's oxygen is being cut...
Care to explain this then? Microsoft fails to use own security product
The "Black Box" approach towards a library, or a daemon works fine most of the time but what happens when you have to resolve conflicts? What happens when you want to shut down (even temporarily) a service or two but don't know which one? And even when your guess is right, you still don't know what other things that service provides?
Whether you admit ir, or not, Windows developers are forced to treat the whole system as a Black Box. I find it a pathetic excuse to say: "We provide every information you need except for what we consider irrelevant for the developers. What you don't find in the MSDN clearly belongs to the Dummies category. You don't wan't to look as a dummy, do you? Now, stop asking!"
Well, I don't find it fair that you were modded as a troll. You may be just misinformed.
I can tell you that _any_ decent *nix gives you complete knowledge of what is going on in your machine. Without having to look at source code, without having to go to some central repository of information.
Now, press Ctrl-Alt-Del in your favorite Windows and take a look at the name of the services. Try to enter any of them in the MSDN search. What do you see? Do they tell you what that service does? How is it started? How can you stop it?
Do you still praise MSDN so high when you see that they don't even tell you the basics?
Can someone explain why this was done?
Go check this interview (supplied by another /.-er). It's in German but he says he uses Mac for graphics and Linux for everything else, and won't touch Windows.
The interviewer crowns him as the Father of Open Source, but he says that although he's a big fan of it, he's just a contributer.
Now that's funny! Google uses RedHat, FYI. What bigger presence on the net could you find?
I prefer Mandrake, but that's another story.
---
I'd love to take you out tonight, honey, but I've got some
Did he really throw his HDD in the lake? What a waste! Several times
/dev/random > /dev/hdb
/. comments to moderate.
cat
should be more than enough.
---
I'd love to take you out tonight, honey, but I've got some
I had the book, read it a couple of times, but finally gave it away. Hungarian notation is bad for your code, period.
/. comments to moderate...
---
I'd love to take you out tonight, honey, but I've got some
Now we know the _real_ reason for all the bugs.
Should I read the BSOD backwords to get their message?