The funny thing is in most tyrannies people can say the same thing. You don't know what you've lost until you lose it or have it used against you or become one of the oppressed.
It's the same in all countries. There are no "tyrannies" and "free countries", and never were. For most of the world/history (except some egregious things like Nazi and Somalia) it's just propaganda you grew up with vs. propaganda someone else grew up with. You just believe that whatever your own government considers unacceptable is something that no one would ever want to do.
I don't care for matt screens as they dull the contrast and bleed colors together.
No. Glossy screens look better while they are off. When they are on, they show exactly the same image but superimpose a reflection of whatever is in front of them, and you should pray that it's not a window or some other light source.
The funny part is that's by design. Our American society cares more about protecting the right to make mistakes and the belief in second chances than it does in any right to privacy or integrity.
Actually this is the implementation of "What if it's someone rich?" clause.
No, Microsoft and IBM agreed to work on OS/2 NT _together_ as a replacement (long term) for OS/2.
Evidence, other than confusing naming of unrelated projects, a Microsoft tactic that existed for the whole history on the company?
OS/2 was primarily for clients, not servers, especially in the 1.x and 2.x days. NT was going to be the server.
When released, OS/2 only got widespread use on servers, and IBM provided their server software, such as DB2, for it. In general, at the time desktop PCs were not seen as "clients" but as standalone desktops, so both Windows and OS/2 were targeting them. In reality only Windows got any widespread on desktops, standalone or not. On the servers, OS/2 was somewhat popular, and OS/2-based database servers can be still found in use now. It's only later (around 1994) that x86 PCs started to become popular as servers running actual applications (as opposed to storage-oriented Netware), and by then OS/2 development came to a grinding halt, while Microsoft was marketing NT 3.5 for them. There was no connection to IBM whatsoever at that point.
You don't have to do that, though, because we're talking about C,
Actually yes, you do. Even void pointer has a type, it just isn't defined as anything in particular, and therefore can not be dereferenced.
and if you're saying you never used a char* to point to an int
No, I did not, and I program in C for more than 20 years.
I used char* and void* to point to data that was formatted as integers, to perform I/O and IPC in native format, however in that case type conversion had to be explicitly done on both ends of communication, before any pointers couls be dereferenced.
you're either lying or you don't program in C.
Or I am not an kind of C programmer that only exists in the mind of Java, C# and PHP programmers like yourself.
You start realizing that the way pointers are done in C is really odd, and only seems to be normal to those who've used it so long that they've learned the semantics.
It's not odd at all. Once you start converting pointer types, you are dealing with peculiarities of the memory layout. I can only guess that what you meant on the unfinished line was "int *b = &c;, but what you see, would only work on little-endian architectures because first byte of an integer is the least-significant byte. On big-endian ones, you will get not 'A' but zero character (unprintable, ^@ or seen as the end of string). This is why such pointer conversions are not recommended, except for handling data with known layout.
Kids who started with other programming languages doesn't seem to get that problem.
That's because they only used languages without pointers. If they used Pascal (that does have pointers but they are not nearly as useful there as in C) they would be more confused than with C.
It's just a memory address.
No.
Pointer value is an address that is assumed to be a location of a variable of a type that the pointer type refers to. This is important for pointer arithmetics, relationship between arrays and pointers, type safety, and allowing/disallowing/tracking data modifications (with const, restrict and volatile qualifiers that are also a part of the type).
You never actually asked anything, you are spewing spurious statements pretending that they are relevant.
You have nothing to back up your arguments - you just appear on every X thread that starts crapping on about "ssh -X" - as if it's some kind of fundamental requirement of a desktop that cannot be replicated with anything other than pure X goodness.
Actually I have mentioned many situations when X is used remotely, and ssh is only necessary for convenience and/or over insecure network -- what may not be the case on switched local network with secure segment used for management. I used a 3D graphics workstation/server combination that had unencrypted X over a local network to run CAD application, and it fit into the same model.
The requirement for many-to-many application to display relationship, window management and compositing with components taken from applications running on unrelated hosts, and a reliable authorization/authentication mechanism for remote UI that works with or without encryption and is not a license counter in disguise, so far is only met by X. As opposed to Microsoft astroturfers and fanboys, people who have access to such technology, use it for purposes that require it. Obviously, it's not important for users who only switch between Facebook and Angry Birds. If Wayland was presented as a new Angry Birds development kit, no one would care.
Windows NT (OS/2 NT at the time) was designed and built to compete with UNIX and Netware.
Windows NT did not exist when OS/2 was being developed. Microsoft started it because they did not like working on OS/2 yet losing full control over it.
OS/2 was going to be the high-end (ie: "business") user desktop.
But it wasn't. At the time of release OS/2 was only adopted on small servers (as an alternative to Netware, but also for purposes that otherwise required Unix or mainframe) and semi-embedded devices (as an alternative to DOS). On desktops, Windows 3.1 - 3.11 was so entrenched, nothing was capable of displacing it.
DOS+Windows was going to be the low-end (ie: "home") user desktop.
Maybe in intentions of someone from IBM management, but they had no control over that. IBM didn't even produce consumer desktops at the time, they re-entered that market later, then exited again, with no real strategy behind it.
hairyfeet is at his usual stuff again, presenting Microsoft as something healthy.
Microsoft products can't survive on their own. There is nothing good about them, they just depend on each other, so it's easy for a user to catch the disease and hard to get rid of it.By themselves, they are at best mediocre and have no hope for interoperability with anything other than themselves.
Microsoft management realizes that, and this is why they will keep clutching at this strategy until they will decide to wind down the company as the alternative to full collapse. And they don't expect the collapse right now.
That would be false. The enterprise embraced OS/2 and Windows NT while the consumers were using Windows 95/98.
No. Stop rewriting history.
OS/2 was promoted for very large enterprises and competed with Unix, mainframes (from the same IBM), etc. on the server side, and in "thick embedded" devices. Desktops were completely and entirely Windows almost everywhere since Windows 3.1 was released, and the only transitions were between three Windows lines (3, 95 and NT).
Your scenarios work just as well under Windows and Wayland.
What "scenarios"?
You really don't know ANYTHING about X do you? You're just a shouty idiot with a bug up his ass.
I use X since 1993, when to get a new version running on SunOS 4, one had to download sources from x.org (that existed then, managed by the "old" X consortium, but Sun was too slow to provide packages for their systems), and I am most certain, I know how it works, what it can and can't do.
^^^ This is an example of random phrases being posted in a discussion to create an impression of some point of view having popular support. Microsoft astroturfers are hard at work, promoting wrong directions of development for technology that competes with Microsoft "solutions".
but it was enforced on every citizen of USSR from the very birth (and I'm speaking literally here - red stars and Lenin's portraits were mandatory in all clinics, nurseries and kindergartens.
You mean, like portraits of US president in all American government buildings, right?
Please stop talking out of your ass. Communism and Socialism are a political/economic doctrines, and regardless of how you feel about them, they are no less "rational" than most of the crap spewed by politicians all over the world. The presence of country's symbols in people's everyday life is a completely different matter, and of all people, I recommend Americans to shut up about symbols of other countries until they will stop plastering all surfaces in their cities and all visible parts of their vehicles with theirs.
Of course, church as an institution existed in some form, and some people (mostly old and poorly educated ones) believed in Christian mythology, but the effect of Christian beliefs (as opposed to the effect of pre-existing Christian-related art and literature recognized as fiction) on the culture was literally nil.
Orthodox Christianity "revival" in post-USSR Russia was caused entirely by the effort of new government and its ideology, it has no roots in any popular support, and could have been any religion other than Orthodox Christianity if that religion served the purpose of new government better. It just happened that promoting supposedly "original" religion of Russia was the safest way to placate ultra-Nationalists that threatened to take over the political process like their local versions did in all other former USSR members (and then got kicked out in some of those, Belarus being most clear example).
By outlawing a religion (Won't help - you don't declare your religion upon entry into the US)?
Religion can't survive without support from people in power. When it loses that support, it dies within a generation. When people in power bring a religion, it rises instantly, no matter how stupid and foreign to the population.
Slashdot Mirror
The funny thing is in most tyrannies people can say the same thing. You don't know what you've lost until you lose it or have it used against you or become one of the oppressed.
It's the same in all countries. There are no "tyrannies" and "free countries", and never were. For most of the world/history (except some egregious things like Nazi and Somalia) it's just propaganda you grew up with vs. propaganda someone else grew up with. You just believe that whatever your own government considers unacceptable is something that no one would ever want to do.
Science doesn't work like that.
This actually is how the laptops look while they are off, on the store shelf. And they better should be displayed while off if they run Windows 8.
I don't care for matt screens as they dull the contrast and bleed colors together.
No.
Glossy screens look better while they are off. When they are on, they show exactly the same image but superimpose a reflection of whatever is in front of them, and you should pray that it's not a window or some other light source.
Dell Vostro 2520 laptop
Dell "business" computers
Since when Vostro is a "business" product line? And since when it comes with anything other than Windows?
The funny part is that's by design. Our American society cares more about protecting the right to make mistakes and the belief in second chances than it does in any right to privacy or integrity.
Actually this is the implementation of "What if it's someone rich?" clause.
I am not saying that he has a good personal army.
No, Microsoft and IBM agreed to work on OS/2 NT _together_ as a replacement (long term) for OS/2.
Evidence, other than confusing naming of unrelated projects, a Microsoft tactic that existed for the whole history on the company?
OS/2 was primarily for clients, not servers, especially in the 1.x and 2.x days. NT was going to be the server.
When released, OS/2 only got widespread use on servers, and IBM provided their server software, such as DB2, for it. In general, at the time desktop PCs were not seen as "clients" but as standalone desktops, so both Windows and OS/2 were targeting them. In reality only Windows got any widespread on desktops, standalone or not. On the servers, OS/2 was somewhat popular, and OS/2-based database servers can be still found in use now.
It's only later (around 1994) that x86 PCs started to become popular as servers running actual applications (as opposed to storage-oriented Netware), and by then OS/2 development came to a grinding halt, while Microsoft was marketing NT 3.5 for them. There was no connection to IBM whatsoever at that point.
You don't have to do that, though, because we're talking about C,
Actually yes, you do. Even void pointer has a type, it just isn't defined as anything in particular, and therefore can not be dereferenced.
and if you're saying you never used a char* to point to an int
No, I did not, and I program in C for more than 20 years.
I used char* and void* to point to data that was formatted as integers, to perform I/O and IPC in native format, however in that case type conversion had to be explicitly done on both ends of communication, before any pointers couls be dereferenced.
you're either lying or you don't program in C.
Or I am not an kind of C programmer that only exists in the mind of Java, C# and PHP programmers like yourself.
Actually your cat IS your personal army.
Size of a variable does not sufficiently identify its type.
You start realizing that the way pointers are done in C is really odd, and only seems to be normal to those who've used it so long that they've learned the semantics.
It's not odd at all. Once you start converting pointer types, you are dealing with peculiarities of the memory layout. I can only guess that what you meant on the unfinished line was "int *b = &c;, but what you see, would only work on little-endian architectures because first byte of an integer is the least-significant byte. On big-endian ones, you will get not 'A' but zero character (unprintable, ^@ or seen as the end of string).
This is why such pointer conversions are not recommended, except for handling data with known layout.
/b/ is Not Your Personal Army.
Kids who started with other programming languages doesn't seem to get that problem.
That's because they only used languages without pointers. If they used Pascal (that does have pointers but they are not nearly as useful there as in C) they would be more confused than with C.
It's just a memory address.
No.
Pointer value is an address that is assumed to be a location of a variable of a type that the pointer type refers to. This is important for pointer arithmetics, relationship between arrays and pointers, type safety, and allowing/disallowing/tracking data modifications (with const, restrict and volatile qualifiers that are also a part of the type).
See... you've dodged every actual question.
You never actually asked anything, you are spewing spurious statements pretending that they are relevant.
You have nothing to back up your arguments - you just appear on every X thread that starts crapping on about "ssh -X" - as if it's some kind of fundamental requirement of a desktop that cannot be replicated with anything other than pure X goodness.
Actually I have mentioned many situations when X is used remotely, and ssh is only necessary for convenience and/or over insecure network -- what may not be the case on switched local network with secure segment used for management. I used a 3D graphics workstation/server combination that had unencrypted X over a local network to run CAD application, and it fit into the same model.
The requirement for many-to-many application to display relationship, window management and compositing with components taken from applications running on unrelated hosts, and a reliable authorization/authentication mechanism for remote UI that works with or without encryption and is not a license counter in disguise, so far is only met by X. As opposed to Microsoft astroturfers and fanboys, people who have access to such technology, use it for purposes that require it. Obviously, it's not important for users who only switch between Facebook and Angry Birds. If Wayland was presented as a new Angry Birds development kit, no one would care.
Windows NT (OS/2 NT at the time) was designed and built to compete with UNIX and Netware.
Windows NT did not exist when OS/2 was being developed. Microsoft started it because they did not like working on OS/2 yet losing full control over it.
OS/2 was going to be the high-end (ie: "business") user desktop.
But it wasn't. At the time of release OS/2 was only adopted on small servers (as an alternative to Netware, but also for purposes that otherwise required Unix or mainframe) and semi-embedded devices (as an alternative to DOS). On desktops, Windows 3.1 - 3.11 was so entrenched, nothing was capable of displacing it.
DOS+Windows was going to be the low-end (ie: "home") user desktop.
Maybe in intentions of someone from IBM management, but they had no control over that. IBM didn't even produce consumer desktops at the time, they re-entered that market later, then exited again, with no real strategy behind it.
You will find that you can't without a physical object in your hand.
hairyfeet is at his usual stuff again, presenting Microsoft as something healthy.
Microsoft products can't survive on their own. There is nothing good about them, they just depend on each other, so it's easy for a user to catch the disease and hard to get rid of it.By themselves, they are at best mediocre and have no hope for interoperability with anything other than themselves.
Microsoft management realizes that, and this is why they will keep clutching at this strategy until they will decide to wind down the company as the alternative to full collapse. And they don't expect the collapse right now.
That would be false. The enterprise embraced OS/2 and Windows NT while the consumers were using Windows 95/98.
No. Stop rewriting history.
OS/2 was promoted for very large enterprises and competed with Unix, mainframes (from the same IBM), etc. on the server side, and in "thick embedded" devices. Desktops were completely and entirely Windows almost everywhere since Windows 3.1 was released, and the only transitions were between three Windows lines (3, 95 and NT).
No... it's not. It's "network aware"..
"Network aware" is not even a technical term.
Your scenarios work just as well under Windows and Wayland.
What "scenarios"?
You really don't know ANYTHING about X do you? You're just a shouty idiot with a bug up his ass.
I use X since 1993, when to get a new version running on SunOS 4, one had to download sources from x.org (that existed then, managed by the "old" X consortium, but Sun was too slow to provide packages for their systems), and I am most certain, I know how it works, what it can and can't do.
^^^
This is an example of random phrases being posted in a discussion to create an impression of some point of view having popular support. Microsoft astroturfers are hard at work, promoting wrong directions of development for technology that competes with Microsoft "solutions".
but it was enforced on every citizen of USSR from the very birth (and I'm speaking literally here - red stars and Lenin's portraits were mandatory in all clinics, nurseries and kindergartens.
You mean, like portraits of US president in all American government buildings, right?
Please stop talking out of your ass. Communism and Socialism are a political/economic doctrines, and regardless of how you feel about them, they are no less "rational" than most of the crap spewed by politicians all over the world. The presence of country's symbols in people's everyday life is a completely different matter, and of all people, I recommend Americans to shut up about symbols of other countries until they will stop plastering all surfaces in their cities and all visible parts of their vehicles with theirs.
Clearly rubbish, or they'd never get started.
Why? Most early forms of government have clearly theocratic traits.
As a popular religion, it did.
Of course, church as an institution existed in some form, and some people (mostly old and poorly educated ones) believed in Christian mythology, but the effect of Christian beliefs (as opposed to the effect of pre-existing Christian-related art and literature recognized as fiction) on the culture was literally nil.
Orthodox Christianity "revival" in post-USSR Russia was caused entirely by the effort of new government and its ideology, it has no roots in any popular support, and could have been any religion other than Orthodox Christianity if that religion served the purpose of new government better. It just happened that promoting supposedly "original" religion of Russia was the safest way to placate ultra-Nationalists that threatened to take over the political process like their local versions did in all other former USSR members (and then got kicked out in some of those, Belarus being most clear example).
By outlawing a religion (Won't help - you don't declare your religion upon entry into the US)?
Religion can't survive without support from people in power. When it loses that support, it dies within a generation. When people in power bring a religion, it rises instantly, no matter how stupid and foreign to the population.