int main() {
int a=42;
halve(a);
halve(a);
return 0;
}
void halve(int a) {
a=a/2;
cout<<"a/2="<<a<<"\n";
}
If you're passing by reference, the variable "a" itself would be passed back and forth between the two sections of the program, and "21" and "10.5" would be printed.
If you're passing by value, however, only the value "42" is passed to the "halve" function; it will be halved and printed, but the new value won't be passed back to main, so "21" will be printed twice.
C, C++ and Java pass by reference by default (I think), but you can choose to pass by value when you want. BASIC and HyperTalk always pass by value.
By the way, I'm really not a programmer, so don't listen to me.
Let me get this straight. The kid made a program for himself to see legally purchased DVDs, but since the program could be used for illegal piracy he was sued. By this logic, software makers could sue Gates for including the "copy" command as it could be used for piracy. Anyone remember copy *.* a: b:?
for one... Unix and it's flavors dont suck.. they're fun in my opinion... second... windoze/macOS suck some serious shit... third, if anyone is gonna knock unix and it's variants need to take a crash course in unix admin. and be left locked in a room with a xterm with access to every man page on earth... 'nuf said now let me get back to rebuilding that damn kernel
Think about this: you're working on "rebuilding that damn kernel" instead of doing something useful with that OS that doesn't suck. There are two things you can do with a computer: use it to get something done, or tinker with it for fun. Nothing wrong with the latter, but remember that most people are interested only in the former.
Apple was saying, two years ago, pretty much EXACTLY what you just said in your first paragraph! Only, then, you people called the idea ludicrous...
"You people"? I wasn't one of those people, although I did hear a lot of it. Yes, Apple has done a lot within the last two years, and there have been some short-term problems with compatibility because of it, but I thought the idea of getting rid of the floppy drive was great two years ago.
I agree with many of your points. However there is one point I think you are mistaken on. NT is NOT more stable than win9x. I work MIS supporting a variety of MS OS's and NT 4.0, even with service pack 6a, is dramatically less stable than win95 OSR2. It is also harder to fix. I am getting really cranky about everone buying MS's b.s. line that NT is more stable - I do this 50 hrs per week (four the last four years) and it is just not true. The truth is out there friends.
It has been my (admittedly limited) experience that NT is, in fact, more stable than Win9x. However, only NT is more stable. The applications that run on NT (including Internet Explorer) are still flaky. I use NT at work (uggh) and I must log off and back on about twice a day to clear the system out, or things will just stop working. But I almost never have to actually reboot.
It's also worth noting that Windows is so inconsistent, it's not even consistently bad.
Another thing - it's my impression that Microsoft doesn't mess with the NT APIs too much (compared to Win9x), so NT should be easier to emulate with projects like WINE. OF course, most of the people working on projects like WINE are using Win9x, but in theory, wouldn't it be easier to emulate NT than Win9x? Are the APIs better documented? Perhaps a better question would be, are there as many undocumented APIs in NT as there are in Win9x?
Sorry for wandering off on a tangent; this is something I've been curious about.
There's *no good reason* for F8 not to allow a DOS session to start up. Yes, there's a good reason for DOS not to load when Windows is loading--but from a pure troubleshooting point of view, access to the core filesystem is inordinately useful for system repair and there is no benefit to the customer for such functionality to be removed.
Consider: many new motherboards have no ISA slots, and soon the ISA bus will be completely removed on all new motherboards. Does this benefit the consumer? What about consumers who have ISA modems? The answer is, yes, it benefits the consumer in the long term, at the expense of a minor inconvenience in the short term. Once everyone has switched completely over to PCI and USB, we can start using motherboards that have no ISA bus (not just no ISA slots, but no PS/2 ports, no floppy drives, and no other devices that still run on the ISA bus). This leads to a more efficient design, which gives us faster, cheaper, more efficient motherboards - and that benefits everyone.
It's sad, really. This is yet another example of Microsoft's technological achievements(successful migration of the PC industry from DOS/Win16 to Win32, excavation and elimination of DOS legacy code) being marred by the relentless drive of their business side to quell competition.
Wait a minute - what? you're saying moving from DOS/Win16 to Win32 is a good thing, and yet removing DOS is a bad thing? Think about this for a moment.
DOS is not just a lower operating system--it's a basic environment that can be entirely overwritten by whatever code happens to run underneath it. Much has been said about the ability to run alternative operating systems being quelled by this design; the faults generated are actually much more devious.
So, DOS doesn't completely control your system; rather, it lets other software do whatever it wants. This quells the ability to run alternative operating systems? That makes absolutely no sense. This design is what makes LOADLIN possible - LOADLIN can completely remove DOS, and replace it with something else, while the system is still running.
DOS lets the user replace anything with everything; under the Windows model, Microsoft holds the final say on what calls you're allowed to issue, what memory you may rewrite, what partitions you may generate.
Wow, that sounds remarkably like UNIX. Applications can't directly muck around in hardware (unless they're running with root permissions, in which case the OS selectively grants them access).
Even the simple requirement to rewrite applications such as Partition Magic in full Win32 code--and that's presuming a hard drive partitioner could be allowed to function through the API--at minimum makes the code much less portable across OS's, and gives Microsoft leverage over yet another critical element of system configurations.
Hmm, making software companies rewrite old applications that require a backwards-compatibility layer so that they're more efficient and work better is a bad thing? Windows NT is 32-bit only, and is much more stable than Win98, so Microsoft wants to migrate everything to NT. The more 16-bit apps that get rewritten as 32-bit apps, the more likely this plan is to succeed.
This isn't just about Microsoft making it harder for their users to run alternative operating systems; it's about Microsoft closing off direct access to a user's own system to the point of forcing the OS to crash before giving the user a command prompt.
Uhhh, who said anything about forcing the OS to crash? Where the hell did that come from? And by the way, someone else pointed out that you can still get to a command prompt by (surprise!) opening a command prompt window.
My roommate acquired a 75MHz 603-based all-in-one (5200 I think) that ran about as fast as the 120MHz 601-based 7200 I've been using. So I figured the 603 was faster.
Glad to be getting an iMac. Supposed to arrive today. Sage. I'm happy.
Seriously, though, M$ has been doing this their whole life. PC-DOS became MS-DOS. GWBASIC became BASICA.
Actually, Microsoft wrote PC-DOS too (well, sort of; they licensed QDOS [Quick and Dirty Operating System] from Seattle Computer but surely must have made a few changes before releasing it). PC-DOS 1.0 shipped with the original IBM PC, and MS-DOS 1.0 was identical except for the name (AFAIK) and shipped at the same time.
Bill conned IBM into this arrangement wherein IBM paid MS for R&D, MS gave IBM PC-DOS, but MS got to keep it for themselves too and release MS-DOS in competition with IBM.
Somebody more familiar with this stuff please correct my details.
I assume you're joking? They weren't expandable. You could add a custom "comm slot" modem or (slow!) ethernet card in place of either serial port, I suppose. There is no NuBus controller in them AFAIK - all the hardware is on a Processor Direct (ie. "local") bus, except that it isn't really direct, because it's a narrow 68k bus attached via a frankenstein split arrangement to a PPC 603.
Ahh, OK. I know I've seen an Ethernet card installed in an all-in-one unit, but I'm not sure if it was one of these. There was one slot, and the NIC was L-shaped so it would fit inside the case, but I don't know whether it was NuBus or something else (PDS maybe).
Look on the bright side - it could have been a 601 instead of a 603.
Sometimes I wonder what would happen if Taiwan sunk into the ocean, was defeated in a war against China, etc., considering how much stuff is manufactured there. Who would step in to fill the gap?
NO. It should not be blocked. If they are old enough to ask questions, they are old enought to be exposed to anything. It is the job of parents to explain what they like or don't like about reality. Censorship is wrong, and I don't want my children exposed to it. I want my children to know they can ask any question. The minute we start blocking ideas/questions of any sort (including "Daddy, what are those naked people doing with those whips?) we make our children a little duller and dumber.... If you don't want your children asking hard questions, by all means, train them to be stupid and fearful.... I want my children to be truly free in spirit bady and mind!
How do you feel about R-rated movies? Children under 17 aren't allowed to see them in theaters, unless accompanied by a parent - and if they're accompanied by a parent, that material shouldn't be censored in libraries either.
The NC-17 rating, though, is a form of censorship I am opposed to - you can't get in even if your parents are there with you?
If the only way to find pornography on the Web was by looking for it, I'd probably be more opposed to censorship.
Ironic that MacOS and MacOS X so very little bugs in security. OSX being based on BSD Unix, yet BSD Unix has more security exploits? WTF? Or is it that nobody even bothers to check OSX for security exploits?
Partially that users don't test Mac OS X for security holes much, and partially that maybe Apple does. The fact that Mac OS X hasn't even been released to the public yet must surely have something to do with it too, although Mac OS X Server and Darwin have been available for some time.
Actually, the key computer I'd like to see Linux running on is a Mac Plus. Why? There are _zillions_ of them out there for the taking, they are diskless (meaning they're totally quiet to use- more quiet than a Cube or modern iMac) and they're really cute:)
Are you sure they don't have a fan? I was thinking they did. Don't have any handy to check, though; if not, then you'd be right, assuming you aren't using the floppy drive for anything (although the variable-speed floppies do sound kind of nice sometimes).
The ROM contains much useful stuff like drivers and the Chicago font (I forget if it also contains Geneva 9 and Monaco 9).
Yes, the ROM contains Chicago 12, Geneva 9, Geneva 12 and Monaco 9; the latter would be most appropriate for a CLI.
You can fit a terminal in _MacOS_ onto one on a floppy complete with MacOS itself (like sys6 or earlier)- it has got to be possible to get one working like a linux terminal, if you use the stuff in ROM and don't bother loading MacOS.
You'd still have to fit the Linux kernel in there, and most of the stuff in the ROM would be useless unless you did some serious hacking (like, completely replace X Windows with something that worked like X but used the code and resources in the Mac ROM).
NetBSD does NOT support the 5200/5300/6200/6300 (except for the 6300/160 and the 6360 which used differant motherboards). These are the old school Apple systems that didn't use PCI, or Nubus for that matter...
Didn't use NuBus??? What did they use for expansion then?
Slashdot Mirror
int main() {
int a=42;
halve(a);
halve(a);
return 0;
}
void halve(int a) {
a=a/2;
cout<<"a/2="<<a<<"\n";
}
If you're passing by reference, the variable "a" itself would be passed back and forth between the two sections of the program, and "21" and "10.5" would be printed.
If you're passing by value, however, only the value "42" is passed to the "halve" function; it will be halved and printed, but the new value won't be passed back to main, so "21" will be printed twice.
C, C++ and Java pass by reference by default (I think), but you can choose to pass by value when you want. BASIC and HyperTalk always pass by value.
By the way, I'm really not a programmer, so don't listen to me.
--
The first line of your post is "2600 rocks. First Post, btw." I somehow suspect the "Offtopic" moderation will hold up in m2.
And I don't have to post anonymously cuz I can't lose karma.
--
Could they sue Gates? No. Why? Gates is rich.
--
Think about this: you're working on "rebuilding that damn kernel" instead of doing something useful with that OS that doesn't suck. There are two things you can do with a computer: use it to get something done, or tinker with it for fun. Nothing wrong with the latter, but remember that most people are interested only in the former.
--
"You people"? I wasn't one of those people, although I did hear a lot of it. Yes, Apple has done a lot within the last two years, and there have been some short-term problems with compatibility because of it, but I thought the idea of getting rid of the floppy drive was great two years ago.
--
--
--
It has been my (admittedly limited) experience that NT is, in fact, more stable than Win9x. However, only NT is more stable. The applications that run on NT (including Internet Explorer) are still flaky. I use NT at work (uggh) and I must log off and back on about twice a day to clear the system out, or things will just stop working. But I almost never have to actually reboot.
It's also worth noting that Windows is so inconsistent, it's not even consistently bad.
Another thing - it's my impression that Microsoft doesn't mess with the NT APIs too much (compared to Win9x), so NT should be easier to emulate with projects like WINE. OF course, most of the people working on projects like WINE are using Win9x, but in theory, wouldn't it be easier to emulate NT than Win9x? Are the APIs better documented? Perhaps a better question would be, are there as many undocumented APIs in NT as there are in Win9x?
Sorry for wandering off on a tangent; this is something I've been curious about.
--
--
Consider: many new motherboards have no ISA slots, and soon the ISA bus will be completely removed on all new motherboards. Does this benefit the consumer? What about consumers who have ISA modems? The answer is, yes, it benefits the consumer in the long term, at the expense of a minor inconvenience in the short term. Once everyone has switched completely over to PCI and USB, we can start using motherboards that have no ISA bus (not just no ISA slots, but no PS/2 ports, no floppy drives, and no other devices that still run on the ISA bus). This leads to a more efficient design, which gives us faster, cheaper, more efficient motherboards - and that benefits everyone.
It's sad, really. This is yet another example of Microsoft's technological achievements(successful migration of the PC industry from DOS/Win16 to Win32, excavation and elimination of DOS legacy code) being marred by the relentless drive of their business side to quell competition.
Wait a minute - what? you're saying moving from DOS/Win16 to Win32 is a good thing, and yet removing DOS is a bad thing? Think about this for a moment.
DOS is not just a lower operating system--it's a basic environment that can be entirely overwritten by whatever code happens to run underneath it. Much has been said about the ability to run alternative operating systems being quelled by this design; the faults generated are actually much more devious.
So, DOS doesn't completely control your system; rather, it lets other software do whatever it wants. This quells the ability to run alternative operating systems? That makes absolutely no sense. This design is what makes LOADLIN possible - LOADLIN can completely remove DOS, and replace it with something else, while the system is still running.
DOS lets the user replace anything with everything; under the Windows model, Microsoft holds the final say on what calls you're allowed to issue, what memory you may rewrite, what partitions you may generate.
Wow, that sounds remarkably like UNIX. Applications can't directly muck around in hardware (unless they're running with root permissions, in which case the OS selectively grants them access).
Even the simple requirement to rewrite applications such as Partition Magic in full Win32 code--and that's presuming a hard drive partitioner could be allowed to function through the API--at minimum makes the code much less portable across OS's, and gives Microsoft leverage over yet another critical element of system configurations.
Hmm, making software companies rewrite old applications that require a backwards-compatibility layer so that they're more efficient and work better is a bad thing? Windows NT is 32-bit only, and is much more stable than Win98, so Microsoft wants to migrate everything to NT. The more 16-bit apps that get rewritten as 32-bit apps, the more likely this plan is to succeed.
This isn't just about Microsoft making it harder for their users to run alternative operating systems; it's about Microsoft closing off direct access to a user's own system to the point of forcing the OS to crash before giving the user a command prompt.
Uhhh, who said anything about forcing the OS to crash? Where the hell did that come from? And by the way, someone else pointed out that you can still get to a command prompt by (surprise!) opening a command prompt window.
--
7200 was probably running a newer (read bigger) version of MacOS, unless the 5200 had been upgraded.
8.5.1 on the 7200 and 9.0 on the 5200.
--
Question: what was the last version of PC-DOS made by Microsoft?
--
Perhaps not, but I know there was an MS-DOS 3.2, so....
--
--
--
--
Glad to be getting an iMac. Supposed to arrive today. Sage. I'm happy.
--
Actually, Microsoft wrote PC-DOS too (well, sort of; they licensed QDOS [Quick and Dirty Operating System] from Seattle Computer but surely must have made a few changes before releasing it). PC-DOS 1.0 shipped with the original IBM PC, and MS-DOS 1.0 was identical except for the name (AFAIK) and shipped at the same time.
Bill conned IBM into this arrangement wherein IBM paid MS for R&D, MS gave IBM PC-DOS, but MS got to keep it for themselves too and release MS-DOS in competition with IBM.
Somebody more familiar with this stuff please correct my details.
--
Yes, yes, we've had this discussion before.
--
Ahh, OK. I know I've seen an Ethernet card installed in an all-in-one unit, but I'm not sure if it was one of these. There was one slot, and the NIC was L-shaped so it would fit inside the case, but I don't know whether it was NuBus or something else (PDS maybe).
Look on the bright side - it could have been a 601 instead of a 603.
Glad we have UMA now; even iMacs have a PCI bus.
--
--
How do you feel about R-rated movies? Children under 17 aren't allowed to see them in theaters, unless accompanied by a parent - and if they're accompanied by a parent, that material shouldn't be censored in libraries either.
The NC-17 rating, though, is a form of censorship I am opposed to - you can't get in even if your parents are there with you?
If the only way to find pornography on the Web was by looking for it, I'd probably be more opposed to censorship.
--
Partially that users don't test Mac OS X for security holes much, and partially that maybe Apple does. The fact that Mac OS X hasn't even been released to the public yet must surely have something to do with it too, although Mac OS X Server and Darwin have been available for some time.
--
Are you sure they don't have a fan? I was thinking they did. Don't have any handy to check, though; if not, then you'd be right, assuming you aren't using the floppy drive for anything (although the variable-speed floppies do sound kind of nice sometimes).
The ROM contains much useful stuff like drivers and the Chicago font (I forget if it also contains Geneva 9 and Monaco 9).
Yes, the ROM contains Chicago 12, Geneva 9, Geneva 12 and Monaco 9; the latter would be most appropriate for a CLI.
You can fit a terminal in _MacOS_ onto one on a floppy complete with MacOS itself (like sys6 or earlier)- it has got to be possible to get one working like a linux terminal, if you use the stuff in ROM and don't bother loading MacOS.
You'd still have to fit the Linux kernel in there, and most of the stuff in the ROM would be useless unless you did some serious hacking (like, completely replace X Windows with something that worked like X but used the code and resources in the Mac ROM).
--
Didn't use NuBus??? What did they use for expansion then?
--