Nice call. Wish I had mod points for ya, OECD, and if any mods are reading this, you know what to do. But since I'm here, I'll digress a little....
I personally think that particular sentence was poorly phrased, and it took a little thought for me to extract the information from it.
But you're right -- strata is plural, and being after the colon, the list of three items describes the cultural strata. The fact that the lowly renters are the bottom stratum of the three listed (though implied from the word "lowly") is more obvious through context, i.e. the whole article.
(That said, although most natural since they are listed in order, nothing was explicitly said about the relative ordering of Free Software users and click-through users.)
True, but one of the big draws for this kind of device (and the reason that companies are willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars for it) is that it encourages and allows collaboration between multiple users.
If you're going to sit in one spot and look at the thing with only one pair of eyes, there's an easier solution: 3D goggles. It doesn't give you the same optical field depth that helps alleviate eye strain , but it does have more colors, more resolution, higher refresh rate, and full occlusion.
uh, dude. What was the res on the first CRTs. What about colors? This thing isn't mature yet, but i'd sure want one.
Oh, I completely agree. I think the angular resolution does need to be improved as well as the number of colors. But as I said, these are not the the big problem -- the big one is the lack of occlusion. And that's the one that essentially cannot be improved with incremental improvements to the technology; it's a fundamental problem with the way the images are generated.
For example, suppose you want a 3D model of an airplane. To get a good view from all 360 degrees, all sides of the model must be drawn. But that means if you look at the plane from the front, you will always see the back at the same time.
It's reminiscent of a CAD wireframe model when hidden surface removal has been turned off.
Nevertheless, one hell of a cool toy. Just not sure I'm ready to drop $30k for one....
Not sure on the price -- something like tens of thousands. But that's not suprising, not outrageous for a new technology geared toward governments and research bodies, and not really a flaw.
But the resolution is 768x768 per slice, and about 200 slices. The resolution varies with distance from the center, there is no such thing as occlusion, it has a very limited number of colors, and the flicker varies based on distance from the center.
For some applications, these are not problems. However, the complete lack of occlusion (hidden surface removal) is the one that's going to hurt the most, and what more than anything else kept us from buying one.
At least games./..org is a pretty color. Bright yes, but it's a nice, happy cobalt blue.
For comparison, if you want to talk about ugly colors, has anyone looked at YRO??? Red on yellow? Hard on the eyes AND ugly! I hate even going to that section -- it makes me nauseous.
It has some with WICS-related links, resources, articles, and of course contact info. One of the more interesting (and probably relevant to your questions) things they do is a mentoring program. These links should give you some idea what at least one group out there is doing.
Good luck!
Re:Same problem here. My solutions....
on
How Stable is WEP?
·
· Score: 1
You're welcome.:) It's more like a hack than a true fix, but at least it's an easy hack.
Interestingly, I never thought of it as being a problem with WEP. It's not like I'm going to turn it off or drop to 64-bit, but I'd be curious if that's part of the cause.
I finally read that tech bulletin, by the way. It didn't look specific to the Orinoco card, so it might help you if it helps me. But it was less specific to our problem than I had hoped -- it was more like a detailed user guide to XP wireless networking. I didn't see anything in it (yet) about XP dropping connections to wireless routers, so my enthusiasm for going through it in detail has just dropped again.
Oh, and no affero yet. I hadn't heard of it till just now, but thanks for thinking of me!
Same problem here. My solutions....
on
How Stable is WEP?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I have this exact same problem with the exact same Linksys router you mention. However, I have a different wireless card (Orinoco).
I have two answers for you.
First, the easiest workaround in XP: Let your card connect to your gateway. Once it's connected, bring up the wireless properties in XP for this card. Disable the checkbox for "Let Windows configure my wireless properties". This will prevent XP from making any further updates to your wireless connections, and you will stay connected to your router permanently. You will have to re-enable then re-disable that checkbox if you reboot so it can find it again, but that's only a few seconds of effort for what seems like a perfectly good workaround.
Second: I got, from Linksys support, a Technical Bulletin on "...using Windows XP with wireless networks". It mentions the Orinoco card specifically, but everything in there seems generic enough that it may be worth a try. Ask them for TB-054 (it's a PDF). The workaround above works well enough that I haven't made the time yet to follow these instructions, but it looks like it's meant to address this specific problem.
<rant>If all my damn neighbors would stop advertising their SSID's like insecure idiots, I have a feeling this problem wouldn't come up. And yes, it appears to only be a problem with XP.</rant>
Yes, you are correct.... AES is more secure than DES.
DES itself is susceptible to linear cryptanalysis, and (IIRC) AES is not. AES was specifically designed to provide at least the security of two-key triple DES.
Concerning speed: AES was designed with speed in mind. DES was as well, but their assumption of speed at the time was that everything would be implemented in hardware. AES is designed to work quickly in software.
Nice to know about the module, actually. I was almost surprised there wasn't anything official from them yet, but their FAQ seemed pretty clear on the "Windows or Mac" options they've made available.
There still doesn't seem to be any "consumer level" linux options, though I suppose that shouldn't scare us geek-types. We're used to having to use apache modules instead of some point-click-install interface that Windows users have to suffer through. </sarcasm>
And I fully understand TiVo's position on sharing with non-official devices, and I don't blame them for it. There has been speculation that they were waiting to see how SonicBlue's legal troubles panned out before allowing such things.
Nevertheless, I have one TiVo. If I bought one new Series2, I could look at pictures and listen to mp3s on my TV, as well as program remotely, and all for the low price of ~ $600 when you include the price of a new subscription. If I wanted to watch my shows in a second room, up that to $1200.
All I really want to do is save some movies / shows to VCD or DVD so I don't have to waste TiVo space on them, and to watch them at a friend's house (all very easy and legal with VHS tapes, of course).
Make no mistake: I love my TiVo, and I think the company is fine, and I don't blame them for avoiding legal issues, especially since they "look the other way" very often with respect to the available hacks. However, the only way I can do this now is by an end-run around their operating system and install a bunch of hacks on the TiVo unit itself. What they offer for the home media option is just not worth the money at this point in time, especially if you'd have to upgrade to a Series2 first.
1. Viewing files from your home computer (photos, music) requires Windows or a Mac. Their "TiVo Desktop" software is not (yet) available for linux as far as I can tell.
2. The ability to share your recorded shows requires you to buy another Series 2 TiVo and buy (yes, it costs money) the Home Media upgrade for it as well. You cannot "share" the file with anyone else's Series 2 either, only ones registered under the same household account at TiVo HQ. You can't "share" with your computer either, BTW, only another TiVo.
Maybe some of these will be improved over time, either by TiVo or someone else.
Ah, yes, I now remember.... and I know why I forgot about it. It's very hard to avoid using MS headers, so I've never been able to use the flag without breaking stuff.
I'm not sure I fully understand what you're attempting and what prior art you are looking for, but let me try anyway.
The google groups message says the patent covers explicity "markov model discriminator using negative examples". Markov decision problems are often those associated with a set of states and a policy which transitions between them. For spam filtering, I would guess there are three states: unknown, spam, non-spam, and the policy needs only determine if the transition should go between the unknown and and either the spam or non-spam state.
The optimal policy in an MDP is static, and thus it would say "the optimal policy is to mark an email spam". This sounds useless. A Partially Observable MDP (POMDP) may follow more with your plans since it follows percepts and probability distributions over the current set of beliefs.
As for training for an optimal policy for MDPs, one algorithm ("Value Iteration") makes use of a reward function. This reward function is explicitly allowed to be negative, and probably should be for some decisions or else the problem is trivial. And "positive" or "negative" examples is just a boolean simplification of multiple categories. Why not have "pr0n" "ads" "personal" "work" and a bunch of other categories?
In this case, positive and negative are meaningless, but all (both) are *always* neeeded to define the optimal policy.
In other words, I'm not sure I understand enough of what you are attempting to help find prior art, but from what I can tell "negative" examples are inherently part of defining the optimal policy in an MDP. For a reference, Russel & Norvig, Artificial Intelligence, A Modern Approach (1995) has a ton of information about MDPs and the training of them.
I completely agree. I hate flash. I didn't install it for the longest time, but there's just too much out there, so I gave in.
However, I have a solution. I found these wonderful little "bookmarklets" that work in mozilla. Find them here.
They are little javascript things that remove annoyances from pages, including blink text, javascript, embedded event handles, and even colored backgrounds and text, and background music.
The one you want is called "zap embeds". It will kill all flash from the page you are looking at, leaving almost everything else intact. You can also use the vanilla "zap" which zaps Flash and some other stuff.
I personally put a few of these in my personal toolbar. It's the first good use I found for that toolbar. Thus, one click away from killing flash on any page!
IMHO, the perfect solution. Whoever wrote these is my saviour. Everyone should get these.:)
Bank of America hasn't given me any problems, from Netscape 4 to Mozilla 1.1. I wouldn't necessarily say they are some wonderful bank -- they are a huge corporation and have all the associated pains, but at least they're not making me use Internet Exploder.
I refuse to use IE. If someone requires IE, they typically don't get my business and they usually get a nasty note as well. Same goes for sites that *require* flash, BTW. I only installed flash because of the games it lets me play.:)
PurifyPlus for UNIX is great. The older versions worked like this: 1) build your binary "foobar" normally 2) run "purify foobar -arguments..." 3) get wonderful memory checking, including uninitialized memory reads/copies, array bounds reads/writes, zero page reads, and memory leak checking.
The newer versions work like this: 1) build your binary almost normally, except... 2) add "purify" to the beginning of your normal link line, e.g. "purify g++ obj.o -o foobar" 3) get wonderful memory checking, blah blah blah
The downside to this is obvious, but IMHO very minor. It does not need any source modifications or modifications to the compile stage, and winds up being one extra target in the final makefile. In addition, it will instrument all shared libraries, including plugins as they are loaded. Works flawlessly.
In addition, PurifyPlus includes quantify for profiling (with nice butterfly graph) and purecoverage for code coverage testing. All very nice.
Just yesterday, I tried the linux version. It's not the same at all. It is a huge GUI based IDE (think KDevelop or MS Dev Studio), and it wants you to add all your source files to it. I need to investigate it further, but it appears that it needs to know about all your.c/.cpp files and wants to build the entire program yourself.
I don't want to edit my files in PurifyPlus. I don't want use use PurifyPlus to manage my build process or to build by executables for me. I don't want to use it as a debugger. We have a huge cross platform suite with complex build rules, and I want to edit my files using an advanced editor like XEmacs. I use totalview for debugging. I just want to run it on my binary and have it work. If Rational is going to try to get us entrenched even more in their products by going this route, they are likely to have us lose interest.
Now, I hope I'm wrong, and I very well might be. I need to look through to documentation more to confirm/disprove my current beliefs, but I played with the thing for most of an hour and looked through the tutorials before forming these beliefs.
Rational did tell us they want to have a conference call to discuss "usability" issues. I think I may take them up on this. I love purify, and if there's a way to get it to work reasonably well, I will use it happily. If anyone is interested, I can respond to this thread with the answers.
(The funniest part is that we've been on Rational's back forever trying to get them to give us a linux version, and they always have said "We have no plans for one". Then this suddenly appeared. I hope what suddenly appeared is usable, 'cause I'm not so sure it is yet.)
First, the point: Etnus' Totalview is really good. It's also expensive if I remember correctly. It is almost the only good tool for debugging parallel (MPI or threaded) applications that I am aware of. More recently there is good C++ STL support available. (vectors, maps, sets, deques, etc.)
In fact, I have found it to work in many places gdb fails. (e.g. I can get a nonsensical stack trace in g++ compiled code under gdb that totalview can still make sense of.)
Apart from that, there are the memory checking tools that are incredibly useful, often far more so than a debugger since they tell you when something went wrong, not when the problem escalated into a full segfault. I wish purify were available for linux -- I hope valgrind is good, and hope to try it out soon, but haven't yet. There is also something called zerofault, but I doubt it is available for linux.
Sadly, your best course of action may be to run on other platforms (irix, win32, solaris) where there are different tools available more to your liking. I know that's a bit hard for some projects, but different platforms often make different bugs appear. (For example, some hardware/software IRIX combinations instantly bus error on null pointer dereferences, other IRIXes happily ignore them until they cause worse problems.)
Slightly tangential, but the biggest offender IMO of MS non-standards compliance is their use of the old for-scoping rules that have been "wrong" since at least the '96 C++ draft standard IIRC. You have two options to fix it -- force full ANSI compliance which will prevent almost any windows app from compiling, or use (get this -- this is their idea, not mine):
#define for if (true) for
This is true for all Visual Studio compilers, including the latest and greatest.NET, or so sayeth the MSDN Knowledge Base.
First, having used both MS Visual C++ and Borland's C++ builder, I almost take offence to the statement that Visual C++ has nice GUI building and code generation features. It is strictly a minimal tool. Borland's GUI designer is actually fully featured and well integrated.
Now, on to Qt -- it is a C++ API, it is clean, very portable and very easy to use. It used to cost money for a development license for anything on windows, but it no longer does. See the Windows non-commercial edition. I work on a project which uses Qt for the GUI, and that source builds unmodified on Linux, Win32, SunOS, AIX, IRIX, and (I think) Mac OS X.
Their "pre-processor" is in fact what lets the code REMAIN standard C++ -- it does NOT require language extensions to operate, unlike MS VC++ and Borland C++ Builder.
They've been around for something like 10 years, too. This is a mature product. And no, I don't work for them or own stock (if it exists) -- just a pleased user.
Just curious -- there are radio buttons under the Windows Update setting that let you choose from "whenver you feel like it, oh mighty XP" or "not on your life; I update myself". If you have it set to check it automatically own its own, it could very well do it on many of your random connections to the 'net, several times a day.
If you disable it, does this still happen?
In fact, is this reproducible enough that it happens whenver you run netstat?
You assume too much, and I don't think you accurately read my post either.
1) I never said that the 2200+ was 2.2 GHz. AMD has made their point about NOT comparing clock speeds, and I did not. What I said was that the 2200+ was meant to compete with P4s running at 2200 MHz, and thus the labelling as "2200+" by AMD. This is it's approximate speed according to AMD, not me.
2) I did read the articles. Tom has repeatedly shown himself to be biased against Intel in the past year, and that is not going out on a limb. I much prefer AnandTech because he is somewhat more objective -- in favor of AMD when they are on top of speed, and in favor of Intel when they are winning. This is moot, however, because:
3) The 2200+ consistently placed itself in speed around the range from the 2.0 GHz P4 and the 2.4 GHz P4, even on Tom's Hardware. Compare it to the P4s using the 533 MHz FSB in the benchmarks, not just the 400 MHz. If you claim otherwise, you are not looking at the benchmarks carefully. I don't count the overclocked Athlon at 1.9 GHz, because that's no longer the "2200+".
Thus, I think splitting the difference between 2.0 and 2.4 is fair, and calling the 2200+ a competitor with the 2.2 or 2.26 P4 is fair.
No matter what, comparing prices to the 2.53 P4 clearly is not fair. I believe what the original poster intended was that the top of the line athlon is priced much lower than the top of the line p4. That is true.
That being said, I love the fact that AMD is doing well, and I want them to keep doing so. Real competition makes both companies produce better products at lower prices.
It appears that having Perl in the base distro has the following problems:
1. It increases the distro image size. 2. It forces everyone to use the same version of Perl. 3. If someone tries to install over that version or just even patch it, it can break stuff in BSD which needed the old version. 4. Installing multiple copies imposes weird symlink tricks or else breaks other stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice call. Wish I had mod points for ya, OECD, and if any mods are reading this, you know what to do. But since I'm here, I'll digress a little....
I personally think that particular sentence was poorly phrased, and it took a little thought for me to extract the information from it.
But you're right -- strata is plural, and being after the colon, the list of three items describes the cultural strata. The fact that the lowly renters are the bottom stratum of the three listed (though implied from the word "lowly") is more obvious through context, i.e. the whole article.
(That said, although most natural since they are listed in order, nothing was explicitly said about the relative ordering of Free Software users and click-through users.)
True, but one of the big draws for this kind of device (and the reason that companies are willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars for it) is that it encourages and allows collaboration between multiple users.
If you're going to sit in one spot and look at the thing with only one pair of eyes, there's an easier solution: 3D goggles. It doesn't give you the same optical field depth that helps alleviate eye strain , but it does have more colors, more resolution, higher refresh rate, and full occlusion.
uh, dude. What was the res on the first CRTs. What about colors? This thing isn't mature yet, but i'd sure want one.
Oh, I completely agree. I think the angular resolution does need to be improved as well as the number of colors. But as I said, these are not the the big problem -- the big one is the lack of occlusion. And that's the one that essentially cannot be improved with incremental improvements to the technology; it's a fundamental problem with the way the images are generated.
For example, suppose you want a 3D model of an airplane. To get a good view from all 360 degrees, all sides of the model must be drawn. But that means if you look at the plane from the front, you will always see the back at the same time.
It's reminiscent of a CAD wireframe model when hidden surface removal has been turned off.
Nevertheless, one hell of a cool toy. Just not sure I'm ready to drop $30k for one....
Not sure on the price -- something like tens of thousands. But that's not suprising, not outrageous for a new technology geared toward governments and research bodies, and not really a flaw.
But the resolution is 768x768 per slice, and about 200 slices. The resolution varies with distance from the center, there is no such thing as occlusion, it has a very limited number of colors, and the flicker varies based on distance from the center.
For some applications, these are not problems. However, the complete lack of occlusion (hidden surface removal) is the one that's going to hurt the most, and what more than anything else kept us from buying one.
Praise (insert deity here)! Someone else likes it!
At least games./..org is a pretty color. Bright yes, but it's a nice, happy cobalt blue.
For comparison, if you want to talk about ugly colors, has anyone looked at YRO??? Red on yellow? Hard on the eyes AND ugly! I hate even going to that section -- it makes me nauseous.
Just thought I'd point you to Stanford's WICS group web page.
http://www.stanford.edu/group/wics/
It has some with WICS-related links, resources, articles, and of course contact info. One of the more interesting (and probably relevant to your questions) things they do is a mentoring program. These links should give you some idea what at least one group out there is doing.
Good luck!
You're welcome. :) It's more like a hack than a true fix, but at least it's an easy hack.
Interestingly, I never thought of it as being a problem with WEP. It's not like I'm going to turn it off or drop to 64-bit, but I'd be curious if that's part of the cause.
I finally read that tech bulletin, by the way. It didn't look specific to the Orinoco card, so it might help you if it helps me. But it was less specific to our problem than I had hoped -- it was more like a detailed user guide to XP wireless networking. I didn't see anything in it (yet) about XP dropping connections to wireless routers, so my enthusiasm for going through it in detail has just dropped again.
Oh, and no affero yet. I hadn't heard of it till just now, but thanks for thinking of me!
I have this exact same problem with the exact same Linksys router you mention. However, I have a different wireless card (Orinoco).
I have two answers for you.
First, the easiest workaround in XP: Let your card connect to your gateway. Once it's connected, bring up the wireless properties in XP for this card. Disable the checkbox for "Let Windows configure my wireless properties". This will prevent XP from making any further updates to your wireless connections, and you will stay connected to your router permanently. You will have to re-enable then re-disable that checkbox if you reboot so it can find it again, but that's only a few seconds of effort for what seems like a perfectly good workaround.
Second: I got, from Linksys support, a Technical Bulletin on "...using Windows XP with wireless networks". It mentions the Orinoco card specifically, but everything in there seems generic enough that it may be worth a try. Ask them for TB-054 (it's a PDF). The workaround above works well enough that I haven't made the time yet to follow these instructions, but it looks like it's meant to address this specific problem.
<rant>If all my damn neighbors would stop advertising their SSID's like insecure idiots, I have a feeling this problem wouldn't come up. And yes, it appears to only be a problem with XP.</rant>
Yes, you are correct.... AES is more secure than DES.
DES itself is susceptible to linear cryptanalysis, and (IIRC) AES is not. AES was specifically designed to provide at least the security of two-key triple DES.
Concerning speed: AES was designed with speed in mind. DES was as well, but their assumption of speed at the time was that everything would be implemented in hardware. AES is designed to work quickly in software.
Nice to know about the module, actually. I was almost surprised there wasn't anything official from them yet, but their FAQ seemed pretty clear on the "Windows or Mac" options they've made available.
There still doesn't seem to be any "consumer level" linux options, though I suppose that shouldn't scare us geek-types. We're used to having to use apache modules instead of some point-click-install interface that Windows users have to suffer through. </sarcasm>
And I fully understand TiVo's position on sharing with non-official devices, and I don't blame them for it. There has been speculation that they were waiting to see how SonicBlue's legal troubles panned out before allowing such things.
Nevertheless, I have one TiVo. If I bought one new Series2, I could look at pictures and listen to mp3s on my TV, as well as program remotely, and all for the low price of ~ $600 when you include the price of a new subscription. If I wanted to watch my shows in a second room, up that to $1200.
All I really want to do is save some movies / shows to VCD or DVD so I don't have to waste TiVo space on them, and to watch them at a friend's house (all very easy and legal with VHS tapes, of course).
Make no mistake: I love my TiVo, and I think the company is fine, and I don't blame them for avoiding legal issues, especially since they "look the other way" very often with respect to the available hacks. However, the only way I can do this now is by an end-run around their operating system and install a bunch of hacks on the TiVo unit itself. What they offer for the home media option is just not worth the money at this point in time, especially if you'd have to upgrade to a Series2 first.
1. Viewing files from your home computer (photos, music) requires Windows or a Mac. Their "TiVo Desktop" software is not (yet) available for linux as far as I can tell.
2. The ability to share your recorded shows requires you to buy another Series 2 TiVo and buy (yes, it costs money) the Home Media upgrade for it as well. You cannot "share" the file with anyone else's Series 2 either, only ones registered under the same household account at TiVo HQ. You can't "share" with your computer either, BTW, only another TiVo.
Maybe some of these will be improved over time, either by TiVo or someone else.
Ah, yes, I now remember.... and I know why I forgot about it. It's very hard to avoid using MS headers, so I've never been able to use the flag without breaking stuff.
Thanks again for the info!
Out of curiosity, does that flag fix the for loop scope? If so, what the f*** is it?
(The reason I ask is that their KB says to define "for" as "if (0) ; else for" to fix the problem, and that is reeeaaally annoying.)
I'm not sure I fully understand what you're attempting and what prior art you are looking for, but let me try anyway.
The google groups message says the patent covers explicity "markov model discriminator using negative examples". Markov decision problems are often those associated with a set of states and a policy which transitions between them. For spam filtering, I would guess there are three states: unknown, spam, non-spam, and the policy needs only determine if the transition should go between the unknown and and either the spam or non-spam state.
The optimal policy in an MDP is static, and thus it would say "the optimal policy is to mark an email spam". This sounds useless. A Partially Observable MDP (POMDP) may follow more with your plans since it follows percepts and probability distributions over the current set of beliefs.
As for training for an optimal policy for MDPs, one algorithm ("Value Iteration") makes use of a reward function. This reward function is explicitly allowed to be negative, and probably should be for some decisions or else the problem is trivial. And "positive" or "negative" examples is just a boolean simplification of multiple categories. Why not have "pr0n" "ads" "personal" "work" and a bunch of other categories?
In this case, positive and negative are meaningless, but all (both) are *always* neeeded to define the optimal policy.
In other words, I'm not sure I understand enough of what you are attempting to help find prior art, but from what I can tell "negative" examples are inherently part of defining the optimal policy in an MDP. For a reference, Russel & Norvig, Artificial Intelligence, A Modern Approach (1995) has a ton of information about MDPs and the training of them.
More details -- probably more than you want :) -- here:
http://www.llnl.gov/linux/mcr/.
I completely agree. I hate flash. I didn't install it for the longest time, but there's just too much out there, so I gave in.
:)
However, I have a solution. I found these wonderful little "bookmarklets" that work in mozilla. Find them here.
They are little javascript things that remove annoyances from pages, including blink text, javascript, embedded event handles, and even colored backgrounds and text, and background music.
The one you want is called "zap embeds". It will kill all flash from the page you are looking at, leaving almost everything else intact. You can also use the vanilla "zap" which zaps Flash and some other stuff.
I personally put a few of these in my personal toolbar. It's the first good use I found for that toolbar. Thus, one click away from killing flash on any page!
IMHO, the perfect solution. Whoever wrote these is my saviour. Everyone should get these.
Just my $.019999:
:)
Bank of America hasn't given me any problems, from Netscape 4 to Mozilla 1.1. I wouldn't necessarily say they are some wonderful bank -- they are a huge corporation and have all the associated pains, but at least they're not making me use Internet Exploder.
I refuse to use IE. If someone requires IE, they typically don't get my business and they usually get a nasty note as well. Same goes for sites that *require* flash, BTW. I only installed flash because of the games it lets me play.
So here's the deal:
..."
.c/.cpp files and wants to build the entire program yourself.
PurifyPlus for UNIX is great. The older versions worked like this:
1) build your binary "foobar" normally
2) run "purify foobar -arguments
3) get wonderful memory checking, including uninitialized memory reads/copies, array bounds reads/writes, zero page reads, and memory leak checking.
The newer versions work like this:
1) build your binary almost normally, except...
2) add "purify" to the beginning of your normal link line, e.g. "purify g++ obj.o -o foobar"
3) get wonderful memory checking, blah blah blah
The downside to this is obvious, but IMHO very minor. It does not need any source modifications or modifications to the compile stage, and winds up being one extra target in the final makefile. In addition, it will instrument all shared libraries, including plugins as they are loaded. Works flawlessly.
In addition, PurifyPlus includes quantify for profiling (with nice butterfly graph) and purecoverage for code coverage testing. All very nice.
Just yesterday, I tried the linux version. It's not the same at all. It is a huge GUI based IDE (think KDevelop or MS Dev Studio), and it wants you to add all your source files to it. I need to investigate it further, but it appears that it needs to know about all your
I don't want to edit my files in PurifyPlus. I don't want use use PurifyPlus to manage my build process or to build by executables for me. I don't want to use it as a debugger. We have a huge cross platform suite with complex build rules, and I want to edit my files using an advanced editor like XEmacs. I use totalview for debugging. I just want to run it on my binary and have it work. If Rational is going to try to get us entrenched even more in their products by going this route, they are likely to have us lose interest.
Now, I hope I'm wrong, and I very well might be. I need to look through to documentation more to confirm/disprove my current beliefs, but I played with the thing for most of an hour and looked through the tutorials before forming these beliefs.
Rational did tell us they want to have a conference call to discuss "usability" issues. I think I may take them up on this. I love purify, and if there's a way to get it to work reasonably well, I will use it happily. If anyone is interested, I can respond to this thread with the answers.
(The funniest part is that we've been on Rational's back forever trying to get them to give us a linux version, and they always have said "We have no plans for one". Then this suddenly appeared. I hope what suddenly appeared is usable, 'cause I'm not so sure it is yet.)
First, the point: Etnus' Totalview is really good. It's also expensive if I remember correctly. It is almost the only good tool for debugging parallel (MPI or threaded) applications that I am aware of. More recently there is good C++ STL support available. (vectors, maps, sets, deques, etc.)
In fact, I have found it to work in many places gdb fails. (e.g. I can get a nonsensical stack trace in g++ compiled code under gdb that totalview can still make sense of.)
Apart from that, there are the memory checking tools that are incredibly useful, often far more so than a debugger since they tell you when something went wrong, not when the problem escalated into a full segfault. I wish purify were available for linux -- I hope valgrind is good, and hope to try it out soon, but haven't yet. There is also something called zerofault, but I doubt it is available for linux.
Sadly, your best course of action may be to run on other platforms (irix, win32, solaris) where there are different tools available more to your liking. I know that's a bit hard for some projects, but different platforms often make different bugs appear. (For example, some hardware/software IRIX combinations instantly bus error on null pointer dereferences, other IRIXes happily ignore them until they cause worse problems.)
Thank you, yes, I misspoke. I meant to say MFC.
Slightly tangential, but the biggest offender IMO of MS non-standards compliance is their use of the old for-scoping rules that have been "wrong" since at least the '96 C++ draft standard IIRC. You have two options to fix it -- force full ANSI compliance which will prevent almost any windows app from compiling, or use (get this -- this is their idea, not mine): This is true for all Visual Studio compilers, including the latest and greatest
First, having used both MS Visual C++ and Borland's C++ builder, I almost take offence to the statement that Visual C++ has nice GUI building and code generation features. It is strictly a minimal tool. Borland's GUI designer is actually fully featured and well integrated.
Now, on to Qt -- it is a C++ API, it is clean, very portable and very easy to use. It used to cost money for a development license for anything on windows, but it no longer does. See the Windows non-commercial edition. I work on a project which uses Qt for the GUI, and that source builds unmodified on Linux, Win32, SunOS, AIX, IRIX, and (I think) Mac OS X.
In addition, it also has a nice graphical designer with some nice code generation features, and excellent documentation.
Their "pre-processor" is in fact what lets the code REMAIN standard C++ -- it does NOT require language extensions to operate, unlike MS VC++ and Borland C++ Builder.
They've been around for something like 10 years, too. This is a mature product. And no, I don't work for them or own stock (if it exists) -- just a pleased user.
Just curious -- there are radio buttons under the Windows Update setting that let you choose from "whenver you feel like it, oh mighty XP" or "not on your life; I update myself". If you have it set to check it automatically own its own, it could very well do it on many of your random connections to the 'net, several times a day.
If you disable it, does this still happen?
In fact, is this reproducible enough that it happens whenver you run netstat?
You assume too much, and I don't think you accurately read my post either.
1) I never said that the 2200+ was 2.2 GHz. AMD has made their point about NOT comparing clock speeds, and I did not. What I said was that the 2200+ was meant to compete with P4s running at 2200 MHz, and thus the labelling as "2200+" by AMD. This is it's approximate speed according to AMD, not me.
2) I did read the articles. Tom has repeatedly shown himself to be biased against Intel in the past year, and that is not going out on a limb. I much prefer AnandTech because he is somewhat more objective -- in favor of AMD when they are on top of speed, and in favor of Intel when they are winning. This is moot, however, because:
3) The 2200+ consistently placed itself in speed around the range from the 2.0 GHz P4 and the 2.4 GHz P4, even on Tom's Hardware. Compare it to the P4s using the 533 MHz FSB in the benchmarks, not just the 400 MHz. If you claim otherwise, you are not looking at the benchmarks carefully. I don't count the overclocked Athlon at 1.9 GHz, because that's no longer the "2200+".
Thus, I think splitting the difference between 2.0 and 2.4 is fair, and calling the 2200+ a competitor with the 2.2 or 2.26 P4 is fair.
No matter what, comparing prices to the 2.53 P4 clearly is not fair. I believe what the original poster intended was that the top of the line athlon is priced much lower than the top of the line p4. That is true.
That being said, I love the fact that AMD is doing well, and I want them to keep doing so. Real competition makes both companies produce better products at lower prices.
That's nice. Compare the price of an AMD processor designed to compete with a 2.2 GHz (thus the name 2200+) with the price of a 2.53 GHz P4?
How about:
Intel P4B (533 FSB) 2.26 GHz: $262
Intel P4 2.2 Ghz: $230
AMD Athlon XP (your est) 2200+ : ~$250
Price difference not quite so obvious now, is it?
It appears that having Perl in the base distro has the following problems:
1. It increases the distro image size.
2. It forces everyone to use the same version of Perl.
3. If someone tries to install over that version or just even patch it, it can break stuff in BSD which needed the old version.
4. Installing multiple copies imposes weird symlink tricks or else breaks other stuff.