I did this when I was learning some encryption programming... before I could start actually writing code that deals with encryption, I needed a solid base.
If you are doing your own encryption, it's going to be easily crackable. Encryption is definitely something that needs to be done in a peer-reviewed library.
Re:Meanwhile, C++ goes nowhere
on
Java 1.5 vs C#
·
· Score: 1
[on ACE]
It's an excellent library that cut development time and resulted in high-quality code. The main drawback was that it has its own classes for containers, streams, strings, etc. It would be great if the C++ standard libraries brought in at least some of the core functionality of ACE in a way that made it seamlessly interoperable with the existing library classes.
I think you'll agree that it would be reasonable to change ACE to accommodate standard C++ and not the other way around.
Re:Meanwhile, C++ goes nowhere
on
Java 1.5 vs C#
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
C++ is a great language, but it's choosy about its friends.
The same can be said for COBOL. I bet somewhere in the world there is a guy that likes COBOL.
What I don't like about C++ standard, is the lack of a decent socket library that would be part of the i/o streams. There are non-portable classes for this of course, and everyone could roll their own, but it's not in the C++ standard (yet).
Sockets, as an operating system specific issue, don't really have a place in the language standard. Especially for C++, which is used for embedded development etc.
For fast prototyping, I'd stick to Python, but when performance really matters, C++ is still king!
Make that "when performance really matters, and C++ can significantly improve the performance". C++ won't make your network interface or hard drive faster, for example.
Often the smart thing to do is to first write everything in Python, and rewrite speed-critical parts in C/C++.
I never did understand the need/desire for varargs in Java. Isn't that what polymorphism is for?
Now, I'm enthusiastically waiting for you to sketch the relationship between polymorphism and varargs. The way I see it, there is none.
Hint: polymorphism means dynamically determining the method to execute from the object at runtime. In the context of Java and C++ at least. Think "virtual functions" if that helps.
Schwartz did say that any money the patents generate will be donated to charities.
Of course the money coming from licensing the patents doesn't matter - it's the chilling/killing effect it has on competitions that makes it sweet.
MSFT could as well give all the patent revenue money to charities - hell, they could burn the money. The money from patents is peanuts, as long as it keeps the other guy down.
I guess because (for some moronic reason) AMD are "good guys" and Intel are "bad guys" we just have to get all giggly and rub their noses in it.
IA64 is proprietary and closed, AMD64 is not. That's why Intel are the bad guys as far as this Itanic thing is concerned. Also, if they are selling something you will never be able to buy to your home, it's natural to root for the solution that you might very well be able to afford yourself.
Let me put it this way. I would not buy a server from HP anyway.
I don't think they will care. Most people in the business of buying servers seem to do. Comp... er, HP Proliants are probably the most popular Linux servers at the moment.
Still, keep in mind that Firefox was originally meant to be a Windows program (but it doesn't hurt to be available on multiple platforms though, which I'm definitely in support of).
Do you have a reference to this intention? One would think that Firefox had the intention of being a cross-platform browser like Mozilla before it.
Linux on desktop was a much less credible beast at the time of first phoenix release, though...
Taking a look at those screenshot, one quickly sees that not much (if anything) has changed, at least visually.
What's with the Gnome people and making everything BIG. All the icons and toolbars SCREAM AT YOU, to the extent that they divert the attention away from what you are actually working with towards themselves, and use up a lot of the space that could be used for productive work.
Would it be so wrong to throw us poor people with 1024x768 resolution a bone and make at least the toolbars smaller. Firefox/KDE toolbar size is just right.
I understand that the big (and pretty, I admit) graphics create a nice first impression and give the ui some glitz, but it's just less efficient. Even the Windows ui designers realized this.
Why do you want to switch kernels between Debian and Solaris?
No, between Linux and Solaris, while preserving the userland. It would allow using the Linux kernel most of the time, but switching to Solaris for computers with "special needs" (where Linux doesn't yet have feature parity). Then you'd just need one set of skills to maintain the different system.
Debian GNU/Solaris, anyone? I'll be interested when I see this running a typical "GNU/Linuxy" userland. It'd be interesting to switch b/w kernels interchangeably...
It's a well known secret that posting a MOD PARENT UP is as efficient a way to communicate your appreciation. Though then you might risk getting modded down yourself if you are obviously wrong, like the original poster here;-).
Bruce isn't exactly the new guy around here (well, to most of you;-) ).
I was assuming that Bruce isn't reading & posting to all the articles that appear on slashdot. I just saw that he was reading and posting to this one. I apologize for the damage done by the phrasing in the original message.
Don't tell me to use debian-testing, I've tried it and it replaces too many packages too often for a production machine.
Umm, use Debian testing (==Sarge). It will be released Any Day Now (my guess - 2 months), so it's not changing much anymore, at least not in disruptive fashion (like Sid).
So go change those apt sources *now*, or download the debian-installer netinstall image. Just be sure to get 2.6.7 kernel if your Linux partition will be on a SATA disk (the latest, 2.6.8, doesn't work).
Userlinux is an answer to a question no one was asking.
Umm, it's an answer most of people in the Linux-using IT industry have been asking for a few years - "where's the free-beer enterprise-grade Linux we've been expecting?"
I don't like the anti-RH attitude some less mature Linux enthusiasts seem to have, but boy, do I love to see the competition it will be getting from free alternatives (i.e. not just Novell/SUSE).
Is that the outgrowth of KDE-Debian, or something else? Give me a URL.
No, it's a company (quite secretive so far) founded by Mark Shuttleworth. It's quite a bit in the stealth/rumour mode ATM, but you can see some buzz by googling for it.
Bruce Perens, now that you are around, what's your take on the Canonical project? On the surface, it would appear to be along the lines of what UserLinux is supposed to do... not forgetting that neither is "final" yet, of course;-).
Slashdot Mirror
I did this when I was learning some encryption programming... before I could start actually writing code that deals with encryption, I needed a solid base.
If you are doing your own encryption, it's going to be easily crackable. Encryption is definitely something that needs to be done in a peer-reviewed library.
What's wrong with, say, SSL?
Incidentally, Civilization IV is going to be moddable with Python
[on ACE]
It's an excellent library that cut development time and resulted in high-quality code. The main drawback was that it has its own classes for containers, streams, strings, etc. It would be great if the C++ standard libraries brought in at least some of the core functionality of ACE in a way that made it seamlessly interoperable with the existing library classes.
I think you'll agree that it would be reasonable to change ACE to accommodate standard C++ and not the other way around.
C++ is a great language, but it's choosy about its friends.
The same can be said for COBOL. I bet somewhere in the world there is a guy that likes COBOL.
What I don't like about C++ standard, is the lack of a decent socket library that would be part of the i/o streams. There are non-portable classes for this of course, and everyone could roll their own, but it's not in the C++ standard (yet).
Sockets, as an operating system specific issue, don't really have a place in the language standard. Especially for C++, which is used for embedded development etc.
For fast prototyping, I'd stick to Python, but when performance really matters, C++ is still king!
Make that "when performance really matters, and C++ can significantly improve the performance". C++ won't make your network interface or hard drive faster, for example.
Often the smart thing to do is to first write everything in Python, and rewrite speed-critical parts in C/C++.
I never did understand the need/desire for varargs in Java. Isn't that what polymorphism is for?
Now, I'm enthusiastically waiting for you to sketch the relationship between polymorphism and varargs. The way I see it, there is none.
Hint: polymorphism means dynamically determining the method to execute from the object at runtime. In the context of Java and C++ at least. Think "virtual functions" if that helps.
but has the user in mind, who was perfectly fine with his old system but doesn't feel comfortable running an OS that isn't actively maintained.
Well then, the optimal route might be to learn to get comfortable with a system that isn't actively maintained.
Schwartz did say that any money the patents generate will be donated to charities.
Of course the money coming from licensing the patents doesn't matter - it's the chilling/killing effect it has on competitions that makes it sweet.
MSFT could as well give all the patent revenue money to charities - hell, they could burn the money. The money from patents is peanuts, as long as it keeps the other guy down.
Tom Lord was my roommate in '88
Made a custom t-shirt of that yet?
I guess because (for some moronic reason) AMD are "good guys" and Intel are "bad guys" we just have to get all giggly and rub their noses in it.
IA64 is proprietary and closed, AMD64 is not. That's why Intel are the bad guys as far as this Itanic thing is concerned. Also, if they are selling something you will never be able to buy to your home, it's natural to root for the solution that you might very well be able to afford yourself.
Let me put it this way. I would not buy a server from HP anyway.
I don't think they will care. Most people in the business of buying servers seem to do. Comp... er, HP Proliants are probably the most popular Linux servers at the moment.
Still, keep in mind that Firefox was originally meant to be a Windows program (but it doesn't hurt to be available on multiple platforms though, which I'm definitely in support of).
Do you have a reference to this intention? One would think that Firefox had the intention of being a cross-platform browser like Mozilla before it.
Linux on desktop was a much less credible beast at the time of first phoenix release, though...
However, Gnome does make it easy enough to change the size of your toolbars, hell, mine are TINY.
How? I mean, for example, how to change the toolbar size of Nautilus in browse mode? I didn't find the option, so it probably ain't that easy...
Taking a look at those screenshot, one quickly sees that not much (if anything) has changed, at least visually.
What's with the Gnome people and making everything BIG. All the icons and toolbars SCREAM AT YOU, to the extent that they divert the attention away from what you are actually working with towards themselves, and use up a lot of the space that could be used for productive work.
Would it be so wrong to throw us poor people with 1024x768 resolution a bone and make at least the toolbars smaller. Firefox/KDE toolbar size is just right.
I understand that the big (and pretty, I admit) graphics create a nice first impression and give the ui some glitz, but it's just less efficient. Even the Windows ui designers realized this.
Why do you want to switch kernels between Debian and Solaris?
No, between Linux and Solaris, while preserving the userland. It would allow using the Linux kernel most of the time, but switching to Solaris for computers with "special needs" (where Linux doesn't yet have feature parity). Then you'd just need one set of skills to maintain the different system.
Debian GNU/Solaris, anyone? I'll be interested when I see this running a typical "GNU/Linuxy" userland. It'd be interesting to switch b/w kernels interchangeably...
Subject says it all
I wish I had points to mod you up.
;-).
It's a well known secret that posting a MOD PARENT UP is as efficient a way to communicate your appreciation. Though then you might risk getting modded down yourself if you are obviously wrong, like the original poster here
Then wanted to be a shared filesystem developer, and that didn't work out.
Ah, I remember that... as an aside, what happened with that effort? Did the fruits of their labour end up in the OSS pool?
Bruce isn't exactly the new guy around here (well, to most of you ;-) ).
I was assuming that Bruce isn't reading & posting to all the articles that appear on slashdot. I just saw that he was reading and posting to this one. I apologize for the damage done by the phrasing in the original message.
Don't tell me to use debian-testing, I've tried it and it replaces too many packages too often for a production machine.
Umm, use Debian testing (==Sarge). It will be released Any Day Now (my guess - 2 months), so it's not changing much anymore, at least not in disruptive fashion (like Sid).
So go change those apt sources *now*, or download the debian-installer netinstall image. Just be sure to get 2.6.7 kernel if your Linux partition will be on a SATA disk (the latest, 2.6.8, doesn't work).
Userlinux is an answer to a question no one was asking.
Umm, it's an answer most of people in the Linux-using IT industry have been asking for a few years - "where's the free-beer enterprise-grade Linux we've been expecting?"
I don't like the anti-RH attitude some less mature Linux enthusiasts seem to have, but boy, do I love to see the competition it will be getting from free alternatives (i.e. not just Novell/SUSE).
you can see some buzz by googling for it.
Forgot to say that "canonical debian" is probably a good starting point for the googling.
Is that the outgrowth of KDE-Debian, or something else? Give me a URL.
No, it's a company (quite secretive so far) founded by Mark Shuttleworth. It's quite a bit in the stealth/rumour mode ATM, but you can see some buzz by googling for it.
The only url I can come up with now is http://no-name-yet.com/
wow, if you are Bruce Perens and have a low slashdot id, you get modded up for "First Post" messages?
;-).
Come on, it's the real Bruce Perens
Bruce Perens, now that you are around, what's your take on the Canonical project? On the surface, it would appear to be along the lines of what UserLinux is supposed to do... not forgetting that neither is "final" yet, of course ;-).