You don't actually use the feature, do you? Try it -- it's the most useful fucking thing ever. Once you get used to it, the windows model of right-click copy, right-click paste is like crossing the street by way of China.
But how does it compare to the Windows model of control-C copy and control-V paste? It does, of course, compare differently in terminal/cmd.exe windows, as control-C and control-V aren't available for that purpose; gnome-terminal and, I think, Konsole work around that by using shift-control-C and shift-control-V. (On OS X, it's command-C and command-V, so that works in Terminal the same way it works elsewhere.)
I.e., if your objection to the Windows model is "you have to use the menu", that's not the case. You do, however, have to use either the menu or the keyboard. You also have to copy to the clipboard, overwriting what's there already; at least some people here have raised that as an objection to the copy/paste model being the only model available.
The middle-click will be used to start selections,
So how does that differ from what a left-click does? The document in question doesn't seem to say.
and provide text contextual menus (such as word definitions, sharing, etc.)
So how does that differ from what a right-click does? The document in question doesn't seem to say.
This is more "break the desktop in favor of tablet behavior" stupidity.
Yes, the document in question goes on at great length about Android, iOS, and Windows-8-for-touchscreen, which is of interest if you're trying to figure out what to do on a system with a touchscreen and without a mouse or trackpad, but doesn't seem particularly relevant if you're trying to figure out what mouse/trackpad buttons should do.
Yes, you are correct, of course, swap space.. the allocated memory is up to the kernel.. Every other OS allows you to select a swap partition however
Presumably by "a swap partition" you mean "a partition that contains swap space in some fashion", as Windows (NT and possibly OT) also use a file as backing store and don't, as far as I know, allow a raw partition to be used in that fashion.
If that's what you mean, then, as per my post, OS X allows you to specify the directory in which to put swap files, and, if the directory can be on a volume other than the root volume, would let you swap to another drive.
Lots of things are confusing for new users but that doesn't mean you should break 40+ years of ingrained behavior and functionality for them.
(More like 26 years - X11 came out in 1987, and and, prior to that, X was Just Another Random Window System For UN*X, competing with various other vendor and third-party window systems.)
Frankly, if people can't bother learning that middle click == paste they probably shouldn't be running Linux in the first place.
Middle-click is "paste the selection"; ^V (or Shift+^V in some terminal emulators) and Edit->Paste are "paste the clipboard". Maybe if you mention that to new users, they might get confused by the two functions being different, but, if that's the case, the answer to that is "don't tell new users about it, have it as an "advanced user" feature for the use of people who understand the notions of "the selection" and "the clipboard"".
The only other possibility of confusion I'd see would be if the user doesn't know about the feature and hits the middle button for some reason and is confused by something getting mysteriously dropped into whatever they're working on. If that is a significant problem for new users, unconditionally eliminating the feature would be massive stooopid overkill; making a configurable option, perhaps defaulting to off, and allowing the user to turn it on would suffice.
No, select to select and middle-click to paste selection; currently, I think the Athena widgets (as used by Good Old Xterm), GTK+, and Qt all implement the freedesktop.org clipboards specification (and I think at least some other toolkits, such as Motif, might behave that way as well; Open Look used the middle button, rather than Shift+left button, to adjust the selection, so XView and OLIT didn't work that way), so that selecting selects (but doesn't copy to the clipboard) and middle-click pastes the selection (rather than the clipboard).
"Select to copy", updating the clipboard if you merely select something, might well be confusing to new users and inconvenient for all users; fortunately, that's not how the feature actually works.
I'm not certain how "middle-click to paste the selection" would be confusing to new users, other than being surprising if the user happens to have something selected and accidentally clicks the middle button. That might justify making it an option, and even defaulting to "disabled", but dropping it entirely (by which I presume they mean "removing support for it from GTK+") doesn't seem appropriate.
I'll actually give you a primary source, real life example.
Thank you x 10^6.
(My example was also actually also a real-world example, not a hypothetical example, but was a case of somebody doing that sort of white-collar construction work who asked for my advice on machines to buy, rather than somebody who had that machine already; he already has PCs at home and, I think, at work, but needed something for when he's actually at the construction site.)
The "post-PC era" is a marketing slogan designed to make you buy things.
And to read columns blathering on about the "post-PC era". It's all about the CPM, err, umm, the CPI.
Not that TFA has that much to do with consequences of the "post-PC era"; they say "Is the PC enthusiast market dead, a casualty of the push into mobile?" (and answer the question in the negative), but that's all I could find. They probably slapped it onto the title just to get people's attention.
The PC is the correct form factor for getting work done by humans. Mobile devices are not.
I'd say, instead, that the desktop and laptop PC are the correct form factors for getting done the sort of work that you do when seated for a long time. There are probably people whose work is sometimes done while on the move and for which a desktop PC is obviously not going to work and for whom a laptop PC might not work very well; consider, for example, somebody managing a construction project who might need to look things up, enter data, do some calculations, etc. while on site. I suspect that a mobile phone would be the wrong form factor for them, but a tablet might be the right form factor.
(Mobility isn't a Boolean property; the easier it is to carry a computer, the more mobile it is. The ability to run on battery power, and to use wireless networking, helps a lot, too; it's conceivable that you could build a easy-to-carry computer that required you to plug it in, but I doubt there's enough interest in that to have many computers built that way.)
Wowsomeone that actually knows about and possibly used a PDP-11 machine! Going back a bit further, do you remember the Xerox Sigma 9?
Nope - the PDP-11's came out roughly the time the Sigma series went away, and I never had a chance to use a Sigma (did get to use a S/360-40 and KA10 PDP-10 in a summer program when I was in high school and an 1130 at my high school, though). Did work on PDP-11s in college and in my first two post-college jobs.
Courts have ruled that black people are chattel, based on their reading of the Constitution. Just because some hack in a robe says it is so doesn't make it true.
Sadly, Article IV of the US Constitution, at that time, said things such as
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
which, while perhaps not explicitly allowing chattel slavery, at least alluded to it.
It makes it much easier to spy on your own citizens when you do that. They are just mad they don't have a piece of the action.
Regardless of their ability to spy on their own people I think this is a good thing and I say that as a red, white and blue American citizen. I don't like that we control the whole ball of wax. Its time other countries stepped things up and built on what the US started. The internet is supposed to be bigger than any one country.
What happens is that the internet gets fractured - you'll have the "US Intenret", the "Brazil Internet" just like we have the "Iran Internet", and to a lesser extent, the "China Internet". All little networks running separate and independent.
Or not. TFA says:
Most of Brazil’s global Internet traffic passes through the United States, so Rousseff’s government plans to lay underwater fiber optic cable directly to Europe and also link to all South American nations to create what it hopes will be a network free of U.S. eavesdropping.
A connection from Brazil to Europe, or connections from Brazil to other South American nations, don't constitute a "Brazil internet"; for one thing, the other ends of those connections aren't located in Brazil. If that were sufficient to create a "Brazil internet", there would already be a "US internet" given that the US has an undersea connection to Europe or connections to Canada and Mexico.
It also says:
Rousseff is urging Brazil’s Congress to compel Facebook, Google and all companies to store data generated by Brazilians on servers physically located inside Brazil in order to shield it from the NSA.
That wouldn't, in and of itself, mean that Brazilians can't find non-Brazilian sites with Google or that non-Brazilians can't find Brazilian sites with Google; it would mean that Google would have to add one or more data centers in Brazil and, for Google searches from within Brazil (presumably meaning "from IP addresses that are located in Brazil"), any information saved about the search would have to be stored on the Brazilian servers (and, presumably, not sent to non-Brazilian servers). It would also mean that Google+ posts from Brazilian users would have to be stored on the Brazilian servers, GMail messages for Brazilian users' accounts would have to be stored on the Brazilian servers, etc. (and, presumably, not sent to non-Brazilian servers).
Today the internet is bigger than any one country - even the NSA can't tap all of it, and it's likely the stuff they tapped they did things like running TOR exit nodes and monitored the data that way.
But tomorrow, the internet will shrivel up (hey, we don't need IPv6 anymore!) as every country runs its own version of the internet, and wanting to connect to the bigger part around it well, you're a terrorist.
I haven't seen anything to indicate that Brazil doesn't want to allow packets to enter or leave Brazil - quite the contrary, in fact, if they want additional connections to countries outside Brazil. That's what would be involved in "each country [running] its own version of the internet".
If one assumes that Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are correct, and there is no observational evidence that they are not, then Yang-Mills theory, or something very much like it, is inevitable. It arises from the need for conservation of the various charges each force.
Also, if I coud choose particulars on where, and how much, memory is alocated to VM on OSX, I would definitely use an SSD for that...
Presumably by "memory allocated to VM" you mean "swap space".
You don't get to control how much - dynamic_pager will add swap files whenever the kernel tells it to, and the kernel will tell it to do so whenever there's not enough swap space, although the kernel will also tell it to delete swap files if there's enough unused swap space.
You can, however, specify the directory in which they're created, by using the -F flag to dynamic_pager. See the dynamic_pager man page and the/System/Library/LaunchDaemons/com.apple.dynamic_pager.plist property list. (Change it and you'll need to reboot.)
I'm not sure whether this would work if the drive in question isn't the drive with the root partition and diskarbitrationd doesn't mount the relevant partition before dynamic_pager starts. You might be able to say "launch this once this directory exists".
The layout makes no sense. The person in the "Captain's chair" is in front, and can't see what everybody else is doing. The "captains chair" has no controls or screens of its own, so whomever sits there cannot do anything except shout orders.
Makes perfect sense if the person in the "captain's chair" was kicked upstairs, and the whole point is to have them not know what their organization is doing, and just shout orders to which nobody really pays attention, so that the damage they can do to the organization's goals is limited.:-)
Apparently actor Jeffrey Hunter gave an interview with a TV magazine (TV Guide??) around 1966 where he stated that the RAND Corporation was controlling the Star Trek episodes with their vision of the future. So is it that Star Trek and Hollywood influenced the NSA? Or is it that the military industrial complex influenced the NSA?
"Controlling", or "influencing"? I.e., did they:
order Star Trek's writers and producers to make their future look like that (backed by threats that the CIA would assassinate them all if they didn't, or something such as that);
make suggestions (not "suggestions" in the sense of "commands", but just "hey, we've thought about that here at the !!!!!!!RAND Corporation!!!!!!!, and we do futurism for a living, this is what we think it might be like") to the writers and producers;
get asked by the writers and producers "hey, you're the !!!!!!!RAND Corporation!!!!!!!, you do futurism for a living, what do you think the future will look like?" and answer those questions?
My guess is it's one of the latter two, in which case it would in part be a case of "the military-industrial complex indirectly influenced, err, umm, the military-industrial complex" (which would make it especially funny if the people who said "make it so" were unaware that Star Trek had been RAND-Corporation influenced).
This Washington Post bit (hopefully you don't need to sign on to your Amazon account to get access to it:-)) says
But while the spy chief seemed to enjoy a Captain Kirk-worthy facility at Fort Belvoir, Va., which was reportedly the creation of a Hollywood set designer, it turns out that the command center was already in place when he took the job. It was built, sources tell our colleague Ellen Nakashima, in 1998. Alexander took over the post in 2001.
assuming the "sources" are actually telling the truth.
Like their initial select() implementation, which decremented the remaining time in the timeval structure to account for elapsed time, having an API is not the same thing as having a conformant API.
The current SUS allows that ("Upon successful completion, the select() function may modify the object pointed to by the timeout argument."), and that dates back at least as far as SUSv2.
It's still a rude surprise to people used to the BSD-style behavior in most other UN*Xes, and writing code that only sets the timeout before entering a select loop, though (that one bit me ages ago).
Okay, first, we are never given a choice. Usually, our "choice" is between a member of the Skull and Crossbones club, and a member of the Skull and Crossbones club. Our Yale club Skull and Crossbones, whose members also occupy most of the high appointed positions by now, was an outgrowth of Nazi Germany; more specifically it seems to tie to the occult pagan rituals that were associated with high ranking nazis who appeared, well, posessed.
I really should just rate the above "-1, Troll", but, hey, some people might actually think it's not nonsense, so:
it's "Skull and Bones", not "Skull and Crossbones";
not every US major-party presidential candidate went to Yale, so not every US major-party presidential candidate is a member of Skull and Bones;
Or is there actually a "Skull and Crossbones" club, separate from Yale's Skull and Bones, which accepts people who have never had anything to do with Yale, and was only founded some time after 1933?
Following your links I don't see anything that says its a 64-bit OS, its all ambigious. A binary that runs on 32-bit and 64-bit devices may simply mean its able to use new registers.
Two Conventions: ILP32 and LP64
The 32-bit runtime uses a convention called ILP32, in which integers, long integers, and pointers are 32-bit quantities. The 64-bit runtime uses the LP64 convention; integers are 32-bit quantities, and long integers and pointers are 64-bit quantities. These conventions match the ABI for apps running on OS X (and similarly, the Cocoa Touch conventions match the data types used in Cocoa), making it easy to write interoperable code between the two operating systems.
More than that, it *has* to be that. The main performance drivers for moving to x64 on x86 was to get rid fo the 4GB limit,
It's not necessary to get rid of the 4GB physical memory limit, as there's also PAE. It is necessary to get rid of the 4GB virtual address space limit.
Neither of these problems are problems with current 32-bit ARM chips, being able to address 1TB of memory and without the low register count.
Being able to address 1TB of physical memory, not to address more then 4GB of virtual address space within a process, and, yes, 16 registers in 32-bit mode is better than 8 registers in 32-bit mode, but presumably ARM had some rationale for doubling the number of GPRs in 64-bit mode - it might not make as much of a difference as the transition from 32-bit to 64-bit x86, though.
This. If new & updated apps will be only for 64bits (the market will let developers to have available both versions?) this will force people to change devices, wanting them or not.
Yeah, they'll have to dump that crufty old iPhone 5c for a shiny new iPhone 5s. Oh, wait....
Yes, the market will let developers have both 32-bit and 64-bit versions available, and, until Apple stops selling 32-bit iOS machines (which probably won't happen for at least a year, given that they just came out with the 32-bit iPhone 5c), only apps requiring the capabilities of the iPhone 5s are likely to be 64-bit-only (unless the app vendor doesn't care whether anybody not running an iPhone 5s can run their app).
Slashdot Mirror
You don't actually use the feature, do you? Try it -- it's the most useful fucking thing ever. Once you get used to it, the windows model of right-click copy, right-click paste is like crossing the street by way of China.
But how does it compare to the Windows model of control-C copy and control-V paste? It does, of course, compare differently in terminal/cmd.exe windows, as control-C and control-V aren't available for that purpose; gnome-terminal and, I think, Konsole work around that by using shift-control-C and shift-control-V. (On OS X, it's command-C and command-V, so that works in Terminal the same way it works elsewhere.)
I.e., if your objection to the Windows model is "you have to use the menu", that's not the case. You do, however, have to use either the menu or the keyboard. You also have to copy to the clipboard, overwriting what's there already; at least some people here have raised that as an objection to the copy/paste model being the only model available.
From that link:
The middle-click will be used to start selections,
So how does that differ from what a left-click does? The document in question doesn't seem to say.
and provide text contextual menus (such as word definitions, sharing, etc.)
So how does that differ from what a right-click does? The document in question doesn't seem to say.
This is more "break the desktop in favor of tablet behavior" stupidity.
Yes, the document in question goes on at great length about Android, iOS, and Windows-8-for-touchscreen, which is of interest if you're trying to figure out what to do on a system with a touchscreen and without a mouse or trackpad, but doesn't seem particularly relevant if you're trying to figure out what mouse/trackpad buttons should do.
Yes, you are correct, of course, swap space.. the allocated memory is up to the kernel.. Every other OS allows you to select a swap partition however
Presumably by "a swap partition" you mean "a partition that contains swap space in some fashion", as Windows (NT and possibly OT) also use a file as backing store and don't, as far as I know, allow a raw partition to be used in that fashion.
If that's what you mean, then, as per my post, OS X allows you to specify the directory in which to put swap files, and, if the directory can be on a volume other than the root volume, would let you swap to another drive.
Lots of things are confusing for new users but that doesn't mean you should break 40+ years of ingrained behavior and functionality for them.
(More like 26 years - X11 came out in 1987, and and, prior to that, X was Just Another Random Window System For UN*X, competing with various other vendor and third-party window systems.)
Frankly, if people can't bother learning that middle click == paste they probably shouldn't be running Linux in the first place.
Middle-click is "paste the selection"; ^V (or Shift+^V in some terminal emulators) and Edit->Paste are "paste the clipboard". Maybe if you mention that to new users, they might get confused by the two functions being different, but, if that's the case, the answer to that is "don't tell new users about it, have it as an "advanced user" feature for the use of people who understand the notions of "the selection" and "the clipboard"".
The only other possibility of confusion I'd see would be if the user doesn't know about the feature and hits the middle button for some reason and is confused by something getting mysteriously dropped into whatever they're working on. If that is a significant problem for new users, unconditionally eliminating the feature would be massive stooopid overkill; making a configurable option, perhaps defaulting to off, and allowing the user to turn it on would suffice.
No, select to select and middle-click to paste selection; currently, I think the Athena widgets (as used by Good Old Xterm), GTK+, and Qt all implement the freedesktop.org clipboards specification (and I think at least some other toolkits, such as Motif, might behave that way as well; Open Look used the middle button, rather than Shift+left button, to adjust the selection, so XView and OLIT didn't work that way), so that selecting selects (but doesn't copy to the clipboard) and middle-click pastes the selection (rather than the clipboard).
"Select to copy", updating the clipboard if you merely select something, might well be confusing to new users and inconvenient for all users; fortunately, that's not how the feature actually works.
I'm not certain how "middle-click to paste the selection" would be confusing to new users, other than being surprising if the user happens to have something selected and accidentally clicks the middle button. That might justify making it an option, and even defaulting to "disabled", but dropping it entirely (by which I presume they mean "removing support for it from GTK+") doesn't seem appropriate.
I'll actually give you a primary source, real life example.
Thank you x 10^6.
(My example was also actually also a real-world example, not a hypothetical example, but was a case of somebody doing that sort of white-collar construction work who asked for my advice on machines to buy, rather than somebody who had that machine already; he already has PCs at home and, I think, at work, but needed something for when he's actually at the construction site.)
The "post-PC era" is a marketing slogan designed to make you buy things.
And to read columns blathering on about the "post-PC era". It's all about the CPM, err, umm, the CPI.
Not that TFA has that much to do with consequences of the "post-PC era"; they say "Is the PC enthusiast market dead, a casualty of the push into mobile?" (and answer the question in the negative), but that's all I could find. They probably slapped it onto the title just to get people's attention.
The PC is the correct form factor for getting work done by humans. Mobile devices are not.
I'd say, instead, that the desktop and laptop PC are the correct form factors for getting done the sort of work that you do when seated for a long time. There are probably people whose work is sometimes done while on the move and for which a desktop PC is obviously not going to work and for whom a laptop PC might not work very well; consider, for example, somebody managing a construction project who might need to look things up, enter data, do some calculations, etc. while on site. I suspect that a mobile phone would be the wrong form factor for them, but a tablet might be the right form factor.
(Mobility isn't a Boolean property; the easier it is to carry a computer, the more mobile it is. The ability to run on battery power, and to use wireless networking, helps a lot, too; it's conceivable that you could build a easy-to-carry computer that required you to plug it in, but I doubt there's enough interest in that to have many computers built that way.)
Wowsomeone that actually knows about and possibly used a PDP-11 machine! Going back a bit further, do you remember the Xerox Sigma 9?
Nope - the PDP-11's came out roughly the time the Sigma series went away, and I never had a chance to use a Sigma (did get to use a S/360-40 and KA10 PDP-10 in a summer program when I was in high school and an 1130 at my high school, though). Did work on PDP-11s in college and in my first two post-college jobs.
Courts have ruled that black people are chattel, based on their reading of the Constitution. Just because some hack in a robe says it is so doesn't make it true.
Sadly, Article IV of the US Constitution, at that time, said things such as
which, while perhaps not explicitly allowing chattel slavery, at least alluded to it.
What happens is that the internet gets fractured - you'll have the "US Intenret", the "Brazil Internet" just like we have the "Iran Internet", and to a lesser extent, the "China Internet". All little networks running separate and independent.
Or not. TFA says:
A connection from Brazil to Europe, or connections from Brazil to other South American nations, don't constitute a "Brazil internet"; for one thing, the other ends of those connections aren't located in Brazil. If that were sufficient to create a "Brazil internet", there would already be a "US internet" given that the US has an undersea connection to Europe or connections to Canada and Mexico.
It also says:
That wouldn't, in and of itself, mean that Brazilians can't find non-Brazilian sites with Google or that non-Brazilians can't find Brazilian sites with Google; it would mean that Google would have to add one or more data centers in Brazil and, for Google searches from within Brazil (presumably meaning "from IP addresses that are located in Brazil"), any information saved about the search would have to be stored on the Brazilian servers (and, presumably, not sent to non-Brazilian servers). It would also mean that Google+ posts from Brazilian users would have to be stored on the Brazilian servers, GMail messages for Brazilian users' accounts would have to be stored on the Brazilian servers, etc. (and, presumably, not sent to non-Brazilian servers).
Today the internet is bigger than any one country - even the NSA can't tap all of it, and it's likely the stuff they tapped they did things like running TOR exit nodes and monitored the data that way.
But tomorrow, the internet will shrivel up (hey, we don't need IPv6 anymore!) as every country runs its own version of the internet, and wanting to connect to the bigger part around it well, you're a terrorist.
I haven't seen anything to indicate that Brazil doesn't want to allow packets to enter or leave Brazil - quite the contrary, in fact, if they want additional connections to countries outside Brazil. That's what would be involved in "each country [running] its own version of the internet".
If one assumes that Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are correct, and there is no observational evidence that they are not, then Yang-Mills theory, or something very much like it, is inevitable. It arises from the need for conservation of the various charges each force.
A Yang-Mills theory, based on {pick-your-favorite-group}, may be inevitable. Whether it would be the N=4 supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory is another matter; it won't be.
Surprisingly, it's not clear that we've observed a SINGLE locality violation, after decades of testing.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loopholes_in_Bell_test_experiments
"To date, no test has simultaneously closed all loopholes."
Locality violation, or result incompatible with a local hidden variable theory?
Also, if I coud choose particulars on where, and how much, memory is alocated to VM on OSX, I would definitely use an SSD for that...
Presumably by "memory allocated to VM" you mean "swap space".
You don't get to control how much - dynamic_pager will add swap files whenever the kernel tells it to, and the kernel will tell it to do so whenever there's not enough swap space, although the kernel will also tell it to delete swap files if there's enough unused swap space.
You can, however, specify the directory in which they're created, by using the -F flag to dynamic_pager. See the dynamic_pager man page and the /System/Library/LaunchDaemons/com.apple.dynamic_pager.plist property list. (Change it and you'll need to reboot.)
I'm not sure whether this would work if the drive in question isn't the drive with the root partition and diskarbitrationd doesn't mount the relevant partition before dynamic_pager starts. You might be able to say "launch this once this directory exists".
The layout makes no sense. The person in the "Captain's chair" is in front, and can't see what everybody else is doing. The "captains chair" has no controls or screens of its own, so whomever sits there cannot do anything except shout orders.
Makes perfect sense if the person in the "captain's chair" was kicked upstairs, and the whole point is to have them not know what their organization is doing, and just shout orders to which nobody really pays attention, so that the damage they can do to the organization's goals is limited. :-)
Apparently actor Jeffrey Hunter gave an interview with a TV magazine (TV Guide??) around 1966 where he stated that the RAND Corporation was controlling the Star Trek episodes with their vision of the future. So is it that Star Trek and Hollywood influenced the NSA? Or is it that the military industrial complex influenced the NSA?
"Controlling", or "influencing"? I.e., did they:
My guess is it's one of the latter two, in which case it would in part be a case of "the military-industrial complex indirectly influenced, err, umm, the military-industrial complex" (which would make it especially funny if the people who said "make it so" were unaware that Star Trek had been RAND-Corporation influenced).
This Washington Post bit (hopefully you don't need to sign on to your Amazon account to get access to it :-)) says
assuming the "sources" are actually telling the truth.
Still a bit WTF, however.
Instead, their system engineers have been busy reinventing the wheel by replacing core C code with C++ and Objective-C, for no apparent reason.
Like Terry (and speaking as an engineer who replaced Objective-C code with C code in Leopard :-)), I'd like to know to what you're referring here.
Like their initial select() implementation, which decremented the remaining time in the timeval structure to account for elapsed time, having an API is not the same thing as having a conformant API.
The current SUS allows that ("Upon successful completion, the select() function may modify the object pointed to by the timeout argument."), and that dates back at least as far as SUSv2.
It's still a rude surprise to people used to the BSD-style behavior in most other UN*Xes, and writing code that only sets the timeout before entering a select loop, though (that one bit me ages ago).
Okay, first, we are never given a choice. Usually, our "choice" is between a member of the Skull and Crossbones club, and a member of the Skull and Crossbones club. Our Yale club Skull and Crossbones, whose members also occupy most of the high appointed positions by now, was an outgrowth of Nazi Germany; more specifically it seems to tie to the occult pagan rituals that were associated with high ranking nazis who appeared, well, posessed.
I really should just rate the above "-1, Troll", but, hey, some people might actually think it's not nonsense, so:
Or is there actually a "Skull and Crossbones" club, separate from Yale's Skull and Bones, which accepts people who have never had anything to do with Yale, and was only founded some time after 1933?
Following your links I don't see anything that says its a 64-bit OS, its all ambigious. A binary that runs on 32-bit and 64-bit devices may simply mean its able to use new registers.
OK, follow the link to this copy of Apple's 64-Bit Transition Guide for Cocoa Touch - nothing ambiguous about, for example:
More than that, it *has* to be that. The main performance drivers for moving to x64 on x86 was to get rid fo the 4GB limit,
It's not necessary to get rid of the 4GB physical memory limit, as there's also PAE. It is necessary to get rid of the 4GB virtual address space limit.
Neither of these problems are problems with current 32-bit ARM chips, being able to address 1TB of memory and without the low register count.
Being able to address 1TB of physical memory, not to address more then 4GB of virtual address space within a process, and, yes, 16 registers in 32-bit mode is better than 8 registers in 32-bit mode, but presumably ARM had some rationale for doubling the number of GPRs in 64-bit mode - it might not make as much of a difference as the transition from 32-bit to 64-bit x86, though.
So when Apple thinks of bringing the tablets, phones and computers together, it's genius.
Actually, they didn't; Kingsley-Hughes just misinterpreted what the Apple document he quoted was saying.
This. If new & updated apps will be only for 64bits (the market will let developers to have available both versions?) this will force people to change devices, wanting them or not.
Yeah, they'll have to dump that crufty old iPhone 5c for a shiny new iPhone 5s. Oh, wait....
Yes, the market will let developers have both 32-bit and 64-bit versions available, and, until Apple stops selling 32-bit iOS machines (which probably won't happen for at least a year, given that they just came out with the 32-bit iPhone 5c), only apps requiring the capabilities of the iPhone 5s are likely to be 64-bit-only (unless the app vendor doesn't care whether anybody not running an iPhone 5s can run their app).
Did you read the OP? They state "OS X was designed from the GROUND UP to be 64 bit." I'm simply indicating this is untrue.
Yeah, the OP was trolling.