That's baloney. I did this, as an experiment, with 6.2 and the install ended up around 200MB. Still too big, mind you, but 1G is a little too much hyperbole to let stand.
The Mac interface... saves about half a second per menu access
It honestly takes you more than half a second to acquire a menu that isn't slapped against the edge of the screen? Yikes. My average time to acquire a menu is less than a quarter of a second, so if my average time savings was half a second then I could buy some extra time by simply browsing the menus!
Seriously, I am aware of all the supposedly authoratative research regarding the value of menus on the sides and corners of the screen. And I agree with it to some extent, but in many circumstances (which I seem to run into frequently, for some reason) it's a wash.
If I have many similar windows open, I often select a menu item expecting it to apply to one window when, in fact, another window was currently focused; then I have to go and undo what I just did.
Even if the menu is easier to acquire, the window, because it's disconnected from the window is often harder to reacquire after using the menu. This is especially true if the window is very small or far from the menu.
This is related to the previous point. If the window is a good distance from the menu, I have rarely ever seen any time savings from the menu being "easy" to grab. What if the menu isn't even on the same physical screen as the window?
I won't say that the research is total bunk, but I just don't see it proving that the Mac way is clearly superior, hands down. I do realize, especially after reading that research, that the edges and corner of the screen are prime real estate for controls. Microsoft apparently wasted their research money: The 'Start' menu is exactly one pixel away from the corner of the screen. Ack!
Maybe they just gather slashdot user names into their dictionary. Seems to me like a pretty good strategy if they are trying to get hotmail account names.
I heard Linux has this "feature" called malloc. I tried to malloc 10GB and the system slowed to a crawl.
I doubt it. malloc(10737418240) should return null pretty quickly unless you have 10GB of virtual memory available.
Even if it did give you a 10GB buffer and even if most of it was in swap, I doubt it would slow the system down much, but your program's buffer accesses might be a tad pokey.
I am well aware of what the GPL attempts to do. My post was not speaking about that.
What I'm saying is that much of the rhetoric coming from the GPL camp is just so much pathos. I would respect the arguments of many GPL proponents much more if they were simply a little more intellectually honest.
To say that information that I have released openly to the public can be commandeered by somebody else and somehow no longer be open is blatently dishonest. It's a lie. What I've released to the public will always be available to the public. I've yet to hear a single GPL proponent admit that this is, in fact, true, or else argue cogently against it.
Instead, every time I or someone else points this out, one or more people, just like you, respond by changing the subject.
BSD-style licenses make the code completely free, for now
No. Code released under BSD license will always be free. If someone takes that code and makes proprietary software from it then the only thing that's not free is the difference, since anyone could always go back and get the original BSD code freely.
Frankly, that's offensive in the extreme. Please name a religiously oriented charity (any religion) that would allow someone to die unless they converted.
Re:Cost them $ with your mouse - it's easy:
on
Eliza for Spam
·
· Score: 2
Now why can't we get some worm ala CodeRed to make everybody's computer do this?
So if Jeremy Allison has to send them 20% of whatever he charges for SAMBA, they'll have to accept that.
Ironic side note: This, I recall, is exactly what MS did to Spyglass. When Spyglass sued MS for not paying agreed-to royalties on Internet Explorer, MS responded that the royalties on a product that they sold for $0 was $0. One more company screwed by MS.
So, in your information campaign, you get your name out there, stressing what Good Guys you are for doing all this research and testing ("Our quality products meet the highest level of testing for your safety", blah blah blah), and "the extra dollars are for quality and continued service" blah blah blah.... just like jeans ads, only less sexy.
I'm geussing that you've never actually tried to make a living this way.
Content is not the most important part of a website...if either are lax your website is useless.
Baloney. This is the information age, not the presentation age. I never go to a site to see what it looks like today. I want to find out what information is there today. If I'm interested in a 'user experience' I'll watch the commercials during the Super Bowl.
If the presentation is poorly done (the definition of 'poorly done' is different for different people) then it might be useless to some people. If there is no or low quality content then the site is useless to everyone, except perhaps to those who visit sites just to see what they look like.
Consider how cleverly crafted presentation will be lost on someone who is blind, color blind, epileptic, deaf, accessing the sight from a mobile phone, or some low bandwidth connection, etc.
Most people don't go to the internet just to look at the pretty pictures.
It hasn't always meant 8 bits. And there was nothing special about 8 bits--certainly not the size of a character.
But if a byte isn't 8 bits then 2 bits isn't a quarter of a byte. Then there's not a funny correlation between a quarter of a byte and a quarter of a dollar. What type of world would that be?
Many OO debaters often stretch the meanings of the the big three (poly, inher, encap) to mean whatever they want them to mean.... "Encapsulation" is such a vague, watered-down word that it can mean just about anything you want it to.
Just because many people don't understand the definition does not mean that the definition is vague or watered-down.
Anything that is "not at the right spot when you need it" can be blamed on "lack of encapsulation".
I would more likely blame lack of coherent design. But lack of encapsulation can result from the programmer hacking his way around the encapsulation to solve the problem.
Note that many of the goals of OO can be achieved in ways that are not necessarily OOP.
Yet another crack about GWB's intelligence. A friend of mine was curious and so did some research. He looked up Bush's SAT score: 1206 (pre-1995; it makes a difference). This puts him in the 95-98th percentile. Given also that he received an Ivy League diploma, I suppose he ought to be qualified as "Not Exactly Stupid."
Despite this, the largely liberal media spin has convinced everyone (including many supposedly enlightened slashdotters) that the man is too dumb to spell his own name.*
[*Or perhaps too stupid to fill out a ballot. Oh, wait. That would be a Gore supporter.]
Slashdot Mirror
unbelievably insightful. You obviously don't belong on SlashDot.
That's baloney. I did this, as an experiment, with 6.2 and the install ended up around 200MB. Still too big, mind you, but 1G is a little too much hyperbole to let stand.
It honestly takes you more than half a second to acquire a menu that isn't slapped against the edge of the screen? Yikes. My average time to acquire a menu is less than a quarter of a second, so if my average time savings was half a second then I could buy some extra time by simply browsing the menus!
Seriously, I am aware of all the supposedly authoratative research regarding the value of menus on the sides and corners of the screen. And I agree with it to some extent, but in many circumstances (which I seem to run into frequently, for some reason) it's a wash.
- If I have many similar windows open, I often select a menu item expecting it to apply to one window when, in fact, another window was currently focused; then I have to go and undo what I just did.
- Even if the menu is easier to acquire, the window, because it's disconnected from the window is often harder to reacquire after using the menu. This is especially true if the window is very small or far from the menu.
- This is related to the previous point. If the window is a good distance from the menu, I have rarely ever seen any time savings from the menu being "easy" to grab. What if the menu isn't even on the same physical screen as the window?
I won't say that the research is total bunk, but I just don't see it proving that the Mac way is clearly superior, hands down. I do realize, especially after reading that research, that the edges and corner of the screen are prime real estate for controls. Microsoft apparently wasted their research money: The 'Start' menu is exactly one pixel away from the corner of the screen. Ack!Maybe they just gather slashdot user names into their dictionary. Seems to me like a pretty good strategy if they are trying to get hotmail account names.
Did you ever go to school in Lyons, Oregon?
I doubt it. malloc(10737418240) should return null pretty quickly unless you have 10GB of virtual memory available.
Even if it did give you a 10GB buffer and even if most of it was in swap, I doubt it would slow the system down much, but your program's buffer accesses might be a tad pokey.
"Compatible with the GPL" is GNUSpeak for "Can be consumed by the GPL." Nothing is "completely compatible" with the GPL except for the GPL.
What I'm saying is that much of the rhetoric coming from the GPL camp is just so much pathos. I would respect the arguments of many GPL proponents much more if they were simply a little more intellectually honest.
To say that information that I have released openly to the public can be commandeered by somebody else and somehow no longer be open is blatently dishonest. It's a lie. What I've released to the public will always be available to the public. I've yet to hear a single GPL proponent admit that this is, in fact, true, or else argue cogently against it.
Instead, every time I or someone else points this out, one or more people, just like you, respond by changing the subject.
No. Code released under BSD license will always be free. If someone takes that code and makes proprietary software from it then the only thing that's not free is the difference, since anyone could always go back and get the original BSD code freely.
Care to provide some examples?
A few come to mind:
SpyGlass
Blue Mountain Arts
TV Host
STAC Electronics
Internet Electronics
IBM
Apple
This is too easy...
Most modern monotheistic religions don't purport to have all of life's answers, but only the most important ones.
Frankly, that's offensive in the extreme. Please name a religiously oriented charity (any religion) that would allow someone to die unless they converted.
Now why can't we get some worm ala CodeRed to make everybody's computer do this?
Thats Insightful? Inciteful is more like it.
Ironic side note:
This, I recall, is exactly what MS did to Spyglass. When Spyglass sued MS for not paying agreed-to royalties on Internet Explorer, MS responded that the royalties on a product that they sold for $0 was $0. One more company screwed by MS.
For what it's worth, I understood ErikZ's question right off. You're reading comprehension apparently isn't worth half your namesake.
--
I'm geussing that you've never actually tried to make a living this way.
--
Never thought I'd see a link to John Stockton's website in a Slashdot story. Talk about world's colliding!
--
Now that's funny!
--
Baloney. This is the information age, not the presentation age. I never go to a site to see what it looks like today. I want to find out what information is there today. If I'm interested in a 'user experience' I'll watch the commercials during the Super Bowl.
If the presentation is poorly done (the definition of 'poorly done' is different for different people) then it might be useless to some people. If there is no or low quality content then the site is useless to everyone, except perhaps to those who visit sites just to see what they look like.
Consider how cleverly crafted presentation will be lost on someone who is blind, color blind, epileptic, deaf, accessing the sight from a mobile phone, or some low bandwidth connection, etc.
Most people don't go to the internet just to look at the pretty pictures.
--
It hasn't always meant 8 bits. And there was nothing special about 8 bits--certainly not the size of a character.
But if a byte isn't 8 bits then 2 bits isn't a quarter of a byte. Then there's not a funny correlation between a quarter of a byte and a quarter of a dollar. What type of world would that be?
--
I think maybe he has. Perhaps even taught one. Or two.
--
Right. Just like they didn't make any money from Internet Explorer, and so didn't have any motivation to do it.
--
Just because many people don't understand the definition does not mean that the definition is vague or watered-down.
Anything that is "not at the right spot when you need it" can be blamed on "lack of encapsulation".
I would more likely blame lack of coherent design. But lack of encapsulation can result from the programmer hacking his way around the encapsulation to solve the problem.
Note that many of the goals of OO can be achieved in ways that are not necessarily OOP.
Agreed.
--
Yet another crack about GWB's intelligence. A friend of mine was curious and so did some research. He looked up Bush's SAT score: 1206 (pre-1995; it makes a difference). This puts him in the 95-98th percentile. Given also that he received an Ivy League diploma, I suppose he ought to be qualified as "Not Exactly Stupid."
Despite this, the largely liberal media spin has convinced everyone (including many supposedly enlightened slashdotters) that the man is too dumb to spell his own name.*
[*Or perhaps too stupid to fill out a ballot. Oh, wait. That would be a Gore supporter.]
--