Ummm....then how is it different then the full version? Evaluation software is supposed to be used for *evaluation*. Not for five-nines critical applications. On a server the popup messages will go unnoticed, and the startup sequence will appear almost never. If you want to use it longer, then maybe it's time you paid for it.
Should be obvious that for companies paying the $20-200 for a software that's beneficial/useful is _NOTHING_. Besides companies really cant have afford to get busted for piracy in a software audit. Naturally this does not include countries were piracy is as illegal as spitting on the ground (and this inturn does no include Singapore:)).
Nonetheless the point is that a majority of the people at home downloading evaluation versions wouldnt purchase them anyway, where as companies would/could, given that the evaluation version was tolerabel and the prices and the works were layd out upfront.
Some evaluation version sellers tend to use so annoying strategies that I'm really amazed that how on earth will they ever actually sell anything.
Take Real for example. I for one would never ever purchase anything from them...
Nope... the biggest obstacle to Linux is people who say: People are stupid. It's the biggest obstacle to Linux.
I think it's worth pointing out that quite an amount of those people (like myself) are quite content as it is and not really anxious for linux even becoming more widely spread.
It's nice to see linux grow, but not at all cost. Personally I think the learning curve is already tolerable, meaning that, those people that are too computer illiterate or not just interested enough are the kind of people who should stick to windoze in the first place.
Personally I agree with several linux developers that I know of, that if things continue the way they do now I might be forced to look at *BSD and/or Gnu HURD just to steer clear from the main stream as it usually brings along more shit than it's worth.
Making everything fool-proof and real-easy-to-learn is far too often done on the cost of reduced expert usability and THAT is something none of the *nix users want.
Before too long, I had an entire X desktop running on some guy's web server. I sent the local admin an E-mail (through pine) letting him know what was wrong and recommending he fix it before someone meaner than I am comes along.
For the record, I know people that have gotten sued for such actions. Actually for a lot less. So you really should be carefull out there. It may be fun to find security holes, but if you want to be on the safe side, you should just stick to shutting the fsck up about it afterwards. Or at the least, always let the otherside know about the security holes anonymously, in which case you gotta really cover your tracks.
If at any point of finding out the existence of a security hole or otherwise you've might have had the intent of an electronic counterpart of breaking and entering (e.g. scanning, sending crap to cgi bins, etc) you may find yourself face to face with their lawyers. If the company executives are morons, they can and will sue you regardless of wether you actually did any damage or such.
An analogy is lock picking an 1800-century lock to gain an entrance to a bank and then without stealing anything letting the bank manager know that they're lock is obsolete. He could sue you. And in electronic world I know of such cases.
The whole blip is about management and how do the editors summarize that to the subject... "Do you like your _job_?"
The editors must think quite a percentage of the/. readers are managers? (either that or illiterate) ((which is something I wouldn't mind being when browsing some of the stuff posted here, like this message for example))
Re:Collective scream...
on
2.5.4 Kernel Out
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
8:40 - start compiling, so far so good
...and that's as far as you'd get on an x86. Although those _actually_ interested in developement kernels would have no trouble locating a suitable patch posted to kernel mailing list by Andrew Morton.
Also vesa frame buffers users will have difficulties linking it together, because of few bus_to_virt instead of phys_to_virt
(Patches for the x86 headers below...)
--- linux-2.5.4/include/asm-i386/processor.h Sun Feb 10 22:00:29 2002
+++ 25/include/asm-i386/processor.h Sun Feb 10 22:21:53 2002
@@ -435,14 +435,7 @@ extern int kernel_thread(int (*fn)(void
/* Copy and release all segment info associated with a VM */
extern void copy_segments(struct task_struct *p, struct mm_struct * mm);
extern void release_segments(struct mm_struct * mm);
-
-/*
- * Return saved PC of a blocked thread.
- */
-static inline unsigned long thread_saved_pc(struct task_struct *tsk)
-{
- return ((unsigned long *)tsk->thread->esp)[3];
-}
+extern unsigned long thread_saved_pc(struct task_struct *tsk);
unsigned long get_wchan(struct task_struct *p);
#define KSTK_EIP(tsk) (((unsigned long *)(4096+(unsigned long)(tsk)->thread_info))[1019])
--- linux-2.5.4/arch/i386/kernel/process.c Sun Feb 10 22:00:28 2002
+++ 25/arch/i386/kernel/process.c Sun Feb 10 22:26:35 2002
@@ -55,6 +55,14 @@ asmlinkage void ret_from_fork(void) __as
int hlt_counter;
/*
+ * Return saved PC of a blocked thread.
+ */
+unsigned long thread_saved_pc(struct task_struct *tsk)
+{
+ return ((unsigned long *)tsk->thread.esp)[3];
+}
+
+/*
* Powermanagement idle function, if any..
*/
void (*pm_idle)(void);
This is probably OT, because there must be something I'm missing since I really cannot understand what this fuss is all about?
The RedHat ISO images have been available for downloads for years. Numerous ftp sites around the world mirror them. (check/pub/linux/distributions/redhat or alike from any of your nearby university ftp site and get overwhelmed with the bandwidth)
I understand the interest for 'update -u' (which is the RedHat equivalent of the Debian 'apt-get upgrade'), but that's been also running for over a year now and having used that on a dozen or so boxes I've never payed a dime for that.
Besides, the rpms and srpms are always available on numerous ftp mirrors in the redhat directories, and will continue doing so. After all they cannot charge for the software, only for the service. And ftp mirrors around the world is also something that they cannot charge for, which actually is the kind of service I'd be willing to pay for...:)
For the record, the RedHat up2date service has been well worth the $5 a month, even $30 for a bit older (i.e. working) users.
This guy WAS an outlaw, and he didn't have it, which was a good thing. The reason he didn't have it: export restrictions.
Doh, you fail to realize that "existence of export restrictions" do _not_ imply "outlaws/terrorists not having strong encryption software at hand", although I admit that they're not entirely orthogonal, as this one particular case shows.
The real issue here is that any non-us terrorist will have no problems whatsoever getting their hands on strong encryption, with or without export restrictions. Thus the export restrictions will only lead to false sense of security as only a puny majority of idiotic terrorists might get caught with the help of, say, Windoze lacking strong encryption by default due to export restrictions.
Moreover, after this incident, huge part of the remaining ignorant terrorists will be likely to start using strong encryption regardless of what M$ stuff ships with.
Honestly..these Linux programmers need to take their time..people don't want to download the new kernal once a week..I mean..release it after you make some serious updates and stop bugging us!
That gets pointed out so often that I'm doubtful about making yet anothe r reply to this, but...
First off we're dealing with a 2.5.x release here, the whole 2.5.x is a developement branch, which is not meant for normal users, it's for those developing or otherwise interested in hacking the kernel.
Secondly even for stable branches (2.2.X and 2.4.X and 2.6.X one day) it is recommended that normal users stick to vendor provided kernels. For example the RedHat released 2.4.9-13 is still a valid kernel. It contains a lot of fixes that came to linux kernele main tree after the 2.4.9.
The sad mishaps with 2.4.10 et al happened because at that time the 2.4.x branch were still the developement branch. The problems with those releases didn't involve those that used distribution kernels, only those that were either adventureous enough to try the cutting-edge stuff or mistaken into believing that every 2.4.x release was to be taken as the stable-release for the normal users.
Want stability? Stick to distribution kernels. Want to toy around and hopefully learn something while adventuring with a developement kernel? Head over to www.kernelnewbies.org and rtfm....
This is not a question of getting the latest and the finest, because for normal users the latest distribution kernel released is the finest in every practical sense. (either that or you might concider changing our distribution preference)
(and by a normal user I'm referring to a user not particularly interested in developing or otherwise hacking the kernel)
I would have to say no after a quick glance at the kernel/sched.c
There are however numerous changes but the mentioned O(1) scheduler additions aren't there yet nor are the preemptible kernel patches. There's still discussion going on what to do with the scheduler roughly regarding interactivity vs thruput.
(for further reference I suggest to take a glance at the "Re: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - is's really unusable" thread going on in lkml)
In the future (read "when linux is 2.6ish") we'll have an autoconfiguration tool to assist in probing hardware and accompanying appropriate drivers for the build process. This in turn will hopefully push more manufacturers to release linux drivers along with their M$ drivers since more and more ppl will be able to compile their kernels.
There's huge amounts of discussion going on in the lkml (Linux Kernel Mailing List) right now the autoconfiguration tool.
What exactly do entries like... "random bugfix" mean? And the latter, "random bugfix", I hit my coworkers over the head when I see that in our CVS logs.
I wouldn't mention this otherwise, if it weren't for the growing worldwide interest in cryptography and related issues. Many developers for linux platforms aren't fully aware how fantastic devices the/dev/random and/dev/urandom actually are.
As an example, I work in a company that makes slot machines and evidently the random number generator is a great concern to us. Having read the kernel sources for the random number generator device I must say, other than few measurement issues (i.e. clumsy word/byte/bit handlings), it is rather fantastic service. After months of looking into countless generations of earlier random number generators I'm now only checking wether I need to patch even a bit or not.
Those of you in need of good random number services I suggest you lay a glance on/dev/random and/dev/urandom.
Or to be exact. This loop.c linker error will only manifest if you compile it in, that is the 'make bzImage' will fail _OR_ you compile it as a modules, when the compiler will issue a mere warning of 'implicit declaration' during 'make modules', which will result in an ok kernel, but modprobe for loopback device will fail making loopback device unusable, but the kernel will work otherwise as well as without loopback device.
My advice to you and many others is if you value your time more than you love kernel hacking stick to the older kernels. If it aint broken dont fix it.
If you love kernel hacking you should read the kernel mailing lists anyway, these things get quite enough coverage there...
For those of you updating from earlier versions...
on
Red Hat 7.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
(incase someone still reads these messages)
Few words of precaution :
- Having the latest Red Hat released kernel rpm (i.e. 2.4.9-X series) will make the installer disable the grub installing, even if you wish to do so. (as it should, since if you've been upgrading your kernel you're most likely part of the linux users who don't like default installers messing your setups anyway)
- The official kernel 2.4.12 does _not_ contain ext3 journaling file system support. So, if you wish to hop over to ext3 and have a bleeding edge kernel (not a good idea to do, but if you insist) it's possible with linux-2.4.12-ac5, i.e. latest release from Alan Cox series. (naturally you also need to compile it with the ext3 support)
Had I known those two things to begin with my default cd upgrade attempt would've gone surprisingly smoothly.
For those of you more experienced and well acquainted with lilo , rpms and all. I still suggest using the good old-fashioned way of more or less manually upgrading the rpms (or using up2date on the cds perhaps) and manually performing the ext3 and grub transition _after_ reading some manuals and getting some knowledge. What I did there was for purposes only and ofcourse not for my main box.
Quantum entanglement involves creating a system in which the state (polarization, spin, etc.) of two or more particles are 'dependent on' each other. Measuring the state of one particle defines the state of the other, 'magically', over some distance.
HOWEVER make no mistake, nothing in quantum mechanics or entanglement theory allows anything resembling faster-than-light information traveling, nor teleportation as we understand it.
The difference between a person who reads popular science magazines and actually studies/researches in the field of quantum physics is that the magazine reader tries to understand QM whereas the scientist-like lad knows that it's futile. In the words of one of _the_ lads in QM, Richard P. Feynman : "I feel I can safely say no one understands quantum mechanics"
These non-local effects (locality as in limited by the speed of light) of quantum theory is the biggest concern usually. And to be frank not just because it's fruitfull soil for science fiction, but also because it contradicts theory of relativity. ToR clearly states that not only causality cannot be broken but also that non-local variables cannot exist, which in other words mean that any interaction or information exceed the speed of light. Well, in quantum mechanics non-locality is present, moreover these non-local effects have been verified to exist. This entanglement is an example such effect, another is how tunneling can cause light to pass through solids faster than the speed of light, and many others. (this contradiction is often called as dualism in the field of physics and it's been present since the early 20th century, and still is. GUTs are approaches to unify these theories. The problem with the is that their predictions mostly fall out of our measurement scope.
So what of it, is theory of relativity faulty or what. That sort of remains to be seen. Both theories have proven to be remarkably successfull in their predictions in their domain, but obviously the model that they give is not complete enough. Newton wasn't "wrong" with his gravitation, it merely refined with a more accurate version.
A number of posters are confusing climate modelling with weather prediction. Weather prediction -- working out if it will rain tomorrow -- is very difficult because weather systems are chaotic. Climate prediction, however -- working out how large an effect increased CO2 emmisions will have on global warming -- is easy by comparison... at least in theory.
A number of meteorologists are also confusing modelling with scientific modelling. Those larger scale climate models have little chance giving accurate predictions since there's absolutely no reason to assume that such models would not depend chaotically on the underlying small scale weather. Those forementioned fudge factors that climate models are plagued with are manifestation of just that.
Even in more strict science circles people tend to resort to finding trends when the system vanishes out of scope. It's essential that the causality and predictability are present. Otherwise people wind up doing research based crap correlations. For example, for several years there's been really strong correlation between the number of Babtist preachers and number of people arrested for drinking in public. There's jack causality present as the dominant effect is the fluctuations in the population of US.
Just because climate is a lot slower than weather allowing it to predicted for longer periods of time than weather and short term trends give reasonable short term predictions, just as it's possible for weather for a couple of days at a time, it's still chaotic.
It's easy to blow the model out of practicality and show how shitload of CO2 emissions will create greenhouse effect. A lot shittier task is to work with real world figures and again work with a chaotic system. Don't get me wrong though, I'm absolutely all for the Co2 emission regulations and all.
If you put a kettle filled with water on a stove, you know that in x minutes it will boil. You don't need to know the exact position of every water molecule ( except of course, the position is somewhere inside the kettle ). That is akin to the 1000 year forecast.
Sorry, but the climate is not a kettle when it comes to it's deterministicity (that a real word?) and it has little to do with rounding errors either. Weather and climate are chaotic systems even the larger scale trends depend on the tiniest errors in input. Even predictions like the average temperature over certain century go beyond reach as the feedback due to energy absorption depends on clouds etc etc.
Weather is a phenomenon that will _never_ be predicted that far. It's simply because the input affects output exponentially within time. So no matter the computing power or measurement accuracy in a rather short period of time the prediction will loose it's accuracy.
But do not be mistaken here, naturally there are such kettle-like behaviours involved in climate and weather changes aswell (like during winter it tends to be colder than during summer in northern hemisphere) which are rather trivial though. The more interesting some weather change is the more likely it is affected by chaos, and that's simply because what makes it interesting is just that unpredictability.
Re:At what point...
on
2.2 GHz Xeon
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I have trouble distinguishing between anything above 20 FPS or so.
I'm getting awfully tired of people mixing fps of normal video and 1st person 3D games. Having played quake and it's offspring online for 4 years now, without a shread of doubt I can say that Q3 offers you such playability that telling apart 40fps and lunartic 125fps (which btw is optimal for Quake3 engine physics, which alone would be enough reason for some ppl to go for 125) is relatively easy.
Where you easily notice it is quick glances backwards, i.e. when in midair you just lay a glance what's right behind you and turn right back. Such rapid motions and the smoothness there are actually rather essential in quake-like games (once you get past the shooting-everything-that-moves-along-with-your-tea m-mates-phase anyway).
In other words, the rant usually is that when looking at a screen the human eye cannot distinguish FPS's over 20 (...50 depending on who's ranting), but they usually neglect that with 1st person 3D games it's whole world ahead of you that keeps turning all around and in a very quick fashion even. We're not talking about a rotation of some teapot in a 3D animation. And what's worse, it's usually people that have zero or very very little experience in 3D gaming. The kinda "I've played through quake in hard core mode, I know what I'm talking about". Those people have very little idea how competative things have gotten in the online gaming scene.
I can't understand why people also forget that 20 FPS would mean 50ms rate of flow. Not directly comparable, but still, anyone (experienced) who has played on the net and in a lan know that's there's a huge difference between 50ms and 10ms.
Besides, try telling to some sprint athlete that wether his shoes weigh 10 grams less or more makes jack difference.
This would give new meaning to Denial Of Service if the stream were interecepted and modified.
Heh, ironically you got it backwards there, we'd just use another name for that event, since interception and modification attacks aren't DoS attacks, though they may result in a DoS.
When I look at most open source projects, I can't even understand the home page! Even the home pages are written with the idea that you work on the project, so you already know everything.
Well, as an apparent suit you couldn't have nailed it better. Most of the open source projects do not need marketing, this sounds a tad naive, but they're out there for the love of it all without money playing any role at all. _That_ is why I feel so much safer in resorting to GNU licenced stuff than M$ware which would just lead me to MSN, Passport and.NET for their love of money...
Besides RedHat's not down, as people have stated here, these are just reflections of the costs from their earlier acquisitions being spread across several fiscal periods.
Without the ability to speak all we could do was show a bad face and being uncapable for an emotion like "hope" we just kept scratching our asses while giving fsck wether they got scared to death or not.
It really doesn't matter that the USA trained bin Laden, or who we've supported, or what we've done. None of that justifies the choice of targets, none of that justifies the WAY he chose to attack.
But what you and many many others fail (or you're just not willing) to realize is that nothing justifies revenge. No matter the horrors someone has caused and no matter how well the revenge could be targetted, it would ofcourse be less bad to slaughter the quilty party and it's followers than to blow up innocents in WTC towers, but it'd still be wrong.
This whole horrifying event that just took place was a similar revenge. The bad bad people that pulled that off were also ignorant about their justification for the revenge. Try being a little more civilized than the perps that just hammered you're nation. You'll do no honor for the dead by killing some more in revenge. You'll just wind up listening this from the relatives of those who'll die in their next revenge of your coming revenge.
It sickens me to watch the israelis revenge every death the palestinians cause, and then the next day it sickens me again to watch the palestinians revenge every death the israelis cause. Can't you see past that crap?!
Anyway, my rant is that you implied that C++ is a lower-level lang, when, in fact, it is considered a higher level lang.
To which I must say that it may not be wise to measure the level of a language by it's syntactic ability to make higher level abstactions (which is clearly possible with C++), but rather with how deep you can dive with it, which would naturally make C++ actually as low level language as C.
Though, I must say that C++ is a fairly odd son in the field of languages. Everything goes, where you can make high level OO code you can also stick to asm inlines making it also in a reasonable way as low level as it gets.
People seem to mix analogies and comparison now. If there's a _some_ similarity between coding on top of which an analogy can be made and bridge building. It does not mean that every aspect of bridge building and coding can be compared.
Bullshit remarks like "we've been making bridges for centuries" just make me sick. (Heh, we've been making fire since the days when we didn't even wipe our butts and we still have fire departments.) Making counter examples than stating general laws seems easier, atleast for us, so why not use that on one's own remarks?
Perhaps "that argument might do it" kind of thinking may very well be one of the major reasons so much of our software is so disfunctional.
As a personal opinion, that is close to _the_ reason. Most people I know of, heck, even most people I work with, are sadly incapable of approaching in a sort of cruel, cold, strictly abstract way that some tougher areas of coding requires. And what creates problems is when these areas are being poked at without the programmer realizing that. Anyone who has studied or has some passion for maths knows that seemingly simple tasks may hide underneath overwhelming complexities. I guess that's something that programmes everywhere learn as they grow older and more experienced and get their beard and own set of horns on their forehead.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Ummm....then how is it different then the full version? Evaluation software is supposed to be used for *evaluation*. Not for five-nines critical applications. On a server the popup messages will go unnoticed, and the startup sequence will appear almost never. If you want to use it longer, then maybe it's time you paid for it.
:)).
Should be obvious that for companies paying the $20-200 for a software that's beneficial/useful is _NOTHING_. Besides companies really cant have afford to get busted for piracy in a software audit. Naturally this does not include countries were piracy is as illegal as spitting on the ground (and this inturn does no include Singapore
Nonetheless the point is that a majority of the people at home downloading evaluation versions wouldnt purchase them anyway, where as companies would/could, given that the evaluation version was tolerabel and the prices and the works were layd out upfront.
Some evaluation version sellers tend to use so annoying strategies that I'm really amazed that how on earth will they ever actually sell anything.
Take Real for example. I for one would never ever purchase anything from them...
Nope... the biggest obstacle to Linux is people who say: People are stupid. It's the biggest obstacle to Linux.
I think it's worth pointing out that quite an amount of those people (like myself) are quite content as it is and not really anxious for linux even becoming more widely spread.
It's nice to see linux grow, but not at all cost. Personally I think the learning curve is already tolerable, meaning that, those people that are too computer illiterate or not just interested enough are the kind of people who should stick to windoze in the first place.
Personally I agree with several linux developers that I know of, that if things continue the way they do now I might be forced to look at *BSD and/or Gnu HURD just to steer clear from the main stream as it usually brings along more shit than it's worth.
Making everything fool-proof and real-easy-to-learn is far too often done on the cost of reduced expert usability and THAT is something none of the *nix users want.
Before too long, I had an entire X desktop running on some guy's web server. I sent the local admin an E-mail (through pine) letting him know what was wrong and recommending he fix it before someone meaner than I am comes along.
For the record, I know people that have gotten sued for such actions. Actually for a lot less. So you really should be carefull out there. It may be fun to find security holes, but if you want to be on the safe side, you should just stick to shutting the fsck up about it afterwards. Or at the least, always let the otherside know about the security holes anonymously, in which case you gotta really cover your tracks.
If at any point of finding out the existence of a security hole or otherwise you've might have had the intent of an electronic counterpart of breaking and entering (e.g. scanning, sending crap to cgi bins, etc) you may find yourself face to face with their lawyers. If the company executives are morons, they can and will sue you regardless of wether you actually did any damage or such.
An analogy is lock picking an 1800-century lock to gain an entrance to a bank and then without stealing anything letting the bank manager know that they're lock is obsolete. He could sue you. And in electronic world I know of such cases.
The whole blip is about management and how do the editors summarize that to the subject ... "Do you like your _job_?"
/. readers are managers?
The editors must think quite a percentage of the
(either that or illiterate)
((which is something I wouldn't mind being when browsing some of the stuff posted here, like this message for example))
8:40 - start compiling, so far so good
/* Copy and release all segment info associated with a VM */
/*
...and that's as far as you'd get on an x86. Although those _actually_ interested in developement kernels would have no trouble locating a suitable patch posted to kernel mailing list by Andrew Morton.
Also vesa frame buffers users will have difficulties linking it together, because of few bus_to_virt instead of phys_to_virt
(Patches for the x86 headers below...)
--- linux-2.5.4/include/asm-i386/processor.h Sun Feb 10 22:00:29 2002
+++ 25/include/asm-i386/processor.h Sun Feb 10 22:21:53 2002
@@ -435,14 +435,7 @@ extern int kernel_thread(int (*fn)(void
extern void copy_segments(struct task_struct *p, struct mm_struct * mm);
extern void release_segments(struct mm_struct * mm);
-
-/*
- * Return saved PC of a blocked thread.
- */
-static inline unsigned long thread_saved_pc(struct task_struct *tsk)
-{
- return ((unsigned long *)tsk->thread->esp)[3];
-}
+extern unsigned long thread_saved_pc(struct task_struct *tsk);
unsigned long get_wchan(struct task_struct *p);
#define KSTK_EIP(tsk) (((unsigned long *)(4096+(unsigned long)(tsk)->thread_info))[1019])
--- linux-2.5.4/arch/i386/kernel/process.c Sun Feb 10 22:00:28 2002
+++ 25/arch/i386/kernel/process.c Sun Feb 10 22:26:35 2002
@@ -55,6 +55,14 @@ asmlinkage void ret_from_fork(void) __as
int hlt_counter;
+ * Return saved PC of a blocked thread.
+ */
+unsigned long thread_saved_pc(struct task_struct *tsk)
+{
+ return ((unsigned long *)tsk->thread.esp)[3];
+}
+
+/*
* Powermanagement idle function, if any..
*/
void (*pm_idle)(void);
This is probably OT, because there must be something I'm missing since I really cannot understand what this fuss is all about?
/pub/linux/distributions/redhat or alike from any of your nearby university ftp site and get overwhelmed with the bandwidth)
:)
The RedHat ISO images have been available for downloads for years. Numerous ftp sites around the world mirror them. (check
I understand the interest for 'update -u' (which is the RedHat equivalent of the Debian 'apt-get upgrade'), but that's been also running for over a year now and having used that on a dozen or so boxes I've never payed a dime for that.
Besides, the rpms and srpms are always available on numerous ftp mirrors in the redhat directories, and will continue doing so. After all they cannot charge for the software, only for the service. And ftp mirrors around the world is also something that they cannot charge for, which actually is the kind of service I'd be willing to pay for...
For the record, the RedHat up2date service has been well worth the $5 a month, even $30 for a bit older (i.e. working) users.
This guy WAS an outlaw, and he didn't have it, which was a good thing. The reason he didn't have it: export restrictions.
Doh, you fail to realize that "existence of export restrictions" do _not_ imply "outlaws/terrorists not having strong encryption software at hand", although I admit that they're not entirely orthogonal, as this one particular case shows.
The real issue here is that any non-us terrorist will have no problems whatsoever getting their hands on strong encryption, with or without export restrictions. Thus the export restrictions will only lead to false sense of security as only a puny majority of idiotic terrorists might get caught with the help of, say, Windoze lacking strong encryption by default due to export restrictions.
Moreover, after this incident, huge part of the remaining ignorant terrorists will be likely to start using strong encryption regardless of what M$ stuff ships with.
Honestly..these Linux programmers need to take their time..people don't want to download the new kernal once a week..I mean..release it after you make some serious updates and stop bugging us!
That gets pointed out so often that I'm doubtful about making yet anothe r reply to this, but...
First off we're dealing with a 2.5.x release here, the whole 2.5.x is a developement branch, which is not meant for normal users, it's for those developing or otherwise interested in hacking the kernel.
Secondly even for stable branches (2.2.X and 2.4.X and 2.6.X one day) it is recommended that normal users stick to vendor provided kernels. For example the RedHat released 2.4.9-13 is still a valid kernel. It contains a lot of fixes that came to linux kernele main tree after the 2.4.9.
The sad mishaps with 2.4.10 et al happened because at that time the 2.4.x branch were still the developement branch. The problems with those releases didn't involve those that used distribution kernels, only those that were either adventureous enough to try the cutting-edge stuff or mistaken into believing that every 2.4.x release was to be taken as the stable-release for the normal users.
Want stability? Stick to distribution kernels. Want to toy around and hopefully learn something while adventuring with a developement kernel? Head over to www.kernelnewbies.org and rtfm....
This is not a question of getting the latest and the finest, because for normal users the latest distribution kernel released is the finest in every practical sense. (either that or you might concider changing our distribution preference)
(and by a normal user I'm referring to a user not particularly interested in developing or otherwise hacking the kernel)
I would have to say no after a quick glance at the kernel/sched.c
There are however numerous changes but the mentioned O(1) scheduler additions aren't there yet nor are the preemptible kernel patches. There's still discussion going on what to do with the scheduler roughly regarding interactivity vs thruput.
(for further reference I suggest to take a glance at the "Re: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - is's really unusable" thread going on in lkml)
In the future (read "when linux is 2.6ish") we'll have an autoconfiguration tool to assist in probing hardware and accompanying appropriate drivers for the build process. This in turn will hopefully push more manufacturers to release linux drivers along with their M$ drivers since more and more ppl will be able to compile their kernels.
There's huge amounts of discussion going on in the lkml (Linux Kernel Mailing List) right now the autoconfiguration tool.
Perhaps it's just Hemos's way of saying "Stop submitting '2.5.2 released!' to all those way-too-anxious-to-submit-redundant-news.
Those of you anxious to contribute by testing I suggest you get acquainted with the following sites:
Linux Kernel Mailing List FAQ (a must read before submitting bugs or oopses)
Good site about kernel hacking (not just for newbies either)
What exactly do entries like ... "random bugfix" mean?
/dev/random and /dev/urandom actually are.
/dev/random and /dev/urandom.
And the latter, "random bugfix", I hit my coworkers over the head when I see that in our CVS logs.
I wouldn't mention this otherwise, if it weren't for the growing worldwide interest in cryptography and related issues. Many developers for linux platforms aren't fully aware how fantastic devices the
As an example, I work in a company that makes slot machines and evidently the random number generator is a great concern to us. Having read the kernel sources for the random number generator device I must say, other than few measurement issues (i.e. clumsy word/byte/bit handlings), it is rather fantastic service. After months of looking into countless generations of earlier random number generators I'm now only checking wether I need to patch even a bit or not.
Those of you in need of good random number services I suggest you lay a glance on
Or to be exact. This loop.c linker error will only manifest if you compile it in, that is the 'make bzImage' will fail _OR_ you compile it as a modules, when the compiler will issue a mere warning of 'implicit declaration' during 'make modules', which will result in an ok kernel, but modprobe for loopback device will fail making loopback device unusable, but the kernel will work otherwise as well as without loopback device.
My advice to you and many others is if you value your time more than you love kernel hacking stick to the older kernels. If it aint broken dont fix it.
If you love kernel hacking you should read the kernel mailing lists anyway, these things get quite enough coverage there...
(incase someone still reads these messages)
Few words of precaution :
- Having the latest Red Hat released kernel rpm (i.e. 2.4.9-X series) will make the installer disable the grub installing, even if you wish to do so. (as it should, since if you've been upgrading your kernel you're most likely part of the linux users who don't like default installers messing your setups anyway)
- The official kernel 2.4.12 does _not_ contain ext3 journaling file system support. So, if you wish to hop over to ext3 and have a bleeding edge kernel (not a good idea to do, but if you insist) it's possible with linux-2.4.12-ac5, i.e. latest release from Alan Cox series. (naturally you also need to compile it with the ext3 support)
Had I known those two things to begin with my default cd upgrade attempt would've gone surprisingly smoothly.
For those of you more experienced and well acquainted with lilo , rpms and all. I still suggest using the good old-fashioned way of more or less manually upgrading the rpms (or using up2date on the cds perhaps) and manually performing the ext3 and grub transition _after_ reading some manuals and getting some knowledge. What I did there was for purposes only and ofcourse not for my main box.
Quantum entanglement involves creating a system in which the state (polarization, spin, etc.) of two or more particles are 'dependent on' each other. Measuring the state of one particle defines the state of the other, 'magically', over some distance.
HOWEVER make no mistake, nothing in quantum mechanics or entanglement theory allows anything resembling faster-than-light information traveling, nor teleportation as we understand it.
The difference between a person who reads popular science magazines and actually studies/researches in the field of quantum physics is that the magazine reader tries to understand QM whereas the scientist-like lad knows that it's futile. In the words of one of _the_ lads in QM, Richard P. Feynman : "I feel I can safely say no one understands quantum mechanics"
These non-local effects (locality as in limited by the speed of light) of quantum theory is the biggest concern usually. And to be frank not just because it's fruitfull soil for science fiction, but also because it contradicts theory of relativity. ToR clearly states that not only causality cannot be broken but also that non-local variables cannot exist, which in other words mean that any interaction or information exceed the speed of light. Well, in quantum mechanics non-locality is present, moreover these non-local effects have been verified to exist. This entanglement is an example such effect, another is how tunneling can cause light to pass through solids faster than the speed of light, and many others. (this contradiction is often called as dualism in the field of physics and it's been present since the early 20th century, and still is. GUTs are approaches to unify these theories. The problem with the is that their predictions mostly fall out of our measurement scope.
So what of it, is theory of relativity faulty or what. That sort of remains to be seen. Both theories have proven to be remarkably successfull in their predictions in their domain, but obviously the model that they give is not complete enough. Newton wasn't "wrong" with his gravitation, it merely refined with a more accurate version.
A number of posters are confusing climate modelling with weather prediction. Weather prediction -- working out if it will rain tomorrow -- is very difficult because weather systems are chaotic. Climate prediction, however -- working out how large an effect increased CO2 emmisions will have on global warming -- is easy by comparison... at least in theory.
A number of meteorologists are also confusing modelling with scientific modelling. Those larger scale climate models have little chance giving accurate predictions since there's absolutely no reason to assume that such models would not depend chaotically on the underlying small scale weather. Those forementioned fudge factors that climate models are plagued with are manifestation of just that.
Even in more strict science circles people tend to resort to finding trends when the system vanishes out of scope. It's essential that the causality and predictability are present. Otherwise people wind up doing research based crap correlations. For example, for several years there's been really strong correlation between the number of Babtist preachers and number of people arrested for drinking in public. There's jack causality present as the dominant effect is the fluctuations in the population of US.
Just because climate is a lot slower than weather allowing it to predicted for longer periods of time than weather and short term trends give reasonable short term predictions, just as it's possible for weather for a couple of days at a time, it's still chaotic.
It's easy to blow the model out of practicality and show how shitload of CO2 emissions will create greenhouse effect. A lot shittier task is to work with real world figures and again work with a chaotic system. Don't get me wrong though, I'm absolutely all for the Co2 emission regulations and all.
If you put a kettle filled with water on a stove, you know that in x minutes it will boil. You don't need to know the exact position of every water molecule ( except of course, the position is somewhere inside the kettle ). That is akin to the 1000 year forecast.
Sorry, but the climate is not a kettle when it comes to it's deterministicity (that a real word?) and it has little to do with rounding errors either. Weather and climate are chaotic systems even the larger scale trends depend on the tiniest errors in input. Even predictions like the average temperature over certain century go beyond reach as the feedback due to energy absorption depends on clouds etc etc.
Weather is a phenomenon that will _never_ be predicted that far. It's simply because the input affects output exponentially within time. So no matter the computing power or measurement accuracy in a rather short period of time the prediction will loose it's accuracy.
But do not be mistaken here, naturally there are such kettle-like behaviours involved in climate and weather changes aswell (like during winter it tends to be colder than during summer in northern hemisphere) which are rather trivial though. The more interesting some weather change is the more likely it is affected by chaos, and that's simply because what makes it interesting is just that unpredictability.
I have trouble distinguishing between anything above 20 FPS or so.
a m-mates-phase anyway).
I'm getting awfully tired of people mixing fps of normal video and 1st person 3D games. Having played quake and it's offspring online for 4 years now, without a shread of doubt I can say that Q3 offers you such playability that telling apart 40fps and lunartic 125fps (which btw is optimal for Quake3 engine physics, which alone would be enough reason for some ppl to go for 125) is relatively easy.
Where you easily notice it is quick glances backwards, i.e. when in midair you just lay a glance what's right behind you and turn right back. Such rapid motions and the smoothness there are actually rather essential in quake-like games (once you get past the shooting-everything-that-moves-along-with-your-te
In other words, the rant usually is that when looking at a screen the human eye cannot distinguish FPS's over 20 (...50 depending on who's ranting), but they usually neglect that with 1st person 3D games it's whole world ahead of you that keeps turning all around and in a very quick fashion even. We're not talking about a rotation of some teapot in a 3D animation. And what's worse, it's usually people that have zero or very very little experience in 3D gaming. The kinda "I've played through quake in hard core mode, I know what I'm talking about". Those people have very little idea how competative things have gotten in the online gaming scene.
I can't understand why people also forget that 20 FPS would mean 50ms rate of flow. Not directly comparable, but still, anyone (experienced) who has played on the net and in a lan know that's there's a huge difference between 50ms and 10ms.
Besides, try telling to some sprint athlete that wether his shoes weigh 10 grams less or more makes jack difference.
This would give new meaning to Denial Of Service if the stream were interecepted and modified.
Heh, ironically you got it backwards there, we'd just use another name for that event, since interception and modification attacks aren't DoS attacks, though they may result in a DoS.
When I look at most open source projects, I can't even understand the home page! Even the home pages are written with the idea that you work on the project, so you already know everything.
.NET for their love of money...
Well, as an apparent suit you couldn't have nailed it better. Most of the open source projects do not need marketing, this sounds a tad naive, but they're out there for the love of it all without money playing any role at all. _That_ is why I feel so much safer in resorting to GNU licenced stuff than M$ware which would just lead me to MSN, Passport and
Besides RedHat's not down, as people have stated here, these are just reflections of the costs from their earlier acquisitions being spread across several fiscal periods.
Without the ability to speak all we could do was show a bad face and being uncapable for an emotion like "hope" we just kept scratching our asses while giving fsck wether they got scared to death or not.
It really doesn't matter that the USA trained bin Laden, or who we've supported, or what we've done. None of that justifies the choice of targets, none of that justifies the WAY he chose to attack.
But what you and many many others fail (or you're just not willing) to realize is that nothing justifies revenge. No matter the horrors someone has caused and no matter how well the revenge could be targetted, it would ofcourse be less bad to slaughter the quilty party and it's followers than to blow up innocents in WTC towers, but it'd still be wrong.
This whole horrifying event that just took place was a similar revenge. The bad bad people that pulled that off were also ignorant about their justification for the revenge. Try being a little more civilized than the perps that just hammered you're nation. You'll do no honor for the dead by killing some more in revenge. You'll just wind up listening this from the relatives of those who'll die in their next revenge of your coming revenge.
It sickens me to watch the israelis revenge every death the palestinians cause, and then the next day it sickens me again to watch the palestinians revenge every death the israelis cause. Can't you see past that crap?!
A little offtopic, but what the hell...
Anyway, my rant is that you implied that C++ is a lower-level lang, when, in fact, it is considered a higher level lang.
To which I must say that it may not be wise to measure the level of a language by it's syntactic ability to make higher level abstactions (which is clearly possible with C++), but rather with how deep you can dive with it, which would naturally make C++ actually as low level language as C.
Though, I must say that C++ is a fairly odd son in the field of languages. Everything goes, where you can make high level OO code you can also stick to asm inlines making it also in a reasonable way as low level as it gets.
People seem to mix analogies and comparison now. If there's a _some_ similarity between coding on top of which an analogy can be made and bridge building. It does not mean that every aspect of bridge building and coding can be compared.
:)
Bullshit remarks like "we've been making bridges for centuries" just make me sick. (Heh, we've been making fire since the days when we didn't even wipe our butts and we still have fire departments.) Making counter examples than stating general laws seems easier, atleast for us, so why not use that on one's own remarks?
Perhaps "that argument might do it" kind of thinking may very well be one of the major reasons so much of our software is so disfunctional.
As a personal opinion, that is close to _the_ reason. Most people I know of, heck, even most people I work with, are sadly incapable of approaching in a sort of cruel, cold, strictly abstract way that some tougher areas of coding requires. And what creates problems is when these areas are being poked at without the programmer realizing that. Anyone who has studied or has some passion for maths knows that seemingly simple tasks may hide underneath overwhelming complexities. I guess that's something that programmes everywhere learn as they grow older and more experienced and get their beard and own set of horns on their forehead.