Yes x86 is assumed to mean the 64bit version (x86_64) nowadays, which is a superset of the 32bit version and the 16bit versions of x86, all thanks to mode switching.
To which version of System V are you referring? The original one, SVR2, SVR3, or SVR4 and later?
The entire project (or at least from the start through the initial deployment of SVR4.)
The entire project, starting with SVR1? What "major UNIX vendors" other than AT&T were involved in the "re-implementation" (which wasn't a from-scratch reimplementation - it was an evolution from V7+the PWB-derived UNIX/TS) - "involved" in the sense of "developing code that went into System V" rather than "licensing the code from AT&T and doing their own stuff to it"?
Perhaps someone somewhere in the system frameworks shifted from a timestamp (which is really a double internally in iOS)
Depends on what you mean by "internally". At the Mach layer, you have what mach_absolute_time() returns, which is a 64-bit unsigned integer in platform-dependent units. Above that in the Mach (osfmk) and BSD (bsd) layers, it's mainly seconds since the Epoch and microseconds since that second, i.e. either struct timeval or other pairings of those values. time_t is signed, but in some of the other pairings, the seconds is unsigned (e.g., clock_sec_t).
Perhaps in some layered-atop-UN*X userland frameworks it's a double, but not down in the engine room.
I was under the impression that the entire POINT of SYS V was for the major UNIX vendors to re-implement the guts of Unix as a clearly, enforceably, proprietary product (after the CONTU recommendations and the resulting copyright law changes explicitly extended copyright to software), then move to it and orphan the original development thread. (This might make opening it a hard sell to the members of the consortium.)
To which version of System V are you referring? The original one, SVR2, SVR3, or SVR4 and later?
We'll stop using the comma when you stop celebrating the bombing of the world trade centre November 9/11/2001 instead of September when it actually happened.
I think there are some folks on a small island off the coast of France who don't use the comma as a decimal separator and who label 2001-09-11 as 11/9/2001.
(But I suspect some folks in Europe might not consider the folks from that island Europeans.)
Or, rather, where you have to go through an annoying procedure, involving two reboots, to write to/usr or/bin.
If you think that's annoying, you should try working with SELinux some time.
I haven't tried actually working with it, but I've certainly been annoyed when it kept VMware's hgfs from working on Linux guests - it wasn't immediately obvious how to let it work. (I think my VMs running newer versions of Fedora don't have a problem with hgfs, so maybe either VMware or the SELinux people fixed it.)
PiS admires the Russian form of a 'strong government'. While it doesn't try to implement a carbon copy of it, PiS borrows some 'bright' ideas from both the Russian and Hungarian systems (nationalism, 'strong leader' with much power, mythical 'they' who are always to blame for the failures, etc.).
Ideas that were also present, at one point, in a certain country to the west of Poland that eventually went to war with the Soviet Union (after signing a deal with the Soviet Union to carve up Poland), so it's not as if this behavior is obviously "soviet" or "pro-Russian".
Although Anonymous Howard up there might be using "soviet" and "Stasi" just to mean "authoritarian", not to mean anything necessarily having to do with Soviet-style Communism, as per
Was there anything suspicious in the billions of UK communications that GCHQ has intercepted? Yet the government hid the mass surveillance from Parliament and everyone elected has been subject to this surveillance and the manipulation that goes with it, meaning we get nothing but pro-Stasi governments in the UK.
so they could just as easily have said "Nazi" and "Gestapo".
East Europe is getting undermined by old pro-Russian political factions, in Poland for example, the ruling party has appointed 2 judges and changed the laws so that the court is effectively nullified without the vote of these 2 judges. It's also changed the appointment of TV executives on the state channel to be chosen by them. I'm sure they'd love to have control of surveillance too, the soviet parties miss the STASI level of control they had.
Gatekeeper isn't for security. Gatekeeper is intended to make running non-Apple approved code just annoying enough to force most users to use the App Store rather than use non-Apple blessed code. As they've demonstrated with the latest OS X where not even root can write to/usr or/bin
Or, rather, where you have to go through an annoying procedure, involving two reboots, to write to/usr or/bin.
No, you're right. But the other thing is that Gatekeeper isn't intended to keep OS X secure. It's intended to make running non-Apple code annoying and nothing more.
To do that, it would have to be combined with making getting software from the Mac App Store, most of which is "non-Apple code", annoying. Presumably, then, you're saying that getting software from the Mac App Store is annoying.
Or perhaps you meant "it's intended to make non-Apple-approved code annoying", where "Apple-approved" means "approved by Apple to go into the Mac App Store". Whether that's the intent, yes, that's definitely a side-effect.
(I run non-App Store code quite a bit; for code installed by downloading a.dmg or installer package or..., it's a minor nuisance, and for stuff installed by downloading a source tarball, unpacking it, and doing the configure/make/make install dance or whatever that tarball requires, it doesn't come into play at all. At this instance, my biggest peeves with Apple software are 1) dealing with LLDB's misguided attempt to have a "better" command language than GDB and 2) having to teach Yosemite autocorrect that "sshd" isn't a typo for "sushi", "tarball" isn't a typo for "tarsal", etc..:-))
iOS runs UNIX and you have absolutely no control over it.
OS X is officially a UNIX but as of the latest version you can't even use root to replace some of Apple's software with newer versions.
If you're referring to System Integrity Protection, then, if you want to replace some of Apple's software, feel free to disable System Integrity Protection. A bit of a painful process, but the setting persists, so you only have to do it once, unless you want to turn it back on once you're done and then turn it off again when you want to change one of the protected files.
It would be even better if it were an Oldsmobile Vista Cruiser, but, unfortunately, GM no longer makes them and Microsoft, as far as I know, no longer offers Vista.
Let's consult the TIOBE Index for December 2015. Hrm, nope. Punch cards don't figure in the top 50 languages. Too bad. Your day is done.
"Punch cards" probably isn't considered a programming language by the TIOBE folks, and, as far as I'm concerned, they're right not to do so, just it's proper for them not to consider "paper tape" and "text file" as programming languages.
Two languages that date back to the days of punched cards, and that were often input on punched cards, however, are in the top 25 languages - COBOL at 20 and Fortran at 22 - and RPG, another such language, is at 37.
I'm talking about all of them. Are there any in which government schools aren't shit? If so, for each of those countries, what are they doing differently that makes their schools not shit?
AMD bet on 64-bit, and won (64-bit). Intel's effort was Itanium, it is pretty much done for.
But Intel covered their bet on Itanium by doing their own x86-64 processors soon enough not to let AMD win much other than "yeah, we did it first". Intel really doesn't get much more corporate pride from Itanium than from Intel 64 - the Itanium architecture started out as an HP design, just as Intel 64 started out as an AMD design. They probably get more money from Intel 64 than from Itanium, and probably get more money from it than AMD gets from AMD64 as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes x86 is assumed to mean the 64bit version (x86_64) nowadays, which is a superset of the 32bit version and the 16bit versions of x86, all thanks to mode switching.
Don't forget the 8-bit processors.
Which weren't x86 processors.
It's called "clickbait". And it's a big disappointment that the new owners appears to choose that route.
Presumably you're referring to the new owners of the Guardian, as the sexbot stuff is in the original Grauniad headline.
To which version of System V are you referring? The original one, SVR2, SVR3, or SVR4 and later?
The entire project (or at least from the start through the initial deployment of SVR4.)
The entire project, starting with SVR1? What "major UNIX vendors" other than AT&T were involved in the "re-implementation" (which wasn't a from-scratch reimplementation - it was an evolution from V7+the PWB-derived UNIX/TS) - "involved" in the sense of "developing code that went into System V" rather than "licensing the code from AT&T and doing their own stuff to it"?
Perhaps someone somewhere in the system frameworks shifted from a timestamp (which is really a double internally in iOS)
Depends on what you mean by "internally". At the Mach layer, you have what mach_absolute_time() returns, which is a 64-bit unsigned integer in platform-dependent units. Above that in the Mach (osfmk) and BSD (bsd) layers, it's mainly seconds since the Epoch and microseconds since that second, i.e. either struct timeval or other pairings of those values. time_t is signed, but in some of the other pairings, the seconds is unsigned (e.g., clock_sec_t).
Perhaps in some layered-atop-UN*X userland frameworks it's a double, but not down in the engine room.
I was under the impression that the entire POINT of SYS V was for the major UNIX vendors to re-implement the guts of Unix as a clearly, enforceably, proprietary product (after the CONTU recommendations and the resulting copyright law changes explicitly extended copyright to software), then move to it and orphan the original development thread. (This might make opening it a hard sell to the members of the consortium.)
To which version of System V are you referring? The original one, SVR2, SVR3, or SVR4 and later?
If you want a microkernel architecture, then why not OS X or at least Darwin?
Because neither Darwin nor OS X have a microkernel architecture.
We'll stop using the comma when you stop celebrating the bombing of the world trade centre November 9/11/2001 instead of September when it actually happened.
I think there are some folks on a small island off the coast of France who don't use the comma as a decimal separator and who label 2001-09-11 as 11/9/2001.
(But I suspect some folks in Europe might not consider the folks from that island Europeans.)
Or, rather, where you have to go through an annoying procedure, involving two reboots, to write to /usr or /bin.
If you think that's annoying, you should try working with SELinux some time.
I haven't tried actually working with it, but I've certainly been annoyed when it kept VMware's hgfs from working on Linux guests - it wasn't immediately obvious how to let it work. (I think my VMs running newer versions of Fedora don't have a problem with hgfs, so maybe either VMware or the SELinux people fixed it.)
PiS admires the Russian form of a 'strong government'. While it doesn't try to implement a carbon copy of it, PiS borrows some 'bright' ideas from both the Russian and Hungarian systems (nationalism, 'strong leader' with much power, mythical 'they' who are always to blame for the failures, etc.).
Ideas that were also present, at one point, in a certain country to the west of Poland that eventually went to war with the Soviet Union (after signing a deal with the Soviet Union to carve up Poland), so it's not as if this behavior is obviously "soviet" or "pro-Russian".
Although Anonymous Howard up there might be using "soviet" and "Stasi" just to mean "authoritarian", not to mean anything necessarily having to do with Soviet-style Communism, as per
so they could just as easily have said "Nazi" and "Gestapo".
East Europe is getting undermined by old pro-Russian political factions, in Poland for example, the ruling party has appointed 2 judges and changed the laws so that the court is effectively nullified without the vote of these 2 judges. It's also changed the appointment of TV executives on the state channel to be chosen by them. I'm sure they'd love to have control of surveillance too, the soviet parties miss the STASI level of control they had.
So you're saying PiS is pro-Russian?
Gatekeeper isn't for security. Gatekeeper is intended to make running non-Apple approved code just annoying enough to force most users to use the App Store rather than use non-Apple blessed code. As they've demonstrated with the latest OS X where not even root can write to /usr or /bin
Or, rather, where you have to go through an annoying procedure, involving two reboots, to write to /usr or /bin.
No, you're right. But the other thing is that Gatekeeper isn't intended to keep OS X secure. It's intended to make running non-Apple code annoying and nothing more.
To do that, it would have to be combined with making getting software from the Mac App Store, most of which is "non-Apple code", annoying. Presumably, then, you're saying that getting software from the Mac App Store is annoying.
Or perhaps you meant "it's intended to make non-Apple-approved code annoying", where "Apple-approved" means "approved by Apple to go into the Mac App Store". Whether that's the intent, yes, that's definitely a side-effect.
(I run non-App Store code quite a bit; for code installed by downloading a .dmg or installer package or..., it's a minor nuisance, and for stuff installed by downloading a source tarball, unpacking it, and doing the configure/make/make install dance or whatever that tarball requires, it doesn't come into play at all. At this instance, my biggest peeves with Apple software are 1) dealing with LLDB's misguided attempt to have a "better" command language than GDB and 2) having to teach Yosemite autocorrect that "sshd" isn't a typo for "sushi", "tarball" isn't a typo for "tarsal", etc.. :-))
iOS runs UNIX and you have absolutely no control over it.
OS X is officially a UNIX but as of the latest version you can't even use root to replace some of Apple's software with newer versions.
If you're referring to System Integrity Protection, then, if you want to replace some of Apple's software, feel free to disable System Integrity Protection. A bit of a painful process, but the setting persists, so you only have to do it once, unless you want to turn it back on once you're done and then turn it off again when you want to change one of the protected files.
(Pro tip for people running OS X under VMware Fusion: if you're going to be doing this, you'll probably want to increase the boot delay on your VM so that you have enough time to do the "boot to Recovery OS" dance. The Parallels folk don't require anything like that, apparently, but I haven't tried it with Parallels.)
A communist venture capitalist... what'll they think of next?
A stock exchange named after a Communist revolutionary leader? (Different "they", but still....)
a Volvo with Vista?
It would be even better if it were an Oldsmobile Vista Cruiser, but, unfortunately, GM no longer makes them and Microsoft, as far as I know, no longer offers Vista.
Listen sonny, back in my day we had punch cards.
Let's consult the TIOBE Index for December 2015. Hrm, nope. Punch cards don't figure in the top 50 languages. Too bad. Your day is done.
"Punch cards" probably isn't considered a programming language by the TIOBE folks, and, as far as I'm concerned, they're right not to do so, just it's proper for them not to consider "paper tape" and "text file" as programming languages.
Two languages that date back to the days of punched cards, and that were often input on punched cards, however, are in the top 25 languages - COBOL at 20 and Fortran at 22 - and RPG, another such language, is at 37.
You write your languages in C with ASM for the places it makes sense.
The GCC developers aren't using only C any more, and LLVM is written in C++, as is clang.
The low-level parts of language runtimes might be written in a mix of C and assembler, but that's another matter.
The Ultimate in "market share".
Yeah, but does Toto use Ubuntu in any of their products?
Depends on which country you're talking about.
-jcr
I'm talking about all of them. Are there any in which government schools aren't shit? If so, for each of those countries, what are they doing differently that makes their schools not shit?
That's the long and short of it. Until and unless we get competition in primary schooling, poor kids are going to keep getting ignored.
So are they not shit in those other countries? If not, what's responsible for that?
Why do you even bother responding to ACs?
In this case, for the lulz.
Wine is much less reliable and yields much lower performance than recompiling this same application with Winelib.
So are Microsoft using CodePlex or GitHub for the Office for Windows source code?
Hey guys, I learned how to dress a wound with my triangular bandage, I've obviously learned medicine.
Obama didn't learn to code, neither did that useless twat Cameron.
Yeah, but have you learned how to fuck a pig?
AMD bet on 64-bit, and won (64-bit). Intel's effort was Itanium, it is pretty much done for.
But Intel covered their bet on Itanium by doing their own x86-64 processors soon enough not to let AMD win much other than "yeah, we did it first". Intel really doesn't get much more corporate pride from Itanium than from Intel 64 - the Itanium architecture started out as an HP design, just as Intel 64 started out as an AMD design. They probably get more money from Intel 64 than from Itanium, and probably get more money from it than AMD gets from AMD64 as well.
But.. but... what about the separation of Church and Perl?
So what would Church think of Perl?