I have heard that the latest ANSI C specification specifys some string handling functions. On the page referenced by the link on the story above, it mentions that new string functions added. Does anybody know if these strings that have been added are the new ANSI C Strings? Or am I way off track here?
Linux changes, Microsoft laughs
on
glibc 2.1 is out
·
· Score: 1
> Every change to Linux results in more and more problems. Its why real operating systems change
Are you sane? Every change to linux adds features and fixes bugs. And by the way, this is glibc (the gnu c library) not linux (the kernel put out by wonderful such as Linus and Alan Cox). Please don't be ignorant.
> very infrequently. OS's like Solaris, AIX and NT. Thier users sleep soundly at night without > the nightmare fear of the hacker community "fixing" a non-problem or bloating out the > libraries again. Just like now.
In this sentance, you have included NT with the likes of Solaris and AIX and called them all "Real" operating systems. I can understand Solaris and AIX being "Real" OSes, but NT? What criteria have you used to decide this? It certainly couldn't be based on either speed, stability, or security. If you had bothered to go to the site listed in the posting, you would have seen the large list of bugfixes and useful added features. And whether NT users sleep soundly at night or not, it pribably has nothing to do with their choice of OS.
> The new release of glibc is just "jobs for the boys" GPL developers changing things just to > keep themselves employed.
This is laughable. "jobs for the boys"? Most of the people who worked on this release, with the exception of some at Cygnus I believe, did this work for _free_ outside their normal job. To claim other wise is downright stupid.
> 1999 will be the year when IBM, Dell, Compaq and others expose this schit and we can get back to stability.
Oh, this explains all of their recent commitments to sell linux. Unless by "back to stability" you mean away from NT. In that context the sentance makes sense.
> Keep those changes coming people. Its the only way you can sell your "support" contract. Ya > know, break things on purpose and charge for the fixes. Just like M$
No, not like M$. M$ doesn't fix anything, but charges for it anyways.
Rob, _please_ get rid of ACs. I was of two minds about this until very recently, but I've come to the conclusion that most of the time they just are stupid. And _please_ no one give me that crap about privacy. Thats just bull$!@#. I have an account, and it didn't hurt to get it.
Not as stupid as you for posting a post like that one.
What company?
Spell checker couldn't be that hard. Just run the submition through ispell (or whatever) and output the corrections on the preview page...just a thought.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless I am mistaken, the $15,000 mentioned was the price for the Compaq boxes mentioned. The IBM PPC boxes never had a price mentioned.
Otherwise, COOL!
I have heard that the latest ANSI C specification specifys some string handling functions. On the page referenced by the link on the story above, it mentions that new string functions added. Does anybody know if these strings that have been added are the new ANSI C Strings? Or am I way off track here?
> Every change to Linux results in more and more problems. Its why real operating systems change
Are you sane? Every change to linux adds features and fixes bugs. And by the way, this is glibc (the gnu c library) not linux (the kernel put out by wonderful such as Linus and Alan Cox). Please don't be ignorant.
> very infrequently. OS's like Solaris, AIX and NT. Thier users sleep soundly at night without
> the nightmare fear of the hacker community "fixing" a non-problem or bloating out the
> libraries again. Just like now.
In this sentance, you have included NT with the likes of Solaris and AIX and called them all "Real" operating systems. I can understand Solaris and AIX being "Real" OSes, but NT? What criteria have you used to decide this? It certainly couldn't be based on either speed, stability, or security. If you had bothered to go to the site listed in the posting, you would have seen the large list of bugfixes and useful added features. And whether NT users sleep soundly at night or not, it pribably has nothing to do with their choice of OS.
> The new release of glibc is just "jobs for the boys" GPL developers changing things just to
> keep themselves employed.
This is laughable. "jobs for the boys"? Most of the people who worked on this release, with the exception of some at Cygnus I believe, did this work for _free_ outside their normal job. To claim other wise is downright stupid.
> 1999 will be the year when IBM, Dell, Compaq and others expose this schit and we can get back to stability.
Oh, this explains all of their recent commitments to sell linux. Unless by "back to stability" you mean away from NT. In that context the sentance makes sense.
> Keep those changes coming people. Its the only way you can sell your "support" contract. Ya
> know, break things on purpose and charge for the fixes. Just like M$
No, not like M$. M$ doesn't fix anything, but charges for it anyways.
Rob, _please_ get rid of ACs. I was of two minds about this until very recently, but I've come to the conclusion that most of the time they just are stupid. And _please_ no one give me that crap about privacy. Thats just bull$!@#. I have an account, and it didn't hurt to get it.
I thought he serves a term of 2 years? E.g. 1901.
You know, it may sound strange, but I once read that Lucent accually stands for "Lucifer Enterprises". Scary, eh?
...that there was acually a penguin at a zoo somewhere that had been adopted by somebody (LI, RedHat, etc.) and name Tux. Is this true?
Has anyone else not been able to get into gDEV
The sequel wasn't that bad...
Both of the have fairly average books for the industry IMHO.
Do you expect me to pay any attention after you just called someone "penis"???
Ever heard of a company called Corel...
have you ever had to reinstall and it was blatently nothing you did?
Not as stupid as you for posting a post like that one.
What company?
Spell checker couldn't be that hard. Just run the submition through ispell (or whatever) and output the corrections on the preview page...just a thought.