I think they are doing it mostly for installers (their own installer, primarily). Otherwise ext2 support is a must.
But still, they plan to port it to Windows, so you can make changes from within Windows, without having to shell out a bunch of bucks for Partition Magic. --
It seems like there has been six Amiga stories here just in the last two weeks. In comparison, before that it took half a year to come up with just as many Amiga stories.
Something is cooking with the Amiga (and keeping up with comp.sys.amiga.misc is next to impossible).
But to stay on topic: I thought Amiga said in their tech brief that they would build something new on top of X. I am not sure I see E fit in there. Then again; you never know when Amiga changes its mind again:-). --
Also, only 2.2.10 has the fix for that latest Denial-of-Service bug in the networking code.
Given how few people has problems with 2.2.10, I would recommend that version - even though it might fail on a few, it has at least as good a chance of success as any previous version. --
Re:Trojan horses are hard to protect against
on
BO2K cracked
·
· Score: 1
Yes, okay - I can agree with that.
My point was that BO does not show Windows NT to be especially bad at security - BO could have been for any platform.
But we agree, and this has been discussed enough, so I will stop here. --
Trojan horses are hard to protect against
on
BO2K cracked
·
· Score: 3
BO is a trojan horse. If you can get a user to run an executeable, you have him fscked. If I send someone a Linux executeable which modifies his login script to start a telnet server (modified to not require a login, of course) on some non standard (>1024) port, he has his account wide open. Anything he can do, you can log in and do as well. Is this a security flaw of Linux?
You cannot prevent users from doing such things, under any OS. As such I think Microsoft is right that this is not really a security problem in Windows.
Now, I do not know if BO gives administrator rights to the invader. If it does, then *that* would be a security problem. But letting people install programs is not.
Of course, you could make users unable to run programs from $HOME at all, but that would be unacceptable in many circumstances. --
Two things: as far as I recall, Gnome and KDE merged to use the same drag'n'drop protocol. To me this is a sign that when it really matters, even "competing" free projects are smart enough to do the technically best thing. We have five (or fifty?) different window managers because there are different needs - but for a DnD protocol the number one need is that you can D anywhere.
Second, the growing rate might be eight times that of NT, but this means little without context. Consider that the user base of Linux had already grown by 1000% when person number ten downloaded version 0.03 (or whatever). --
``Today the browsers have gotten rich enough that it's not the kind of software that you can develop and test in a university-type of environment,'' he said.
I guess he means something like Open Source by "university-type of environment." Time will surely tell if you can develop browsers in that kind of environment. I have great hopes for Mozilla, though I haven't seen much yet.
relatively simple applications such as word processing and spreadsheets
I fail to find a reference, but wasn't there some quote some time ago that said something along the lines of the free software community being unable to develop advanced features. Features like that red line in their on-the-fly spell checker? Now word processors are suddenly simple stuff?
He is right, though, that everything is working with each other in Windows. Well, as long as you do not install too much stuff that was not shipped directly on the Windows CD. But nowadays, you (the average person) do not need much more than what ships with Windows anyway.
I think the main reason that not many people have contributed to Mozilla is that the version they released source for was (is) very much unuseable. This was also one of the reasons that jwz pointed out recently. I do not think the size of the source is such a big problem; you do not need to understand all of it to dive into a part of it.
If they had released source for the version 3 that I actually use (due to resource considerations), I definately would have spent some time trying to fix a few of the problems I have with it.
I do not want to be a major Mozilla contributor and therefore I have no reason to develop a product that I do not use. I want to fix what bothers me and then get on with other stuff, using a version with that problem fixed. Mozilla cannot do that for me, so I do not contribute to Mozilla.
and suddenly b.value == 2, I feel that a and b are indeed pointers. The actual term might be different, I do not know, but indeed they work rather like pointers. If not, touching a.value should not change the value of b.value
This is why I think that it might be a bit confusing. If you have to say *a you will at least realize that you are dealing with a pointer and there might be other pointers pointing at the same memory. I guess...
Then again, I never did much Java, so perhaps I should just start shutting up:-). --
You may be right with regard to the different learning techniques, of course!
Yes, I recall people having great difficulties understanding the concepts of recursion when we were taught programming (SML) in first year of University.
Also, pointers seem to be a great problem until you figure out just what they are about. Then they are easy and powerful (though a bit error prone). I actually quite dislike Java for using pointers almost all the way but never telling programmers about it. I think that is likely to create a bit of confusion. In C(++) you at least know when you are getting into the area. --
C++ has lots, and lots, of... features
on
Java for EGCS
·
· Score: 1
I am trying to learn C++ myself but I find that I usually end up wrapping mostly pure C code into some classes. I do not take advantage of the many useful parts of C++, and that bothers me.
However, C++ does have a whole lot of different things and getting used to them will require some time. Sure, concept by concept, it is probably rather easy to learn, but one has a long way to go before he is reasonably comfortable with the majority of C++.
For a newcomer to programming, I believe all the different concepts will be confusing. C, while simple, is very small and as a programmer you use most of it all the time; therefore you get very used to it and make fewer mistakes.
I am not arguing that C++ is a bad language, only that it takes time to learn and without proper guidance you are likely to get lost.
--
Linux coders are biased against C++, that's why
on
Java for EGCS
·
· Score: 1
It is very much easier to get a decent hang of C than to learn all the different rules for C++. While pointers might be a bit hard the first time, it is nothing compared to obscure rules for virtual base classes and whatnot. It is much easier to get lost in C++.
C has the nice property that, basically, the computer does what you tell it to do - line for line. (After all, the saying is that C is merely a portable assembler). This makes it much easier to debug for the beginner. If you cannot even quite figure out which function gets called (and in C++, it is not that clear with overloading and polymorphism), you are not being very productive.
So, for hobby programmers (which the Linux community mostly is), there is not much reason to initially go to the trouble of learning C++, or Java. I guess that is much of the reason why C is used as much even though C++/Java are generally believed to be better tools (in that you are free to use what you do not like of them, and C is mostly contained inside both of these languages). And once you are stuck in C, learning another similar, but harder, language is NOT easy. --
Slashdot Mirror
"I've never had a customer mention Linux to me"
(Bill Gates, a couple of years ago)
--
But still, they plan to port it to Windows, so you can make changes from within Windows, without having to shell out a bunch of bucks for Partition Magic.
--
It seems like there has been six Amiga stories here just in the last two weeks. In comparison, before that it took half a year to come up with just as many Amiga stories.
:-).
Something is cooking with the Amiga (and keeping up with comp.sys.amiga.misc is next to impossible).
But to stay on topic: I thought Amiga said in their tech brief that they would build something new on top of X. I am not sure I see E fit in there. Then again; you never know when Amiga changes its mind again
--
Also, only 2.2.10 has the fix for that latest Denial-of-Service bug in the networking code.
Given how few people has problems with 2.2.10, I would recommend that version - even though it might fail on a few, it has at least as good a chance of success as any previous version.
--
Yes, okay - I can agree with that.
My point was that BO does not show Windows NT to be especially bad at security - BO could have been for any platform.
But we agree, and this has been discussed enough, so I will stop here.
--
BO is a trojan horse. If you can get a user to run an executeable, you have him fscked. If I send someone a Linux executeable which modifies his login script to start a telnet server (modified to not require a login, of course) on some non standard (>1024) port, he has his account wide open. Anything he can do, you can log in and do as well. Is this a security flaw of Linux?
You cannot prevent users from doing such things, under any OS. As such I think Microsoft is right that this is not really a security problem in Windows.
Now, I do not know if BO gives administrator rights to the invader. If it does, then *that* would be a security problem. But letting people install programs is not.
Of course, you could make users unable to run programs from $HOME at all, but that would be unacceptable in many circumstances.
--
No, that will not help me. "shutdown -c" at 11:50 would cancel the shutdown.
--
I have made the i386 RPM available here (for a short time).
--
Two things: as far as I recall, Gnome and KDE merged to use the same drag'n'drop protocol. To me this is a sign that when it really matters, even "competing" free projects are smart enough to do the technically best thing. We have five (or fifty?) different window managers because there are different needs - but for a DnD protocol the number one need is that you can D anywhere.
Second, the growing rate might be eight times that of NT, but this means little without context. Consider that the user base of Linux had already grown by 1000% when person number ten downloaded version 0.03 (or whatever).
--
``Today the browsers have gotten rich enough that it's not the kind of software that you can develop and test in a university-type of environment,'' he said.
I guess he means something like Open Source by "university-type of environment." Time will surely tell if you can develop browsers in that kind of environment. I have great hopes for Mozilla, though I haven't seen much yet.
relatively simple applications such as word processing and spreadsheets
I fail to find a reference, but wasn't there some quote some time ago that said something along the lines of the free software community being unable to develop advanced features. Features like that red line in their on-the-fly spell checker? Now word processors are suddenly simple stuff?
He is right, though, that everything is working with each other in Windows. Well, as long as you do not install too much stuff that was not shipped directly on the Windows CD. But nowadays, you (the average person) do not need much more than what ships with Windows anyway.
--
I think the main reason that not many people have contributed to Mozilla is that the version they released source for was (is) very much unuseable.
This was also one of the reasons that jwz pointed out recently. I do not think the size of the source is such a big problem; you do not need to understand all of it to dive into a part of it.
If they had released source for the version 3 that I actually use (due to resource considerations), I definately would have spent some time trying to fix a few of the problems I have with it.
I do not want to be a major Mozilla contributor and therefore I have no reason to develop a product that I do not use. I want to fix what bothers me and then get on with other stuff, using a version with that problem fixed. Mozilla cannot do that for me, so I do not contribute to Mozilla.
--
When I do
:-).
MyObject a, b;
a.value = 1;
b = a;
a.value = 2;
and suddenly b.value == 2, I feel that a and b are indeed pointers. The actual term might be different, I do not know, but indeed they work rather like pointers. If not, touching a.value should not change the value of b.value
This is why I think that it might be a bit confusing. If you have to say *a you will at least realize that you are dealing with a pointer and there might be other pointers pointing at the same memory. I guess...
Then again, I never did much Java, so perhaps I should just start shutting up
--
You may be right with regard to the different learning techniques, of course!
Yes, I recall people having great difficulties understanding the concepts of recursion when we were taught programming (SML) in first year of University.
Also, pointers seem to be a great problem until you figure out just what they are about. Then they are easy and powerful (though a bit error prone).
I actually quite dislike Java for using pointers almost all the way but never telling programmers about it. I think that is likely to create a bit of confusion. In C(++) you at least know when you are getting into the area.
--
I am trying to learn C++ myself but I find that I usually end up wrapping mostly pure C code into some classes. I do not take advantage of the many useful parts of C++, and that bothers me.
However, C++ does have a whole lot of different things and getting used to them will require some time. Sure, concept by concept, it is probably rather easy to learn, but one has a long way to go before he is reasonably comfortable with the majority of C++.
For a newcomer to programming, I believe all the different concepts will be confusing. C, while simple, is very small and as a programmer you use most of it all the time; therefore you get very used to it and make fewer mistakes.
I am not arguing that C++ is a bad language, only that it takes time to learn and without proper guidance you are likely to get lost.
--
It is very much easier to get a decent hang of C than to learn all the different rules for C++. While pointers might be a bit hard the first time, it is nothing compared to obscure rules for virtual base classes and whatnot. It is much easier to get lost in C++.
C has the nice property that, basically, the computer does what you tell it to do - line for line. (After all, the saying is that C is merely a portable assembler). This makes it much easier to debug for the beginner. If you cannot even quite figure out which function gets called (and in C++, it is not that clear with overloading and polymorphism), you are not being very productive.
So, for hobby programmers (which the Linux community mostly is), there is not much reason to initially go to the trouble of learning C++, or Java. I guess that is much of the reason why C is used as much even though C++/Java are generally believed to be better tools (in that you are free to use what you do not like of them, and C is mostly contained inside both of these languages). And once you are stuck in C, learning another similar, but harder, language is NOT easy.
--