Reading this, Sure, my const int $var = 27; may look neat, but $var isn't entirely constant, or entirely an integer, it's just a hack which makes it sort of behave like one. Makes it clear that you don't know what you are talking about. The "what" is that Perl is a RAD(Rapid Application Development) language, and you use "really" as if that has any meaning in a RAD language.What has been call "scripting" or RAD Languages make simple contracts with the programmer.The programmer gives the interpreter/run-time general instructions, and it gets the work done.What constitutes a "real" constant or integer is meaningless. Guess what? If you declare "my const int $i = 27;" then follow that with "$i = 1;" you will certainly get a runtime error and probably a compile time error.
The first thing I haven't liked about Perl is that it didn't use exceptions and try/throw/catch syntax EVERYWHERE. I do network programming, and you can NEVER trust the network. And try/trhow/catch is better than "if (defined $rv) {...}" after every single last simple itty bitty stupid little elementary function call. Halleluha! Perl6 will have this.
The second thing I haven't liked about Perl (re: has bitten me on the ass) is doing compile-time checking of the arguments of functions and methods. Sub signatures work for functions but not for methods. BTW, there are other things like named arguments, and default arguments that would be good RAD thing to have. Halleluha! Perl6 will have this!
For other things, like switch statement (given/when), sigels for variable types are not gonna be context dependent, run-time hinting with attributes, switching '->' dereferencer to '.', and explicit declaration of classes (rather than manually creating them with package/new/bless)... well I like them, but they weren't on my hit list. However, I am sure someone else might disagree.
Perl6 is really going to address the elements of Perl5 that tripped up and slowed down my developement time. Hence, Perl6 looks like a new more powerfull tool for me to actually get work done with.
I think python and ruby look very interesting (well ruby more than that special education language called python). The problem. NO CPAN. CPAN is to Perl as Ports is to *BSD; as pkgs is to Debian; as MFC is to M$; as javax.* is to java. NO CPAN == NO GOOD. CPAN is the kluged up brilliant half baked promise of open source. Half the modules are sheer utter crap, but the other half...
The kind of nukes they want to use for bunker busters, are low yield "Neutron Bombs". [Forgive my poor memory of the science] I recall, they fuse Hydrogen and Lithium into Beryilium or some such combo. The key point is that they are fusing light atoms. Hence, no Cesium-128 fallout; which any big atom bomb will spew forth unto the world. These bombs are "cleaner" in so much as they have just as much radiation at detonation, but "clean" fallout.
These are the scary bombs. Crossing the Nuclear line is so much more tempting when you can reinhabit the scorched earth. Hopefully, this also results in some degree of deterance, knowing nuclear retaliation is more tolerable with "clean" nukes.
the USA is leaving Europe and Japan in the dust.
Is this an oblique reference to the Kyoto Protocol?
Nope. just a tragic, if crudely put, fact. A fella I met spent 6 months in France in a post doctorate position. His observation: "If science we're left to the french, we'ed all be chisleing out square wheels."
Europeans are the most violent sickening peoples. Today it is Chic' to all the euro-lusers to run around whining about US policy without taking any responsability upon themselves.
Scratch a european, and you'll uncover a racist who believes some untouchable governing force should solve their problems. Don't you find it revealing that they replace their paternal monarchies with paternal socialist governments. And just like during the monarchical times, the commoner bemoans the policies of the world governments. And when those european peasants usurp power, you get genocide and murder.
I don't think you or europeans take responsibilty for your inaction and appeasement. I don't agree with the US foreign policy. It is to often corperate and not democratic; and I believe that is where we get it trouble. But I also believe that it is imoral to have power and not use it (of course excerising power often corrupts:).
Re:The Problem Isn't Globalization, But Our Hypocr
on
Globalism Post 9/11
·
· Score: 2
We wouldn't "blow you to pieces", you would be assimilated like the Suburb or the US that you are.
BTW, you would have to fly a plane into a building for spite, or strap a bomb to your chest and blow your self up in a crowed place, to be considered a terrorist. The definition of Terrorism might be hard to clarify(think about the fire bombing of Dresden in WWII), but it isn't that hard to suss out.
As for hypocrasy, Canadians puhlease! They futz around with a useless language like French, just to pretend that they aren't really just the american-wannabees that they are. The slaughter Inuit like farmers kill prarie dogs, and then act like liberal bleeding heart europhiles. Can I get another PuhhLease!!
I interpreted "running away" as meaning the USA's level of "deveolopment" was "running away" (aka exceeding) from the level of the rest of the world. The quote was:
We seem to be running away from the world, and much of the world hates us for it. Such forces make America not only the world's leading superpower, but probably its most feared and hated nation.
This is mostly economic markets, and military, but for some incomprehensible reason Madonna (the old Britney) and McDonalds. Just goes to show that the rest of the world has as bad tast as we Americans.
Katz was repeating a revelation many people are starting have about the post-cold war world.
The "developmet" (as in "developed countries") of the United States of America is accelerating beyond the rest of the world. More vulgarly, the USA is leaving Europe and Japan in the dust. There used to be alot more parity, but Europe's socialism (>10% unemployment and fleeing capital) and Japan's monolopies/trusts have stagnated their economies.
Further, since the 1990s, the USA military capabilities have accelerated past whomever might have been called #2. Europe can barely help, militarily, in all these "coalitions". "Coalition" means that the USA engages in military action, and the rest of the "coalition" says "The US is doing this with our assent".
Many people are starting to realize the scale of differences of the USA's power/influence in economic, military, and cultural (mcdonalds and brittney spears ecchh!) affairs even compared to others in the "developed" world.
So, you are saying that if I, as a multi-billionaire, were to purchace... say, Gannet News Services, I could not use it as a platform for supporting political candidates (in exchange for future favors and access) while avoiding all of the McCain-Feingold regulations?
While, after re-reading, I don't like the tone of my own comment. You are just demonstrating my point that you are acting as a tool.
How does what you've suggested change from today? If I were a mutli-billionaire, TODAY PRE-McCain-Feingold, I could buy say Gannet News Services, and use it as a platform for supporting political candidates. [man I can't get past my sarcasm; character flaw I suppose]
You are just arguing that McCain-Feingold doesn't go far enough. I am very concerned that there will never be a "far enough". However, plugging the obvious holes in the the boat, now as we are sinking, might be a good idea; rather than debating whether other holes will open on the otherside of the boat.
Money is not free speach; Money is volume; you can turn the volume down so far you eliminate free speach; but you can also drown out free speach with a great volume as well.
The only monopoly allowed to use coercion to further propengate their interests is the Government. That's because monopolies are just proto-governments. That is why the Anti-trust laws were passed, because the Trusts lead by men like J.P. Morgan challenged the Federal Government of the US. J.P. Morgan (the head of the Sugar Trust) told Teddy Roosevelt (the president of the US) to "Have your man call my man and we can work this out". T.R.'s "man" was the Attorney General of the United States.
There are lots of very humorous (but scary) stories about how J.P. Morgan litterally bailed the US out from bankruptcy, and other acts we citizens today would find appaling and unbelievable in the influence of singular men over the full elected government of the US.
Your statement is interestingly naive; that monopolies (nee proto-governments) coercing markets (abuse of monopolies) is "pro-freedom".
Up is down, good is bad, monopolist coercion is freedom of choice. Yep! I'm convinced. So when I put a gun to your head and "request a monetary donation", that is not coercion that is freedom of choice (you can make another choice:).
2. Expand the power of unions, who are not bound by the new rules.
3. Expand the power of corportations who happen to own media outlets, because producing a 30-minute hatchet job on a candidate on "20/20" or "Nightline" is Free Speech, but a private citizen (or group of citizens) buying 30 minutes on the radio to do the same thing is Soft Money. Ditto for the difference between a two-page editorial and a one-page ad.
What universe are you living in? McCain-Feingold is about money to the National Party organizations. One of the critisism of McCain-Feingold is that it doesn't address the completely partisan "issue-ads" by "third parties".
As for believing it favors the Unions is any particular way, and "empowers" the Media is some NEW way is unfounded and unsupported (here and by you). You are just a ignorant fool who believes to much from partisan talking heads who "float trial balloons". One of those "trial balloons" is the gives-the-media-more-power. Unfortunatedly this argument has been shown to only work for those who are already Republican partisans. Guess what? you proved them right!
BTW, to enlighten you, there are a better arguments against McCain-Feingold (other that the ususal it-doesn't-go-far-enough argument). Since the pending legislation only speaks to the National Party organizations, it will be trivial for the National Parties to orchistrate the money (aka bribes) into the State Party organizations. McCain-Feingold will be stillborn if it is ever passed. Duh! Moron!
Why don't you read the US Constitution and point out where the word "property" or "money" is used? The best you'll find is the 4th amendment "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonbale searches and seizures,...". Keep in mind the context of the writting of the US Constitution; Red Coats taking wepons, billeting their soldiers on your nice plantation, seizing your property to pay for the suppression the revolution, and generally makeing a mockery out of there own legitimate governing authority.
Thomas Jefferson and others specifically fought the Federalists, from defining a right of property. Had the Federalists defined a right of property, then the Common Law principle of Eminent Domain would have been curtailed/eliminated. With out Eminent Domain, there are no railroads (re: industrial revolution in the US), no telephones (re: information revolution in the US), Interstate Highways, Dams, and many other works for the public good. Without a strong dose of so-called "Socialism" we wouldn't be the most powerful country on the Earth (BTW cute factoid: more people emigrate to the US per anum, than emigrate into all the other nations of the world combined).
The US Constitution does not define the US as Free Market society (I avoid the misused term of "Capitalism" intentionally). However, Free Markets and Constitutional Democracy seem a really usefull combo for governence and distribution of resources. Both are grass roots oriented (aka populist) and based on distributed decision making.
Don't get fooled by utterly simplistic choices like "Socialism" XOR "Capitalism". There are so many more dimentions the the issues of governence and resource management.
I'm sorry to have to correct you here it is Terrorists/Child Molestors/Ponographers/Drug Dealers. We are off the Nazis since the war was over. Now people look back on the Nazis and say "At least they made the trains run on time".
OSS was a grand project but it sucked royally because it forced module use.
Then you will LOVE the 2.5+ kernels. Soon the kernel will be module only. They are creating a new kernel boot format that will pack all the modules with the kernel. There will be a few more tricks to keep modules close in memory (for platforms which distinguish short jumps from long ones). Wallah! no more bifurcated init code (one code for compiled in and another for modules).
There was no stock 2.4.9 in the test; only RedHat's highly modified 2.4.9.
RH 2.4.9 is a lot like the ac kernels. Mainly because, Alan runs that part of the RH distro. But, there are many concerns that RedHat addresses. They work with corperate customers and partners (like Oracle) to make sure the kernel they ship is as stable and fast as they can get it. So the RH kernel does diverge from the "plain" AC kernel.
Of course they submit all their patches back to Linus. But Linus just hasn't been keeping up with them. Linux accepts patches based on three factors: his previous experience with the developer submitting the patch, the "correctness" of the patch, and the phase of the moon. And the phase of the moon is the dominant factor, because even Alan Cox complains that Linus won't accept his patches.
So the RH kernel is excellent because Alan Cox, RedHat, and RedHat's corperate partners make sure the kernel is fully fleshed out. This is the kind of vetting that Linus doesn't do.
"If it compiles it is Good, if it boots it is Perfect!" -Linus Torvals.
I am a long time Linux/RedHat user. I definitely plan on trying out FreeBSD 4.5 and 5.0.
I believe 5.0 will bring FreeBSD's kernel up to rough parity with the Linux kernel. FreeBSD's KSE and Security infrastructure will definitely be ahead of Linux equivalents. Kqueue is already ahead of linux async IO. I'd like to find out how far
and how good FreeBSD's kernel module system works.
But as I've said before fine grained locking is HARD. It'll take some time to settle out.
Also, from the interview, I didn't quite understand his use of the term "Preemptable Kernel". On one had he said they are adding more scheduling points in the code. But that isn't strictly a "preemptable kernel" ala Robert Love's work in the Linux kernel.
I have also heard that FreeBSD is going to integrate the NetBSD init dependency rc system. Which, depending on how you look at it, is catching up to what SysV init does, or accomplishing the intention of Sysv init in a better way. Does anyone here know if FreeBSD is committed to adopting NetBSD's rc system by some specified release? 4.5? 5.0?
FreeBSD/Linux cross polination will be interesting.
Not to be contrarian. I found the MacOS to be so blurry that I thought your post might be a joke. The fonts on the MacOS image were smaller than the Xft example screen dump, but even then I thought the Xft were cleaner.
Not to be to dismisive, but the Cato institute are single minded appologists for all things corperate.
I perused the pdf. Repeatedly they assert that all the bad behaviors of monopoly abuse (price fixing, tieing, etc) will magically be corrected by the "market". They never address the charge that monopolies eliminate the "free"(libre) in "free market". They blindly claim that market magic will fix any problems. Even if that claim is true, it is only after protracted distortions and damage to the markets and competion.
Anti-Trust laws exist for very good reasons based on a long history of dramatically bad consequences. They are not a result of some covert socialist agenda.
Anti-Trust law 101. What you call "bundling" is called "Tieing". When a company holds a monopoly in a market, they are specifically prohibited from "tieing" non-monopoly products with their monopoly products.
Remember it is not illegal to be a monopoly. But once you are a monopoly, the rules change for you. Things that were once common sense business tactics and legal are now illegal. Using your monopoly in one area to gain leverage for another product is ILLEGAL.
Anti-Trust laws were created after the Robber barrons of the Railroads and Sugar Trusts and other scandals of the early 1900s. You don't want to go back to those times, trust me or read a book on the subject.
I read LKML, this comment by Alan Cox was off handed and joking. I probably truely indicates Alan Cox's inclination, but there is alot of possabilities between his statement and some hypothetical aquisition of RedHat.
Second, AOLTW is a very technical company. Almost always they promote from within. They recognized technical ability; even more so when technical ability is matched with the simple ability to communicate. Layoffs are where this gets flakey, because then you are judged by these Corperate employee reviews (which are misleading at best).
Third, I personally believe there is no way in HELL that AOL is going to aquire RedHat. That story was rumor. These rumors swarm about AOL like flies on dung (hmmm..bad metaphor:). AOL is an aquisitive company, like Cisco or others. They don't care if a good idea wasn't invented internally, they just don't like being tied to a company that might fail. Actually, alot of the aquisitons are for companies they became dependent on, who were failing dispite having a huge customer like AOL.
I was part of a company that was aquired by AOL, and I chuckle at it cuz AOL got screwed in the aquisition. I subsequently left AOL for a better offer and commute.
A couple more observations from my time there:
- AOL is proud of the Internet-on-training-wheels moniker.
- AOL creates a simple client (the email part of the client is prehistoric), because TECH SUPPORT IS FREE. They want a client that people don't need to call tech support for, cuz tech support costs come straight out of the bottom line. Compare that to other companies pay-for-support *cough*microsoft*cough. Those kind of companies produce buggy CRAP! but with lots of features.
- AOL is Linux's friend. Their internal use of Linux is going thru the roof. They produced a AOL-appliance using Linux. They will continue to exploit Linux in server and dedicated client for along time coming, just like the rest of the industry.
- The last point means that there is at least ONE HUGE corperate consumer telling OEMs to improve their linux support for software and hardware, or AOL will talk to their competitor. No company takes loosing AOL's buisness lightly. They spend $BILLIONS$ a year on technology.
I've done just this. But I beefed up the machines to my own expectations.
The Hi-end iMac 512MB RAM + wireless.
Compared to a Dell 4300S.
The dell has 80 v. 60 GB disk, no wireless, only 100Mb ethernet v 1Gb, 15" flat screen, a DVD-ROM drive (not DVD-RW; there was no option), MS Office v. Apple Works. The dell has no firewire support or USB 2.0 support.
The Dell cost ~$1850 the Apple cost ~1950. Manually, add to the dell a wireless card, a DVD-RW drive to the Dell, and other missing feartures, and add to the iMac MS Office; you still end up with a close price.
Basically, the Apple is better designed and more "unique" looking, packed with excellent default features, and cost less than %5 more.
I've built every one of my 4-5 computers from individually purchased parts. I hate the PC, but I love the price and Linux. I'd be tempted to buy an iMac, especially one of those CHOICE G4 titanium laptops!!!
I have seen Miguel at conferences. He is like a manic-depressive bipolar, but with out the depressive part.
The man was born with a Thyroid gland kicked into high gear (I am not a doctor; just a figure of speach). Add being intelligent, and you've got "Busy Miguel".
He became visible contributing to the Linux Kernel, then he started the Gnome project, and now he is writing a compiler and JITing runtime for a complex system. The guy is not afraid to jump into hard, boardering on impossible, jobs.
May be he is a Mexican Ethan Hunt.:)
Re:OT: question about hyper operators.
on
Parrot Updates
·
· Score: 1
You wrote:
Why would you opt for this explicit iterator syntax?
This was my motivation/answer:
With iterators alot of the large list I walk in my day job, could be handled much more intelligently and efficiently. We use POE and don't want one state to block others for too long.
I will try to expand on this. POE is an Perl module that gives the programmer a framework to write state machines. It can be used to make your program behaive alot like a multi-threaded application (ie. doing two things a once). I does this by slicing your work into descrete chunks (re: states). However, POE is a cooperative multitasking system. If your state takes alot of time, while something else (like network traffic) has to be handled, that other thing will be ignored/dropped/whatever.
The Point: It would be helpful to be able to do array/hash manipulations efficiently (not using indexing or copying out a list of keys) AND to use arrays/hashes X number at a time, then go do something else, then comeback and do X more manipulations.
Further, iterators map well to how we interact with external data sources. Imagine tie()ing a hash to a SQL DB view, and using hyper-operators or iterators on big data.
BTW, this is my point. I work with big datasets. Each machine we have keeps statistics, by the minute, of the OS and processes. Other administrative machines sum up all the data collected for a cluster of machines. We aggregate that data into a machine for clusters of clusters. And finnaly we have a machine with the aggregates of all our machines. Roughly 3,000 machines world wide. Our processes must be able to both aggregate data from its children, but also respond to its' parent's queries at the same time. Iterators would really help.
Hyper-operators are cool for doing all your work in one fell swoop (even if it takes 10 seconds). Iterators are good for walking a list, stopping for some reason (like the data item you just iterated over required immediate action), then getting back to work on the list. If I had to do a (0..1_000_000) $a[$i] indexing or keys %hash for a hash with 500_000 keys, I could run out of memory or wait 60 seconds just for the copy to finish.
Here is a good quote: "Threads are for programmers who don't know how to program state machines" -Alan Cox.
DISCLAIMER: I do this cuz I like flamage. FreeBSD is a decent and valuable OS.
But I love to hear whining lamers from the *BSD world bitch about linux kernel short commings. Gee, couldn't get XFS running by inmod'ing the binary into a fresh kernel. Well XFS on FreeBSD will save the day? Ooops, no XFS on FreeBSD you say, well that solves your problem. Less features makes it much harder to screw up. No one fooled you, No one advertised otherwise; The misconception comes from rejects from the proprietary OS world where closed-source REQUIRES binary kernel driver compatability.
BTW, bitching about binary compatability of kernel modules, in a open source OS; PuhLeeaase! The linux kernel, of all open source kernels, doesn't give two shits about binary kernel module compatability.
no more retarded Linux VM
Oh lord of all mercy! Commetary from the below 100 crowd, Joy. Linux's VM did have serious suckage, news at 11. But these things become harder when you actually have FEATURES. Like fine grained locking of all the major sub-systems. FreeBSD 4.x is languishing in the BKL world of Linux 2.x. Wow what superior technology! Look at how SMP-ng in the upcoming FreeBSD 5.0 is lagging behind schedule. That is because it is HARD, not EASY. So yeah the FreeBSD VM is well balanced, but it's maintainer admits it's short commings, and BSD as a whole lags far behind Linux in many other areas (like your beloved XFS filesystem).
I'd like to state once more for the non-moron *BSD crowd, that the *BSDs are great and I hope competiion between *BSDs and Linux is as productive as the Gnome v. KDE competiion seems to have been.
Re:OT: question about hyper operators.
on
Parrot Updates
·
· Score: 1
Is there a reason these hyper meta-operators only scratched the surface to the concept?
Two possabilities come to mind:
1) My answer was limited by my knowlege of how far Larry Wall is going with this stuff.
2) Perl guys are getting gun shy about creating line-noise like syntax.
What I want to see is explicit iterators. Then you would have the power/freedom to create a syntax enhancement module to create line noise syntax.
What I mean about explicit iterators is very Object Oriented idea like:
my $iter_a = @a.iterator;
my $iter_b = @b.iterator;
while ( !$iter.atend and !$iter.atend) {
  $iter_a.next += $iter_b.next;
}
With iterators alot of the large list I walk in my day job, could be handled much more intelligently and efficiently. We use POE and don't want one state to block others for too long.
You could build a syntax modifying module to emulate K very efficiently.
Re:OT: question about hyper operators.
on
Parrot Updates
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Perl6 is not going to be as explict about this as K apparently is. In perl6 we already know the context of variable because of all the $@% stuff. So we don't need to specify left/right variations of the same operator.
Your examples become:
@x = (1, 2, 3);
@y = (10, 20, 30);
$z = 100;
@x ^+ @y is (11, 22, 33)
@x ^+ $z or $z ^+ @x is (101,102,103)
$z ^+ @y or @y ^+ $z is (110,120,130)
# There is probably a more clever Perl6 way
# also correctness is not guranteed
map { ($_ ^+ @y) } @x is (11 21 31; 12 22 32; 13; 23 33)
map { ($_ ^+ @x) } @y is (11 12 13; 21 22 23; 31 32 33)
There is no @a ^^+ @b for the last two examples, but you might be able to defined your own operators and have the hyperoperator work on it.
But Perl6 does not seem to want to go as far as your language K does. However, modifying the syntaxt of Perl6 on the fly is going to be VERY easy. Something like:
Kbuild is the new Makefile system. As you said "make dep" is reliable, faster compiles (search google for "recursive makefiles harmful", more parallelism in the make (same recursive makefile problem), easier for developers to use.
CML2 is the rule system for features to be compiled into the kernel. The rule solver is built in python.I am a perl guy, but I see no problem with this. Unified text, curses, and GUI configurator. The problem it solves is it is possible to compile a kernel with features requiring subsystems like SysV IPC, but not actually having SysV IPC included in the kernel build.
These efforts are complementary. Makefiles are the low level rules to compile code and CML2 is the high level rules for whole features/subsystems.
Slashdot Mirror
The first thing I haven't liked about Perl is that it didn't use exceptions and try/throw/catch syntax EVERYWHERE. I do network programming, and you can NEVER trust the network. And try/trhow/catch is better than "if (defined $rv) {...}" after every single last simple itty bitty stupid little elementary function call. Halleluha! Perl6 will have this.
The second thing I haven't liked about Perl (re: has bitten me on the ass) is doing compile-time checking of the arguments of functions and methods. Sub signatures work for functions but not for methods. BTW, there are other things like named arguments, and default arguments that would be good RAD thing to have. Halleluha! Perl6 will have this!
For other things, like switch statement (given/when), sigels for variable types are not gonna be context dependent, run-time hinting with attributes, switching '->' dereferencer to '.', and explicit declaration of classes (rather than manually creating them with package/new/bless) ... well I like them, but they weren't on my hit list. However, I am sure someone else might disagree.
Perl6 is really going to address the elements of Perl5 that tripped up and slowed down my developement time. Hence, Perl6 looks like a new more powerfull tool for me to actually get work done with.
I think python and ruby look very interesting (well ruby more than that special education language called python). The problem. NO CPAN. CPAN is to Perl as Ports is to *BSD; as pkgs is to Debian; as MFC is to M$; as javax.* is to java. NO CPAN == NO GOOD. CPAN is the kluged up brilliant half baked promise of open source. Half the modules are sheer utter crap, but the other half...
These are the scary bombs. Crossing the Nuclear line is so much more tempting when you can reinhabit the scorched earth. Hopefully, this also results in some degree of deterance, knowing nuclear retaliation is more tolerable with "clean" nukes.
Is this an oblique reference to the Kyoto Protocol?
Nope. just a tragic, if crudely put, fact. A fella I met spent 6 months in France in a post doctorate position. His observation: "If science we're left to the french, we'ed all be chisleing out square wheels."
Europeans are the most violent sickening peoples. Today it is Chic' to all the euro-lusers to run around whining about US policy without taking any responsability upon themselves.
Scratch a european, and you'll uncover a racist who believes some untouchable governing force should solve their problems. Don't you find it revealing that they replace their paternal monarchies with paternal socialist governments. And just like during the monarchical times, the commoner bemoans the policies of the world governments. And when those european peasants usurp power, you get genocide and murder.
I don't think you or europeans take responsibilty for your inaction and appeasement. I don't agree with the US foreign policy. It is to often corperate and not democratic; and I believe that is where we get it trouble. But I also believe that it is imoral to have power and not use it (of course excerising power often corrupts :).
BTW, you would have to fly a plane into a building for spite, or strap a bomb to your chest and blow your self up in a crowed place, to be considered a terrorist. The definition of Terrorism might be hard to clarify(think about the fire bombing of Dresden in WWII), but it isn't that hard to suss out.
As for hypocrasy, Canadians puhlease! They futz around with a useless language like French, just to pretend that they aren't really just the american-wannabees that they are. The slaughter Inuit like farmers kill prarie dogs, and then act like liberal bleeding heart europhiles. Can I get another PuhhLease!!
This is mostly economic markets, and military, but for some incomprehensible reason Madonna (the old Britney) and McDonalds. Just goes to show that the rest of the world has as bad tast as we Americans.
The "developmet" (as in "developed countries") of the United States of America is accelerating beyond the rest of the world. More vulgarly, the USA is leaving Europe and Japan in the dust. There used to be alot more parity, but Europe's socialism (>10% unemployment and fleeing capital) and Japan's monolopies/trusts have stagnated their economies.
Further, since the 1990s, the USA military capabilities have accelerated past whomever might have been called #2. Europe can barely help, militarily, in all these "coalitions". "Coalition" means that the USA engages in military action, and the rest of the "coalition" says "The US is doing this with our assent".
Many people are starting to realize the scale of differences of the USA's power/influence in economic, military, and cultural (mcdonalds and brittney spears ecchh!) affairs even compared to others in the "developed" world.
While, after re-reading, I don't like the tone of my own comment. You are just demonstrating my point that you are acting as a tool.
How does what you've suggested change from today? If I were a mutli-billionaire, TODAY PRE-McCain-Feingold, I could buy say Gannet News Services, and use it as a platform for supporting political candidates. [man I can't get past my sarcasm; character flaw I suppose]
You are just arguing that McCain-Feingold doesn't go far enough. I am very concerned that there will never be a "far enough". However, plugging the obvious holes in the the boat, now as we are sinking, might be a good idea; rather than debating whether other holes will open on the otherside of the boat.
Money is not free speach; Money is volume; you can turn the volume down so far you eliminate free speach; but you can also drown out free speach with a great volume as well.
There are lots of very humorous (but scary) stories about how J.P. Morgan litterally bailed the US out from bankruptcy, and other acts we citizens today would find appaling and unbelievable in the influence of singular men over the full elected government of the US.
Your statement is interestingly naive; that monopolies (nee proto-governments) coercing markets (abuse of monopolies) is "pro-freedom".
Up is down, good is bad, monopolist coercion is freedom of choice. Yep! I'm convinced. So when I put a gun to your head and "request a monetary donation", that is not coercion that is freedom of choice (you can make another choice:).
What universe are you living in? McCain-Feingold is about money to the National Party organizations. One of the critisism of McCain-Feingold is that it doesn't address the completely partisan "issue-ads" by "third parties".
As for believing it favors the Unions is any particular way, and "empowers" the Media is some NEW way is unfounded and unsupported (here and by you). You are just a ignorant fool who believes to much from partisan talking heads who "float trial balloons". One of those "trial balloons" is the gives-the-media-more-power. Unfortunatedly this argument has been shown to only work for those who are already Republican partisans. Guess what? you proved them right!
BTW, to enlighten you, there are a better arguments against McCain-Feingold (other that the ususal it-doesn't-go-far-enough argument). Since the pending legislation only speaks to the National Party organizations, it will be trivial for the National Parties to orchistrate the money (aka bribes) into the State Party organizations. McCain-Feingold will be stillborn if it is ever passed. Duh! Moron!
Thomas Jefferson and others specifically fought the Federalists, from defining a right of property. Had the Federalists defined a right of property, then the Common Law principle of Eminent Domain would have been curtailed/eliminated. With out Eminent Domain, there are no railroads (re: industrial revolution in the US), no telephones (re: information revolution in the US), Interstate Highways, Dams, and many other works for the public good. Without a strong dose of so-called "Socialism" we wouldn't be the most powerful country on the Earth (BTW cute factoid: more people emigrate to the US per anum, than emigrate into all the other nations of the world combined).
The US Constitution does not define the US as Free Market society (I avoid the misused term of "Capitalism" intentionally). However, Free Markets and Constitutional Democracy seem a really usefull combo for governence and distribution of resources. Both are grass roots oriented (aka populist) and based on distributed decision making.
Don't get fooled by utterly simplistic choices like "Socialism" XOR "Capitalism". There are so many more dimentions the the issues of governence and resource management.
I'm sorry to have to correct you here it is Terrorists/Child Molestors/Ponographers/Drug Dealers. We are off the Nazis since the war was over. Now people look back on the Nazis and say "At least they made the trains run on time".
Then you will LOVE the 2.5+ kernels. Soon the kernel will be module only. They are creating a new kernel boot format that will pack all the modules with the kernel. There will be a few more tricks to keep modules close in memory (for platforms which distinguish short jumps from long ones). Wallah! no more bifurcated init code (one code for compiled in and another for modules).
Good luck for all the module haters. :)
There was no stock 2.4.9 in the test; only RedHat's highly modified 2.4.9.
RH 2.4.9 is a lot like the ac kernels. Mainly because, Alan runs that part of the RH distro. But, there are many concerns that RedHat addresses. They work with corperate customers and partners (like Oracle) to make sure the kernel they ship is as stable and fast as they can get it. So the RH kernel does diverge from the "plain" AC kernel.
Of course they submit all their patches back to Linus. But Linus just hasn't been keeping up with them. Linux accepts patches based on three factors: his previous experience with the developer submitting the patch, the "correctness" of the patch, and the phase of the moon. And the phase of the moon is the dominant factor, because even Alan Cox complains that Linus won't accept his patches.
So the RH kernel is excellent because Alan Cox, RedHat, and RedHat's corperate partners make sure the kernel is fully fleshed out. This is the kind of vetting that Linus doesn't do.
"If it compiles it is Good, if it boots it is Perfect!" -Linus Torvals.
I am a long time Linux/RedHat user. I definitely plan on trying out FreeBSD 4.5 and 5.0.
I believe 5.0 will bring FreeBSD's kernel up to rough parity with the Linux kernel. FreeBSD's KSE and Security infrastructure will definitely be ahead of Linux equivalents. Kqueue is already ahead of linux async IO. I'd like to find out how far
and how good FreeBSD's kernel module system works.
But as I've said before fine grained locking is HARD. It'll take some time to settle out.
Also, from the interview, I didn't quite understand his use of the term "Preemptable Kernel". On one had he said they are adding more scheduling points in the code. But that isn't strictly a "preemptable kernel" ala Robert Love's work in the Linux kernel.
I have also heard that FreeBSD is going to integrate the NetBSD init dependency rc system. Which, depending on how you look at it, is catching up to what SysV init does, or accomplishing the intention of Sysv init in a better way. Does anyone here know if FreeBSD is committed to adopting NetBSD's rc system by some specified release? 4.5? 5.0?
FreeBSD/Linux cross polination will be interesting.
Not to be contrarian. I found the MacOS to be so blurry that I thought your post might be a joke. The fonts on the MacOS image were smaller than the Xft example screen dump, but even then I thought the Xft were cleaner.
Not to be to dismisive, but the Cato institute are single minded appologists for all things corperate.
I perused the pdf. Repeatedly they assert that all the bad behaviors of monopoly abuse (price fixing, tieing, etc) will magically be corrected by the "market". They never address the charge that monopolies eliminate the "free"(libre) in "free market". They blindly claim that market magic will fix any problems. Even if that claim is true, it is only after protracted distortions and damage to the markets and competion.
Anti-Trust laws exist for very good reasons based on a long history of dramatically bad consequences. They are not a result of some covert socialist agenda.
Anti-Trust law 101. What you call "bundling" is called "Tieing". When a company holds a monopoly in a market, they are specifically prohibited from "tieing" non-monopoly products with their monopoly products.
Remember it is not illegal to be a monopoly. But once you are a monopoly, the rules change for you. Things that were once common sense business tactics and legal are now illegal. Using your monopoly in one area to gain leverage for another product is ILLEGAL.
Anti-Trust laws were created after the Robber barrons of the Railroads and Sugar Trusts and other scandals of the early 1900s. You don't want to go back to those times, trust me or read a book on the subject.
I read LKML, this comment by Alan Cox was off handed and joking. I probably truely indicates Alan Cox's inclination, but there is alot of possabilities between his statement and some hypothetical aquisition of RedHat.
:). AOL is an aquisitive company, like Cisco or others. They don't care if a good idea wasn't invented internally, they just don't like being tied to a company that might fail. Actually, alot of the aquisitons are for companies they became dependent on, who were failing dispite having a huge customer like AOL.
Second, AOLTW is a very technical company. Almost always they promote from within. They recognized technical ability; even more so when technical ability is matched with the simple ability to communicate. Layoffs are where this gets flakey, because then you are judged by these Corperate employee reviews (which are misleading at best).
Third, I personally believe there is no way in HELL that AOL is going to aquire RedHat. That story was rumor. These rumors swarm about AOL like flies on dung (hmmm..bad metaphor
I was part of a company that was aquired by AOL, and I chuckle at it cuz AOL got screwed in the aquisition. I subsequently left AOL for a better offer and commute.
A couple more observations from my time there:
- AOL is proud of the Internet-on-training-wheels moniker.
- AOL creates a simple client (the email part of the client is prehistoric), because TECH SUPPORT IS FREE. They want a client that people don't need to call tech support for, cuz tech support costs come straight out of the bottom line. Compare that to other companies pay-for-support *cough*microsoft*cough. Those kind of companies produce buggy CRAP! but with lots of features.
- AOL is Linux's friend. Their internal use of Linux is going thru the roof. They produced a AOL-appliance using Linux. They will continue to exploit Linux in server and dedicated client for along time coming, just like the rest of the industry.
- The last point means that there is at least ONE HUGE corperate consumer telling OEMs to improve their linux support for software and hardware, or AOL will talk to their competitor. No company takes loosing AOL's buisness lightly. They spend $BILLIONS$ a year on technology.
- AOL pays for Mozilla/Gecko (nuff said).
No worries.
I've done just this. But I beefed up the machines to my own expectations.
The Hi-end iMac 512MB RAM + wireless.
Compared to a Dell 4300S.
The dell has 80 v. 60 GB disk, no wireless, only 100Mb ethernet v 1Gb, 15" flat screen, a DVD-ROM drive (not DVD-RW; there was no option), MS Office v. Apple Works. The dell has no firewire support or USB 2.0 support.
The Dell cost ~$1850 the Apple cost ~1950. Manually, add to the dell a wireless card, a DVD-RW drive to the Dell, and other missing feartures, and add to the iMac MS Office; you still end up with a close price.
Basically, the Apple is better designed and more "unique" looking, packed with excellent default features, and cost less than %5 more.
I've built every one of my 4-5 computers from individually purchased parts. I hate the PC, but I love the price and Linux. I'd be tempted to buy an iMac, especially one of those CHOICE G4 titanium laptops!!!
I have seen Miguel at conferences. He is like a manic-depressive bipolar, but with out the depressive part.
:)
The man was born with a Thyroid gland kicked into high gear (I am not a doctor; just a figure of speach). Add being intelligent, and you've got "Busy Miguel".
He became visible contributing to the Linux Kernel, then he started the Gnome project, and now he is writing a compiler and JITing runtime for a complex system. The guy is not afraid to jump into hard, boardering on impossible, jobs.
May be he is a Mexican Ethan Hunt.
Why would you opt for this explicit iterator syntax?
This was my motivation/answer:
With iterators alot of the large list I walk in my day job, could be handled much more intelligently and efficiently. We use POE and don't want one state to block others for too long.
I will try to expand on this. POE is an Perl module that gives the programmer a framework to write state machines. It can be used to make your program behaive alot like a multi-threaded application (ie. doing two things a once). I does this by slicing your work into descrete chunks (re: states). However, POE is a cooperative multitasking system. If your state takes alot of time, while something else (like network traffic) has to be handled, that other thing will be ignored/dropped/whatever.
The Point: It would be helpful to be able to do array/hash manipulations efficiently (not using indexing or copying out a list of keys) AND to use arrays/hashes X number at a time, then go do something else, then comeback and do X more manipulations.
Further, iterators map well to how we interact with external data sources. Imagine tie()ing a hash to a SQL DB view, and using hyper-operators or iterators on big data.
BTW, this is my point. I work with big datasets. Each machine we have keeps statistics, by the minute, of the OS and processes. Other administrative machines sum up all the data collected for a cluster of machines. We aggregate that data into a machine for clusters of clusters. And finnaly we have a machine with the aggregates of all our machines. Roughly 3,000 machines world wide. Our processes must be able to both aggregate data from its children, but also respond to its' parent's queries at the same time. Iterators would really help.
Hyper-operators are cool for doing all your work in one fell swoop (even if it takes 10 seconds). Iterators are good for walking a list, stopping for some reason (like the data item you just iterated over required immediate action), then getting back to work on the list. If I had to do a (0..1_000_000) $a[$i] indexing or keys %hash for a hash with 500_000 keys, I could run out of memory or wait 60 seconds just for the copy to finish.
Here is a good quote: "Threads are for programmers who don't know how to program state machines" -Alan Cox.
Later.
But I love to hear whining lamers from the *BSD world bitch about linux kernel short commings. Gee, couldn't get XFS running by inmod'ing the binary into a fresh kernel. Well XFS on FreeBSD will save the day? Ooops, no XFS on FreeBSD you say, well that solves your problem. Less features makes it much harder to screw up. No one fooled you, No one advertised otherwise; The misconception comes from rejects from the proprietary OS world where closed-source REQUIRES binary kernel driver compatability.
BTW, bitching about binary compatability of kernel modules, in a open source OS; PuhLeeaase! The linux kernel, of all open source kernels, doesn't give two shits about binary kernel module compatability.
no more retarded Linux VM
Oh lord of all mercy! Commetary from the below 100 crowd, Joy. Linux's VM did have serious suckage, news at 11. But these things become harder when you actually have FEATURES. Like fine grained locking of all the major sub-systems. FreeBSD 4.x is languishing in the BKL world of Linux 2.x. Wow what superior technology! Look at how SMP-ng in the upcoming FreeBSD 5.0 is lagging behind schedule. That is because it is HARD, not EASY. So yeah the FreeBSD VM is well balanced, but it's maintainer admits it's short commings, and BSD as a whole lags far behind Linux in many other areas (like your beloved XFS filesystem).
I'd like to state once more for the non-moron *BSD crowd, that the *BSDs are great and I hope competiion between *BSDs and Linux is as productive as the Gnome v. KDE competiion seems to have been.
Two possabilities come to mind:
1) My answer was limited by my knowlege of how far Larry Wall is going with this stuff.
2) Perl guys are getting gun shy about creating line-noise like syntax.
What I want to see is explicit iterators. Then you would have the power/freedom to create a syntax enhancement module to create line noise syntax.
What I mean about explicit iterators is very Object Oriented idea like:
With iterators alot of the large list I walk in my day job, could be handled much more intelligently and efficiently. We use POE and don't want one state to block others for too long.You could build a syntax modifying module to emulate K very efficiently.
Your examples become:
There is no @a ^^+ @b for the last two examples, but you might be able to defined your own operators and have the hyperoperator work on it.
But Perl6 does not seem to want to go as far as your language K does. However, modifying the syntaxt of Perl6 on the fly is going to be VERY easy. Something like:
-LL.
Kbuild is the new Makefile system. As you said "make dep" is reliable, faster compiles (search google for "recursive makefiles harmful", more parallelism in the make (same recursive makefile problem), easier for developers to use.
CML2 is the rule system for features to be compiled into the kernel. The rule solver is built in python.I am a perl guy, but I see no problem with this. Unified text, curses, and GUI configurator. The problem it solves is it is possible to compile a kernel with features requiring subsystems like SysV IPC, but not actually having SysV IPC included in the kernel build.
These efforts are complementary. Makefiles are the low level rules to compile code and CML2 is the high level rules for whole features/subsystems.