1. Can't make any money from it 2. Doesn't benefit competitiors 3. Open
Re:Time to be a troll
on
RT Linux Patches
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"They do this by modifying the kernel source to make sure program ISR's get called within a set threshold. For example FSMLab's RTLinux has a worst case response rate of 12 microseconds."
Although you described real-time issues correctly in most of your post this paragraph implies something that is not true of real-time. Real-time is not about being fast, it's about being consistent.
In the toughest real-time situation, the important thing would not be that the response rate is 12 microseconds vs. 12 msec, but that it is exactly 12 microseconds or 12 msec within the resolution of the system. (Obviously the system speed has to be fast enough to meet minimum timing requirements, but that's a speed issue, not a real-time one.)
The easy test to determine if a particular system has hard real-time requirements is to ask yourself if speeding up the system will solve all the problems. If it does, it's simply a performance issue, if not, it's a real-time issue.
"The point of checked exceptions is to force you to think about the error cases"
Any language feature that is intended to force a programmer to think about what the language designers thought was important will fail. Checked exceptions are no exception to this.
Thanks for the summary of what he said, it just makes the logical flaws more obvious. The argument is essentially:
MS is a monopoly therefore customers won't abandon them no matter how bad their products are.
Merely invoking the "M" word doesn't magically make the argument valid. What is the evidence that MS's customers won't abandon bad products? How come Quicken outsells Money? Why did MS have to drop their Tax preparation software? How come we aren't all using MS Bob?
MS is simply not a monopoly in the sense of the old AT&T. In those days you couldn't make a local or long distance phone call without AT&T. They designed, built, and owned your telephone (you had to rent it from them) and they also owned the entire infrastructure as well. There were simply no competitors.
"The world's monopolies are NEVER destroyed by consumers choosing to abandon them due to poor products. NEVER." "Competitors to Windows are IRRELEVANT to the success or failure of Microsoft. Longhorn is IRRELEVANT to the success or failure of Microsoft"
So by your logic MS could layoff all their programmers and technical support staff and just keep the people who stuff product into boxes and it would have no effect on their business.
In addition MS can't be losing market share to Linux because Linux is a MS competitor and you claim that competitors are irrelevant to the success or failure of MS and surely losing market share would be a relevant event.
In most states, your boss can fire you immediately without cause at any time. Kicking you out of the university is an order of magnitude more difficult.
"If all you wanted was a fancy job with a high salary, you'd be much better off putting the 4-9 years of extremely intense effort into a job."
That assumes that working extremely hard on a job will earn you a higher salary than those that don't work quite so hard. There's no guarantee of that. Bad luck, office politics, or economic conditions can have you back on the street no matter how hard you work.
At least with a degree you basically understand what the requirements are and if you achieve them you'll get the degree.
You're right on the money. IT work is critically important, but it's not CS.
In most of the companies I've worked in, several of my fellow software engineers believed most IT folks were incompetent. My assessment is that most hard-core software engineers wouldn't last a week in an IT job. They don't know as much about computer administration as they think they do and they have limited customer relation skills.
Of course, some IT folks think their job is to guard the treasure, but that's another discussion.
In the spirit of what you wrote would it not be valid to say: "There is well written and secured CSS code out there and there is shoddy insecure CSS code out there."?
Yet the OSS community often claims that OSS is more secure under the "many eyes" theory. While this might not be the same as saying problems will never happen in OSS, it's a key OSS argument and the more diluted the claim the less convincing the argument.
Just how much more secure and bug-free does the OSS community claim OSS is over CSS on the average?
Well, for those that believe LOC is a productivity measure, this will prove that Open Source developers are not as productive.
Seriously though, wouldn't it be better to drop the 500 line gimmick and just solicit the best work? It's not as if code size is going to tip the balance from closed to open source.
"Learning to communicate by pointing is easier, but the true power of communication comes from spoken/written languages."
People can and do communicate quite effectively in sign language as well and it isn't written. By the way, what does a spoken language have to do with the CLI?
"The command line was the ONLY interface when unix was first developed."
Yes, just like B&W was the only type of movies made in the early days. In both cases, it was the limitations of technology that was the deciding factor. It wasn't as if Ken Thompson considered using a GUI interface and then rejected it because he concluded a command line was better.
"raw text is the only true inter-system communication protocol."
Raw text is a very commonly used protocol that most systems implement, but it's still just a convention that only works because people designed systems to support it. It's like Java; Java is a programming language that allows you to write programs that will run on any system that supports Java.
You keep using this word "validate". I don't think it means, what you think it means.
If some organization was actually validating these products it would be great. I tried OpenOffice on one of my real-world MS Word documents awhile back and it crashed (no I don't remember which version). I imagine it works fine for simple documents, but then again, so does WordPad.
I still think that the goal of MS Office file compatibility is a losing one. They should try to produce a better product instead. Anyone who believes MS Office file compatibility is critical, isn't going to risk getting fired to save a few dollars.
On the other hand, many users don't need to edit old documents or share them, and those are the users to target with a superior product IMHO.
Well, if you know there is a EULA and you have a pretty good idea what it's going to say (because you've read many of them, if you care about the issue) then why not refuse to buy the product?
The fact is that most people on Slashdot know exactly the kind of limitations the EULA is going to include and they install the software anyway. Some people hope they can legally get away with violating the terms under the theory that they didn't know what it said, but it looks like it isn't going to work.
Have you actually tried to get your money back from a software company due to the fact that you didn't know the terms of the EULA in advance? It might actually work. I suspect that most people don't do it because they want the software regardless of the EULA but they still want to complain about it.
Typically the EULA (or some warning about it) is part of the packaging. If you don't want to agree to it, don't open the CD package and you can return the software.
By the this time most people can't claim they were fooled, the existance of EULA's are well known.
There's some truth in that too, but not all the idea people were young and not all the investors were middle-aged. In a lot of cases the idea people starting believing their own hype and ended up losing money too. But your core point is true, you can make money from a bad idea (if your timing is right).
What evidence do your have that there are any warlords in Afghanistan? What evidence do you have that the US invaded Afghanistan? I can't answer your challenge unless you establish a clear, consistent standard of evidence. Since you claim that you have not made any assertions about Afganistan (which isn't entirely true) then I'm wasting my time arguing with someone who doesn't have a position.
If you require absolute proof, your not going to get from me or anyone else. I believe the events of 9/11 really happened, but I haven't been to ground zero, I just saw a lot of video on TV. I have no real proof that it happened.
This is discussion is becoming pointless. You can have the last word if you want it.
Well, your original position was there was no evidence that most of Afghanistan is run by Warlords or Al Quaeda. Now that I've given you some, you've switched your argument to question the integrity or relevance of the evidence. Clearly you don't want to believe that Afghanistan is a mess despite being unable to provide any evidence of your own to the contrary.
If it's just healthy skepticism on your part rather than simple denial, I'm sure you were against the war in Iraq since there was no hard evidence of WMDs or a threat to the US.
Well, since Merry is not a man either and it was he rather than Eowyn that had the blade in question, then Eowyn was not really needed by your theory. The Witch King himself knew he couldn't be defeated by a man and I doubt he knew anything of the prophecy.
Slashdot Mirror
1. Can't make any money from it
2. Doesn't benefit competitiors
3. Open
"They do this by modifying the kernel source to make sure program ISR's get called within a set threshold. For example FSMLab's RTLinux has a worst case response rate of 12 microseconds."
Although you described real-time issues correctly in most of your post this paragraph implies something that is not true of real-time. Real-time is not about being fast, it's about being consistent.
In the toughest real-time situation, the important thing would not be that the response rate is 12 microseconds vs. 12 msec, but that it is exactly 12 microseconds or 12 msec within the resolution of the system. (Obviously the system speed has to be fast enough to meet minimum timing requirements, but that's a speed issue, not a real-time one.)
The easy test to determine if a particular system has hard real-time requirements is to ask yourself if speeding up the system will solve all the problems. If it does, it's simply a performance issue, if not, it's a real-time issue.
"The point of checked exceptions is to force you to think about the error cases"
Any language feature that is intended to force a programmer to think about what the language designers thought was important will fail. Checked exceptions are no exception to this.
The hammer shouldn't be selecting the nail.
If that's the criteria then Java is a lot behind C because it cannot run on all the platforms C can.
Thanks for the summary of what he said, it just makes the logical flaws more obvious. The argument is essentially:
MS is a monopoly therefore customers won't abandon them no matter how bad their products are.
Merely invoking the "M" word doesn't magically make the argument valid. What is the evidence that MS's customers won't abandon bad products? How come Quicken outsells Money? Why did MS have to drop their Tax preparation software? How come we aren't all using MS Bob?
MS is simply not a monopoly in the sense of the old AT&T. In those days you couldn't make a local or long distance phone call without AT&T. They designed, built, and owned your telephone (you had to rent it from them) and they also owned the entire infrastructure as well. There were simply no competitors.
"The world's monopolies are NEVER destroyed by consumers choosing to abandon them due to poor products. NEVER."
"Competitors to Windows are IRRELEVANT to the success or failure of Microsoft. Longhorn is IRRELEVANT to the success or failure of Microsoft"
So by your logic MS could layoff all their programmers and technical support staff and just keep the people who stuff product into boxes and it would have no effect on their business.
In addition MS can't be losing market share to Linux because Linux is a MS competitor and you claim that competitors are irrelevant to the success or failure of MS and surely losing market share would be a relevant event.
I think you need to rethink your logic, kid.
In most states, your boss can fire you immediately without cause at any time. Kicking you out of the university is an order of magnitude more difficult.
"If all you wanted was a fancy job with a high salary, you'd be much better off putting the 4-9 years of extremely intense effort into a job."
That assumes that working extremely hard on a job will earn you a higher salary than those that don't work quite so hard. There's no guarantee of that. Bad luck, office politics, or economic conditions can have you back on the street no matter how hard you work.
At least with a degree you basically understand what the requirements are and if you achieve them you'll get the degree.
You're right on the money. IT work is critically important, but it's not CS.
In most of the companies I've worked in, several of my fellow software engineers believed most IT folks were incompetent. My assessment is that most hard-core software engineers wouldn't last a week in an IT job. They don't know as much about computer administration as they think they do and they have limited customer relation skills.
Of course, some IT folks think their job is to guard the treasure, but that's another discussion.
But is it really that much of a straw man?
In the spirit of what you wrote would it not be valid to say: "There is well written and secured CSS code out there and there is shoddy insecure CSS code out there."?
Yet the OSS community often claims that OSS is more secure under the "many eyes" theory. While this might not be the same as saying problems will never happen in OSS, it's a key OSS argument and the more diluted the claim the less convincing the argument.
Just how much more secure and bug-free does the OSS community claim OSS is over CSS on the average?
Why do you have to look at the code at all to find out which application is best? Is this a code review or a contest?
Well, for those that believe LOC is a productivity measure, this will prove that Open Source developers are not as productive.
Seriously though, wouldn't it be better to drop the 500 line gimmick and just solicit the best work? It's not as if code size is going to tip the balance from closed to open source.
"Learning to communicate by pointing is easier, but the true power of communication comes from spoken/written languages."
People can and do communicate quite effectively in sign language as well and it isn't written. By the way, what does a spoken language have to do with the CLI?
"The command line was the ONLY interface when unix was first developed."
Yes, just like B&W was the only type of movies made in the early days. In both cases, it was the limitations of technology that was the deciding factor. It wasn't as if Ken Thompson considered using a GUI interface and then rejected it because he concluded a command line was better.
"raw text is the only true inter-system communication protocol."
Raw text is a very commonly used protocol that most systems implement, but it's still just a convention that only works because people designed systems to support it. It's like Java; Java is a programming language that allows you to write programs that will run on any system that supports Java.
You keep using this word "validate". I don't think it means, what you think it means.
If some organization was actually validating these products it would be great. I tried OpenOffice on one of my real-world MS Word documents awhile back and it crashed (no I don't remember which version). I imagine it works fine for simple documents, but then again, so does WordPad.
I still think that the goal of MS Office file compatibility is a losing one. They should try to produce a better product instead. Anyone who believes MS Office file compatibility is critical, isn't going to risk getting fired to save a few dollars.
On the other hand, many users don't need to edit old documents or share them, and those are the users to target with a superior product IMHO.
Well, if you know there is a EULA and you have a pretty good idea what it's going to say (because you've read many of them, if you care about the issue) then why not refuse to buy the product?
The fact is that most people on Slashdot know exactly the kind of limitations the EULA is going to include and they install the software anyway. Some people hope they can legally get away with violating the terms under the theory that they didn't know what it said, but it looks like it isn't going to work.
Have you actually tried to get your money back from a software company due to the fact that you didn't know the terms of the EULA in advance? It might actually work. I suspect that most people don't do it because they want the software regardless of the EULA but they still want to complain about it.
Typically the EULA (or some warning about it) is part of the packaging. If you don't want to agree to it, don't open the CD package and you can return the software.
By the this time most people can't claim they were fooled, the existance of EULA's are well known.
"finally more people are starting to see the light and moving away from Windows"
There's some truth in that too, but not all the idea people were young and not all the investors were middle-aged. In a lot of cases the idea people starting believing their own hype and ended up losing money too. But your core point is true, you can make money from a bad idea (if your timing is right).
Wasn't the bubble really about 26 year olds and 50 year olds with bad ideas?
In addition, the rumors of the obsolescence of powerful connections is greatly exaggerated. Just ask Halliburton.
What evidence do your have that there are any warlords in Afghanistan? What evidence do you have that the US invaded Afghanistan? I can't answer your challenge unless you establish a clear, consistent standard of evidence. Since you claim that you have not made any assertions about Afganistan (which isn't entirely true) then I'm wasting my time arguing with someone who doesn't have a position.
If you require absolute proof, your not going to get from me or anyone else. I believe the events of 9/11 really happened, but I haven't been to ground zero, I just saw a lot of video on TV. I have no real proof that it happened.
This is discussion is becoming pointless. You can have the last word if you want it.
Only when they're more interested in communication with the supposed recipient than they are with getting publicity for themselves.
"They designed a system that requires 3rd parties to distribute DLLs that Microsoft created."
I've created many Windows applications and I've never distributed any MS DLLs.
Well, your original position was there was no evidence that most of Afghanistan is run by Warlords or Al Quaeda. Now that I've given you some, you've switched your argument to question the integrity or relevance of the evidence. Clearly you don't want to believe that Afghanistan is a mess despite being unable to provide any evidence of your own to the contrary.
If it's just healthy skepticism on your part rather than simple denial, I'm sure you were against the war in Iraq since there was no hard evidence of WMDs or a threat to the US.
Well, since Merry is not a man either and it was he rather than Eowyn that had the blade in question, then Eowyn was not really needed by your theory. The Witch King himself knew he couldn't be defeated by a man and I doubt he knew anything of the prophecy.