IE2 gained up to 15% marketshare and was just a piece of crap. IE3 - while comparable to NS3, I admit - was still less powerfull in a few ways that I can remember: 1. didn't have switch in JavaScript 2. Couldn't do rollovers images in menus 3. Toolbar much more rigid than NS3
Then, at that point, you cannot tell me that IE3 won over NS3 because of any technical superiority. IE3 reached almost 40% of the market.
So from that point on, IE4 and NS4 came out. Technically IE4 was a lightyear ahead of Netscape. So far away, it took Mozilla 6 years to catch up.
So I guess we will never know if IE would have won in the case it would have been as crappy as Netscape. But seeing how IE3 went up up up up and NS3 down down down with equivelant technologies, I would guess yes, without a doubt.
So while the techical superiority of IE4 did speed up the process, I doubt it has been anything significant in the outcome of the war.
You do realize that this is probably never going to happen, right?
I mean, IE3 was gaining market shares on Netscape 3 and it was a much worse browser. Why in hell would the clueless masses move to Moz/FF? Not for a technical reason, that has never ever ever happenned. Ever. Never.
Start to realize Mozilla is a tool for us geeks and our families, nothing else so far.
Well, sure. I can write a small program that would execute any bash shell script when it sees one. It would be Linux's problem with it's naive way of executing all shell scripts when requested to do so.
Note that this program would show a strength of all windows systems, since this 'vulnerability' wouldn't apply to windows.
Your argument is a little flawed here, you must admit.
There are much more games installed by default on XP. That is a MAJOR improvement for almost my entire family. They were all "oooohhhh" and "aaaahhh" when they opened the "Games" piece of the startup menu.
This is new if you want it to be new. A terminal is nothing than a keyboard and a screen handled. The port you use may be serial, network or PCI, the same remains true.
There is potentially 3 things new in these configs: 1. Multi-Dosplay. This is nothing new 2. Multi Keyboards. This is new (AFAIK). So they get a piece of hardware to handle multiple keyboards and wrote a driver for Linux. Big deal. 3. Multi X-Servers is nothing new either. In fact, it is something I do at home every single day. I run a default X Server and a Xvnc, which is nothing else than an X server, that you can access through a client, here VNC client.
What do you know about the closed source ones? Of course, the open source ones are more visible, so you just jump to the conclusion that "most" are. But what is most?
1. More apps? Nope, thousands of (not open) companies are developping Java stuff. 2. More money generated? Oh wait... 3. More lines of code? I doubt it.
Well, all in all, I think that most of the Java apps (And most of all the apps in general) are proprietary, and not open source. Sad if you want, but that's still the way it is.
The EULA is one thing. Getting a lawsuit on your back and trying to make it stand is another.
They ARE liable, and they know it. That is why they try to disclaim so much in the EULA. They know that wouldn't stand water if there was a clearly indentified wrongdoing from their side that would generate gazillions of good old $$$ loss someplace willing to go to court.
Allright, got it this time. So it was option 1 (In my original post). There is still one thing I don't understand though, is that how do you box/unbox such a primitive type? Can you cast these structs? I guess not, so when you autobox (Say, you retrieve that struct from a Hashtable of some sort) then you have to assign it to a variable of the exact same struct, right?
On a side note, short-term objects are really fast to GC - At least in Java. I was on a project where we do serial computations like summing 5 million numbers, computing variances, etc... and for some reason I was creating a small object (object containing 4 int) and was creating a new instance for every iteration. When I recycled my instance I surprisingly saved very few time (around.2 seconds)
1 wrong, 2 wrong. So tell me one thing. You have a bunch of stuff in your struct. How does it get into the stack if you don't store it into the stack or store a reference to it into the stack? That sounds kind of a mystery to me.
You're not very clever are you? Yeah, just one post is probably enough to judge my brain abilities.
How about storing class level value type variables along with the class, just not as a reference. Maybe we are just having a terminology problem here. Class-level variables are called static variables in Java. They are attached to a class rather than to an instance of the class. How does this have anything to do with structs? I don't know a lot about C#, so I might be wrong here.
Here is how it works in Java: a. Primitive types are stored as is. Hence they don't need any garbage collection. They are destroyed when popped from the stack or when an Object holding them is garbaged collected. Is that what you call "value type"? b. Non-primitive types are Object subclass (Except for arrays, but still the rest stands). When no more reference are hold to them they are GCed. (Gets more complex than that with circular reference, but not much). c. Static variables (class variables as opposed to instance variables) can be garbaged collected as well, when their class get GCed. Classes can get GCed when their ClassLoader gets garbaged collected. I'm not a specialist here, so there might be other conditions to that, but classes (not instances) can also get garbaged collected.
And exactly how does using the stop the 64 bit version of the CLR from performing? That's not even an english sentence. Flame apart, I didn't get it... maybe that's because I'm not very clever;-)
There was an article on slashdot a while back which bemoaned the fact that modern programmers did not have enough of a low level understanding of computing these dayes This is merely a matter of opinion. The next generation (Or the one after that) will let us know, I'm sure. I've never been too good at predicting future.
You know another amazing feature in windows XP? Right click on the task bar. A nice thing called a popup menu pops up and in here you have "Properties". Ever tried to click there? I don't really recall about "grouping always", but "grouping never" is definitely there.
They are within the VM, but the garbage collector does not allocate them nor does it deallocate them
If this is true (I have no clue) it would be pretty stupid. So there would be two options here:
1. The struct is in the stack entirely. It does not reside in the heap at all. Talk about efficiency for recursive calls! Also that would mean structs cannot be assigned to any object. Well, it means they are not Objects. They're some kind of hybrid type, not assignable... Now I remember this book that said "Never sacrifice good design for performance unless that piece has been undoubtedly identified as a bottleneck that needs to be fixed". Wow! Using an reusable instance would only be a little uglier than that, and much more manageable from the VM standpoint. Built-in ugly feature, talk about an improvement! 2. The struct is instanciated in the heap and only a reference resides in the stack. Well, it would then be easier to flag the instance with a "TO BE GARBAGED" flag (which all instance have anyways). It would be no overhead to the GC to kill those.
Anyways, I think the bottom line is that Java will not allow you ugly thing. There are drawbacks. And advantages. For instance, last week we ran into the 4GB limit of our JVM. We just installed a 64 bit JVM, and problem was solved.
Bottom line: ALL Java programs are 64 bits. That's right, in fact they are n-bit, where n is the number of bits the JVM they run on has.
C# programs are not.
So preventing people from writing ugly stuff is not just for portability purposes.
If you ignore windows ports of other GNU applications
Well, and what about if you ignore all GNU applications for Linux? What's left?
Honestly, if you want to compare two OS, but blindly remove one full set of applications from the comparison, you should remove it for both, shouldn't you?
Then how does one define this additional 'value' that you seem to refer to? That value is usually ultimately fixed by the market, but it is really arbitrary fixed by the owner of that value I'm referring to.
How much one likes a movie or musical performance? That is exactly how the owner of such material will define the value of his good. How much are you willing to pay for that piece of album? This is what the value of that album is for you. If the owner of the material decide to sell it for more, then you don't have a deal.
That's basic laws of the market.
And you're right, I don't see the point of copyright (let alone patents) So you work you butt off to create a movie for like, say, 2 years, and then everyone just steals it and you get no reward? Is that your idea of what an artist is?
Only thing I can't stand is people claiming that they invented, discovered, wrote or composed something while in reality they didn't. Not all of them are that way. Some actually do create, invent and discover.
Ultimately, if you don't understand why we should pay for music, ask yourself the question: Why should we pay for anything? TV, VCR, books, food, etc...
You will probably say this is not the same thing because a TV is a material and has cost, but if you think about it, none of this cost is anything but labor: People driving trucks, digging oil, manufacturing plastics, etc... Music is also labor. Why should we make a difference?
No, the definition is 'loosing' is letting something go
So my buck was worth a loaf of bread, and now it's only worth 98% of a loaf of break and I didn't loose anything? Yes I did, I lost some of the value of my bick.
which was previously restrained in some way It is restrained by the government which loosens the value of a buck consciously. How is that not loosing again?
No, you clearly don't get it. The value being diluted here is the value of an OS, in the generic sense of the term. Windows is an OS, so its market is being diluted.
The value of Windows is being diluted by the people that put ISOs on Kazaa, eMule, etc....
Point almost (99%) taken. The guy could have gone home and watch the recorded piece 10 times in a row, without putting it on the internet. But still that would have cost the industry a bit, because he would have probably seen the movie in the theatres a few more times if he couldn't record it. Granted, this is much less dilution than putting it on the internet.
Well, I understand enough to make that statement, which is perfectly accurate. If you have something to say, say it. If not, please stop posting. But your post is just a waste of bandwidth for everyone.
Slashdot Mirror
How untrue could that be....
IE2 gained up to 15% marketshare and was just a piece of crap. IE3 - while comparable to NS3, I admit - was still less powerfull in a few ways that I can remember:
1. didn't have switch in JavaScript
2. Couldn't do rollovers images in menus
3. Toolbar much more rigid than NS3
Then, at that point, you cannot tell me that IE3 won over NS3 because of any technical superiority. IE3 reached almost 40% of the market.
So from that point on, IE4 and NS4 came out. Technically IE4 was a lightyear ahead of Netscape. So far away, it took Mozilla 6 years to catch up.
So I guess we will never know if IE would have won in the case it would have been as crappy as Netscape. But seeing how IE3 went up up up up and NS3 down down down with equivelant technologies, I would guess yes, without a doubt.
So while the techical superiority of IE4 did speed up the process, I doubt it has been anything significant in the outcome of the war.
when the clueless masses come over from IE
You do realize that this is probably never going to happen, right?
I mean, IE3 was gaining market shares on Netscape 3 and it was a much worse browser. Why in hell would the clueless masses move to Moz/FF? Not for a technical reason, that has never ever ever happenned. Ever. Never.
Start to realize Mozilla is a tool for us geeks and our families, nothing else so far.
Well, sure. I can write a small program that would execute any bash shell script when it sees one. It would be Linux's problem with it's naive way of executing all shell scripts when requested to do so.
Note that this program would show a strength of all windows systems, since this 'vulnerability' wouldn't apply to windows.
Your argument is a little flawed here, you must admit.
There are much more games installed by default on XP. That is a MAJOR improvement for almost my entire family. They were all "oooohhhh" and "aaaahhh" when they opened the "Games" piece of the startup menu.
$8.50 ??? Where I live it's more $10!
On a more serious note, I think you are right and the fact that he downloaded the movie is probably a potential loss for the studios...
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they deserve it...
the exchange rate of the dollar goes down
No. The inflation goes up. The exchange rate has nothing (or very little) to do with that.
This is new if you want it to be new. A terminal is nothing than a keyboard and a screen handled. The port you use may be serial, network or PCI, the same remains true.
There is potentially 3 things new in these configs:
1. Multi-Dosplay. This is nothing new
2. Multi Keyboards. This is new (AFAIK). So they get a piece of hardware to handle multiple keyboards and wrote a driver for Linux. Big deal.
3. Multi X-Servers is nothing new either. In fact, it is something I do at home every single day. I run a default X Server and a Xvnc, which is nothing else than an X server, that you can access through a client, here VNC client.
So nothing of a revolution.
most of them are open source
What do you know about the closed source ones? Of course, the open source ones are more visible, so you just jump to the conclusion that "most" are. But what is most?
1. More apps? Nope, thousands of (not open) companies are developping Java stuff.
2. More money generated? Oh wait...
3. More lines of code? I doubt it.
Well, all in all, I think that most of the Java apps (And most of all the apps in general) are proprietary, and not open source. Sad if you want, but that's still the way it is.
How many enterprise web application do you know that is written in C/C++? Cause that's where the money is these days....
The EULA is one thing. Getting a lawsuit on your back and trying to make it stand is another.
They ARE liable, and they know it. That is why they try to disclaim so much in the EULA. They know that wouldn't stand water if there was a clearly indentified wrongdoing from their side that would generate gazillions of good old $$$ loss someplace willing to go to court.
Allright, got it this time. So it was option 1 (In my original post). There is still one thing I don't understand though, is that how do you box/unbox such a primitive type? Can you cast these structs? I guess not, so when you autobox (Say, you retrieve that struct from a Hashtable of some sort) then you have to assign it to a variable of the exact same struct, right?
... and for some reason I was creating a small object (object containing 4 int) and was creating a new instance for every iteration. When I recycled my instance I surprisingly saved very few time (around .2 seconds)
On a side note, short-term objects are really fast to GC - At least in Java. I was on a project where we do serial computations like summing 5 million numbers, computing variances, etc
Anyways, thanks for your time and insight.
Did you post in the wrong thread or are you just totally stupid?
1 wrong, 2 wrong.
;-)
So tell me one thing. You have a bunch of stuff in your struct. How does it get into the stack if you don't store it into the stack or store a reference to it into the stack? That sounds kind of a mystery to me.
You're not very clever are you?
Yeah, just one post is probably enough to judge my brain abilities.
How about storing class level value type variables along with the class, just not as a reference.
Maybe we are just having a terminology problem here. Class-level variables are called static variables in Java. They are attached to a class rather than to an instance of the class. How does this have anything to do with structs? I don't know a lot about C#, so I might be wrong here.
Here is how it works in Java:
a. Primitive types are stored as is. Hence they don't need any garbage collection. They are destroyed when popped from the stack or when an Object holding them is garbaged collected. Is that what you call "value type"?
b. Non-primitive types are Object subclass (Except for arrays, but still the rest stands). When no more reference are hold to them they are GCed. (Gets more complex than that with circular reference, but not much).
c. Static variables (class variables as opposed to instance variables) can be garbaged collected as well, when their class get GCed. Classes can get GCed when their ClassLoader gets garbaged collected. I'm not a specialist here, so there might be other conditions to that, but classes (not instances) can also get garbaged collected.
And exactly how does using the stop the 64 bit version of the CLR from performing?
That's not even an english sentence. Flame apart, I didn't get it... maybe that's because I'm not very clever
There was an article on slashdot a while back which bemoaned the fact that modern programmers did not have enough of a low level understanding of computing these dayes
This is merely a matter of opinion. The next generation (Or the one after that) will let us know, I'm sure. I've never been too good at predicting future.
You know another amazing feature in windows XP? Right click on the task bar. A nice thing called a popup menu pops up and in here you have "Properties". Ever tried to click there? I don't really recall about "grouping always", but "grouping never" is definitely there.
They are within the VM, but the garbage collector does not allocate them nor does it deallocate them
If this is true (I have no clue) it would be pretty stupid. So there would be two options here:
1. The struct is in the stack entirely. It does not reside in the heap at all. Talk about efficiency for recursive calls! Also that would mean structs cannot be assigned to any object. Well, it means they are not Objects. They're some kind of hybrid type, not assignable... Now I remember this book that said "Never sacrifice good design for performance unless that piece has been undoubtedly identified as a bottleneck that needs to be fixed". Wow! Using an reusable instance would only be a little uglier than that, and much more manageable from the VM standpoint. Built-in ugly feature, talk about an improvement!
2. The struct is instanciated in the heap and only a reference resides in the stack. Well, it would then be easier to flag the instance with a "TO BE GARBAGED" flag (which all instance have anyways). It would be no overhead to the GC to kill those.
Anyways, I think the bottom line is that Java will not allow you ugly thing. There are drawbacks. And advantages. For instance, last week we ran into the 4GB limit of our JVM. We just installed a 64 bit JVM, and problem was solved.
Bottom line: ALL Java programs are 64 bits. That's right, in fact they are n-bit, where n is the number of bits the JVM they run on has.
C# programs are not.
So preventing people from writing ugly stuff is not just for portability purposes.
If you ignore windows ports of other GNU applications
Well, and what about if you ignore all GNU applications for Linux? What's left?
Honestly, if you want to compare two OS, but blindly remove one full set of applications from the comparison, you should remove it for both, shouldn't you?
You are funny.
Since when did Toyota "control the whole industy"? Did I miss something?
On a more serious note, this is just regular business practice, everyone does it... Where is the big deal?
Then how does one define this additional 'value' that you seem to refer to?
That value is usually ultimately fixed by the market, but it is really arbitrary fixed by the owner of that value I'm referring to.
How much one likes a movie or musical performance?
That is exactly how the owner of such material will define the value of his good. How much are you willing to pay for that piece of album? This is what the value of that album is for you. If the owner of the material decide to sell it for more, then you don't have a deal.
That's basic laws of the market.
And you're right, I don't see the point of copyright (let alone patents)
So you work you butt off to create a movie for like, say, 2 years, and then everyone just steals it and you get no reward? Is that your idea of what an artist is?
Only thing I can't stand is people claiming that they invented, discovered, wrote or composed something while in reality they didn't.
Not all of them are that way. Some actually do create, invent and discover.
Ultimately, if you don't understand why we should pay for music, ask yourself the question: Why should we pay for anything? TV, VCR, books, food, etc...
You will probably say this is not the same thing because a TV is a material and has cost, but if you think about it, none of this cost is anything but labor: People driving trucks, digging oil, manufacturing plastics, etc... Music is also labor. Why should we make a difference?
Yeah, I got it after posting my response... It all make sense now! Stupid mistake...
How so many intelligent people can spell a simple, commonplace, four letter word wrongly so often I will never understand
Try to spell it in a language that would not be your native language. You'll understand at that point.
No, the definition is 'loosing' is letting something go
So my buck was worth a loaf of bread, and now it's only worth 98% of a loaf of break and I didn't loose anything? Yes I did, I lost some of the value of my bick.
which was previously restrained in some way
It is restrained by the government which loosens the value of a buck consciously. How is that not loosing again?
No, you clearly don't get it. The value being diluted here is the value of an OS, in the generic sense of the term. Windows is an OS, so its market is being diluted.
The value of Windows is being diluted by the people that put ISOs on Kazaa, eMule, etc....
Point almost (99%) taken. The guy could have gone home and watch the recorded piece 10 times in a row, without putting it on the internet. But still that would have cost the industry a bit, because he would have probably seen the movie in the theatres a few more times if he couldn't record it. Granted, this is much less dilution than putting it on the internet.
Well, I understand enough to make that statement, which is perfectly accurate. If you have something to say, say it. If not, please stop posting. But your post is just a waste of bandwidth for everyone.