I used to live there. I was one of the first people to live in an apartment complex there. Pretty sweet place. You can have dual t-1 bandwidth for until $300 a month (if memory serves). Every house/unit in the entire neighborhood has fiber optics into the place. Every unit is firewalled from everyone else but if you want people to have access to your place you just asked and they hooked you up.
I have never heard of this sort of benchmarking but I don't work in the perf group. As for the having just the "kernel" running on a system without the windowing system...well...you can do this using the Embedded version of Windows.
Gee Mikvo that was smart. Publishing how everything is hooked up and what sort of protocol they use to communicate with each other in a public forum. I mean...if someone really wanted to "phreak" into that network they should have to do the research.
Re:Create() and exceptions
on
Qt vs MFC
·
· Score: 1
So what happens if the ifstream can't be created on the stack because file.txt is too large? oh...ifstream allocates memory in its constructor to handle that problem. What happens if you are in a low memory condition and the memory can't be allocated?
Exceptions aren't the only way to report errors. Return values from a function is another way. Also using a global error object is another. Problem is in your example the program has no way to know why ifstream couldn't be created. Also ifstream has no way to communicate that to the program except through exceptions. That is because it uses its constructor to do it initialization. Since there are no exception handlers wrapping the creation of ifstream an exception would stop all execution of this program and the OS would provide a nice little popup to the user that makes no sense (on windows at least).
So next time...think about the code you are writting and why functions like Create() exist.
You forgot another major feature that Linux is missing that is needed on these highly portable platforms. Power Management support. No I am not talking shitty APM I am talking about ACPI. Along with it you get some cool configuration ability.
I think your first problem is that you are driving a 30 year old car that was produced for Hitler cause it was cheap cheap cheap. Mu god I mean my motorcycle's engine is more powerful than the shitty polluting noisy crap thing in that cage called a car.
The problem here is that the better and better software gets the less and less money there is available in maintaining the software. We all want better software but we all want more money. Sounds like a paradox to me.
Re:This is a Good Thing(tm)...
on
'Unbreakable Linux'
·
· Score: 2, Informative
"This will absolutely defeat Microsoft's claim that Windows NT/2000/XP is ready for the enterprise. Now that the major database systems vendors such as Oracle are supporting Linux, there is simply no reason not to use it. Where's the commercial clustering software for Windows? Oh, right, it's not there - nor is it planned. "
Huh? You must be smoking something really strong. Windows2000 Advanced server offers clustering services out of the box. SQL 2000 also offers clustering. Exchange2000 offers clustering. What do you mean that Microsoft doesn't offer clustering support? Get off the soap box dude before I push you off.
Yes but if me or my sister was killed then the percentage of my parents children that were killed will be higher than the small 500:1. We are talking about 50% of my parents children were killed. You see the problem with the number you spouted is perspective. A human is a human is a human...I don't care if they Jewish, Catholic, Black, White, Green, Purple, etc...lots of people died in WWII and trying to say my people were hurt worse than your people is like trying to put a value on a human life when you can't put a value to human life as human life is priceless.
Sorry I guess I missed a sentence or two in my post. I understand that COM and CORBA are object models that allow binary interoperability which has nothing to do with RPC or dynamic linking. I also know that RPC/LPC and the ability to dynamically link are different things. RPC/LPC are just communication mechanism between processes either on the same system (LPC) or on different systems across a network (RPC). Dynamic linking is the ability for a binary to load up another binaries image into its own address space at run time. This is versus static linking where that other binary is loaded with the orginal's binary at runtime. This is achieved by putting both binaries into the same binary during the linking phase of building.
What happened? Michael did law school overnight or something? How can he make this sort of statement and hope for it to even mean anything?
"Microsoft's claim is completely ungrounded - nothing written by a third-party can take away Microsoft's intellectual property rights. But it makes a good (read: confusing to the general public) justification for preventing others from interoperating with their software. "
I wish these Slashdot editors would stop making uninformed and potentionaly untrue statements. I don't know the real answer but at least I won't stand up on my soap box and shout XYZ.
The beauty of binary interoperability systems like CORBA or COM is that if the operating system is written so allow the auto starting of these "little programs" then you don't have to start all of these little programs to make the main program work. DLL's on the Windows plateform are great for this (I don't know about Unix's dynamically linked library system). When your program loads it will request these components and they will be loaded up and then made available for you automagically.
Thinking of CORBA or COM in the manner you are thinking of it will severely limit your uses of these technologies.
Oh your so so so wrong. A stop 0xA is purely driver bug. It typically occurs when it tries to touch pagable memory at high IRQL (like in a DPC) and that memory is actually swapped out in the swap file. That particular case is due to poor programming practice on the driver writter's part. They should have allocated that memory as non-paged. Also before they shipped that driver they should have run "verifier" with special irql checking enabled. (For those who don't know what verfier is, it is a built in tool that is used to test device drivers [old and new]. If you are running a Win2k or WinXP box just open up the run line and type in verifier. You will get this program. Unless you know what you are doing and have a kernel debugger enabled and attached I wouldn't fuck with its setting or you may be looking at a blue screen due to a bug verifier found and you may not know how to recover it [without reinstalling])
If you want a defination of all of the bugchecks and what each parameter means download the lastest debugger from http://www.microsoft.com/DDK/Debugging/default.asp and look in the help file.
Gee this feature you speak of exists in WindowsNT. I wonder why? Well perhaps it is because the people who orginally architected NT also worked on VAX's. Since VAX's run VMS I highly suspect they got the idea from VMS. Too bad Linux doesn't have this sort of thing. Oh wait...Linux sux!
The comment of "Would we be having this discussion thread if MS got along with ACPI?" reallys bugs me. Microsoft is one of 4 companies who helped write the spec. They are the only software company of those 4 companies. MS is very stringent on their ACPI implementation with the desire of trying to improve how the system detects devices and how it power manages devices and the system (please remember acpi isn't just power management... Advanced Configuration Power Inteface).
What is funny is this is a bug in their BIOS and they are trying to hide behind MS's WHQL requirements. Actually I consider this to be a bug in the OS's that don't support ACPI because at this point it is stupid that all of them don't.
Re:Free2TwoGrand (try $1488 to $1499)
on
Penguin2Apple
·
· Score: 1
Ummm no they don't use the same stuff as Dell or who ever. In fact I know the companies are the same but the quality of the engineering is forced higher due to Dell having very particular requirements on the people making them. It may say MSI, ASUS etc on the motherboard but it isn't the same board your going to find in the whitebox.
Wow you don't get it do you. Germ warfare has a problem called delivary of the germ. Mind control? What the hell. Direct mind control wouldn't get very far. People know why they are doing what they are doing. They just may have to do it to try to protect something. Now if you consider the influencing of ones outlook on something over a long period of time mind control then yes you have a point but I don't consider that. I consider it you agreeing with someone's point of view for the *reasons* they layed out.
The whole point of something is to let people know you did it...who cares about stealth. Do it and then tell...without that it isn't fun.:)
Slashdot Mirror
I used to live there. I was one of the first people to live in an apartment complex there. Pretty sweet place. You can have dual t-1 bandwidth for until $300 a month (if memory serves). Every house/unit in the entire neighborhood has fiber optics into the place. Every unit is firewalled from everyone else but if you want people to have access to your place you just asked and they hooked you up.
I have never heard of this sort of benchmarking but I don't work in the perf group. As for the having just the "kernel" running on a system without the windowing system...well...you can do this using the Embedded version of Windows.
Gee Mikvo that was smart. Publishing how everything is hooked up and what sort of protocol they use to communicate with each other in a public forum. I mean...if someone really wanted to "phreak" into that network they should have to do the research.
So what happens if the ifstream can't be created on the stack because file.txt is too large? oh...ifstream allocates memory in its constructor to handle that problem. What happens if you are in a low memory condition and the memory can't be allocated?
Exceptions aren't the only way to report errors. Return values from a function is another way. Also using a global error object is another. Problem is in your example the program has no way to know why ifstream couldn't be created. Also ifstream has no way to communicate that to the program except through exceptions. That is because it uses its constructor to do it initialization. Since there are no exception handlers wrapping the creation of ifstream an exception would stop all execution of this program and the OS would provide a nice little popup to the user that makes no sense (on windows at least).
So next time...think about the code you are writting and why functions like Create() exist.
You forgot another major feature that Linux is missing that is needed on these highly portable platforms. Power Management support. No I am not talking shitty APM I am talking about ACPI. Along with it you get some cool configuration ability.
I think your first problem is that you are driving a 30 year old car that was produced for Hitler cause it was cheap cheap cheap. Mu god I mean my motorcycle's engine is more powerful than the shitty polluting noisy crap thing in that cage called a car.
The point is the company gets the money either way because you are leasing the software.
How can you say that your products have very few bugs when you said you don't have a QA or Test Engineer(s)?
You know...why wouldn't Microsoft just say, "Ah f*** it, we are shutting down?"
I mean if they can't produce anything for 8 years (and how in the hell did you come up with 8) why even exist?
The problem here is that the better and better software gets the less and less money there is available in maintaining the software. We all want better software but we all want more money. Sounds like a paradox to me.
"This will absolutely defeat Microsoft's claim that Windows NT/2000/XP is ready for the enterprise. Now that the major database systems vendors such as Oracle are supporting Linux, there is simply no reason not to use it. Where's the commercial clustering software for Windows? Oh, right, it's not there - nor is it planned. "
Huh? You must be smoking something really strong. Windows2000 Advanced server offers clustering services out of the box. SQL 2000 also offers clustering. Exchange2000 offers clustering. What do you mean that Microsoft doesn't offer clustering support? Get off the soap box dude before I push you off.
All I know is that thing goes by realllllly fast when you are on the Nozomi Shinkansen (their fastest bullet train).
That puts a whole new meaning to "chasing the dragon".
Yes but if me or my sister was killed then the percentage of my parents children that were killed will be higher than the small 500:1. We are talking about 50% of my parents children were killed. You see the problem with the number you spouted is perspective. A human is a human is a human...I don't care if they Jewish, Catholic, Black, White, Green, Purple, etc...lots of people died in WWII and trying to say my people were hurt worse than your people is like trying to put a value on a human life when you can't put a value to human life as human life is priceless.
Ya the minidisc format is very popular in Japan. Just cause it not in the US doesn't mean it is dead.
Sorry I guess I missed a sentence or two in my post. I understand that COM and CORBA are object models that allow binary interoperability which has nothing to do with RPC or dynamic linking. I also know that RPC/LPC and the ability to dynamically link are different things. RPC/LPC are just communication mechanism between processes either on the same system (LPC) or on different systems across a network (RPC). Dynamic linking is the ability for a binary to load up another binaries image into its own address space at run time. This is versus static linking where that other binary is loaded with the orginal's binary at runtime. This is achieved by putting both binaries into the same binary during the linking phase of building.
What happened? Michael did law school overnight or something? How can he make this sort of statement and hope for it to even mean anything?
"Microsoft's claim is completely ungrounded - nothing written by a third-party can take away Microsoft's intellectual property rights. But it makes a good (read: confusing to the general public) justification for preventing others from interoperating with their software. "
I wish these Slashdot editors would stop making uninformed and potentionaly untrue statements. I don't know the real answer but at least I won't stand up on my soap box and shout XYZ.
The beauty of binary interoperability systems like CORBA or COM is that if the operating system is written so allow the auto starting of these "little programs" then you don't have to start all of these little programs to make the main program work. DLL's on the Windows plateform are great for this (I don't know about Unix's dynamically linked library system). When your program loads it will request these components and they will be loaded up and then made available for you automagically.
Thinking of CORBA or COM in the manner you are thinking of it will severely limit your uses of these technologies.
Oh your so so so wrong. A stop 0xA is purely driver bug. It typically occurs when it tries to touch pagable memory at high IRQL (like in a DPC) and that memory is actually swapped out in the swap file. That particular case is due to poor programming practice on the driver writter's part. They should have allocated that memory as non-paged. Also before they shipped that driver they should have run "verifier" with special irql checking enabled. (For those who don't know what verfier is, it is a built in tool that is used to test device drivers [old and new]. If you are running a Win2k or WinXP box just open up the run line and type in verifier. You will get this program. Unless you know what you are doing and have a kernel debugger enabled and attached I wouldn't fuck with its setting or you may be looking at a blue screen due to a bug verifier found and you may not know how to recover it [without reinstalling]) If you want a defination of all of the bugchecks and what each parameter means download the lastest debugger from http://www.microsoft.com/DDK/Debugging/default.asp and look in the help file.
Is Mono GPLed? If so then they can't even look at that code of Microsoft could own them.
Are you speaking of RedHat? RedHat is a company that makes money off of your hardwork and never pays you back for that work.
Gee this feature you speak of exists in WindowsNT. I wonder why? Well perhaps it is because the people who orginally architected NT also worked on VAX's. Since VAX's run VMS I highly suspect they got the idea from VMS. Too bad Linux doesn't have this sort of thing. Oh wait...Linux sux!
Thank you!
The comment of "Would we be having this discussion thread if MS got along with ACPI?" reallys bugs me. Microsoft is one of 4 companies who helped write the spec. They are the only software company of those 4 companies. MS is very stringent on their ACPI implementation with the desire of trying to improve how the system detects devices and how it power manages devices and the system (please remember acpi isn't just power management... Advanced Configuration Power Inteface).
What is funny is this is a bug in their BIOS and they are trying to hide behind MS's WHQL requirements. Actually I consider this to be a bug in the OS's that don't support ACPI because at this point it is stupid that all of them don't.
Ummm no they don't use the same stuff as Dell or who ever. In fact I know the companies are the same but the quality of the engineering is forced higher due to Dell having very particular requirements on the people making them. It may say MSI, ASUS etc on the motherboard but it isn't the same board your going to find in the whitebox.
Wow you don't get it do you. Germ warfare has a problem called delivary of the germ. Mind control? What the hell. Direct mind control wouldn't get very far. People know why they are doing what they are doing. They just may have to do it to try to protect something. Now if you consider the influencing of ones outlook on something over a long period of time mind control then yes you have a point but I don't consider that. I consider it you agreeing with someone's point of view for the *reasons* they layed out.
:)
The whole point of something is to let people know you did it...who cares about stealth. Do it and then tell...without that it isn't fun.