So, do they actually manufacture RAM, or just retail it?
Judging by the article, they take Elpida's RAM chips and put them on their own custom "Brain Power" PCBs.
I don't see how much difference the PCB can make though: it's just an electrical connection to the chips, right? Sure, you can keep the circuits short and use really high purity copper but that's about it isn't it?
The fork(2) function causes creation of a new process. The new process
(child process) is an exact copy of the calling process (parent process)
except for the following:
* The child process has a unique process ID.
* The child process has a different parent process ID (i.e., the
process ID of the parent process).
* The child process has its own copy of the parent's descriptors.
These descriptors reference the same underlying objects, so that,
for instance, file pointers in file objects are shared between the
child and the parent, so that an lseek(2) on a descriptor in the
child process can affect a subsequent read(2) or write(2) by the
parent. This descriptor copying is also used by the shell to
establish standard input and output for newly created processes as
well as to set up pipes.
* The child process's values of tms_utime tms_stime tms_cutime and
tms_cstime are set to zero.
* The child does not inherit any file locks set by the parent.
* Any pending alarms have been cleared for the child process.
* Signals pending for the child process have been initialized to the
empty set.
RETURN VALUES
Upon successful completion, fork(2) returns a value of 0 to the child
process and returns the process ID of the child process to the parent
process. Otherwise, a value of -1 is returned to the parent process, no
child process is created, and the global variable errno is set to indicate
the error.
ERRORS
The fork(2) function will fail and no child process will be created if:
[EAGAIN]
The system-imposed limit on the total number of processes under
execution would be exceeded. This limit is configuration-dependent.
[EAGAIN]
The system-imposed limit on the total number of processes under
execution by a single user would be exceeded.
[ENOMEM]
Insufficient memory is available.
SEE ALSO
exec(2)
vfork(2)
wait(2)
USAGE NOTES
The fork function is thread safe.
The fork function is async-signal safe.
What point? Win32 does not have a fork, as that MSDN page describes. Win32 itself is not POSIX. SFU *is* POSIX. SFU *does* have fork(). Try 'man fork'.
Windows Server 2003 R2's Unix interop feature is derived from Microsoft's Services For Unix (SFU) which pulled a lot of source code from OpenBSD compiled by and packaged with GNU GCC.
What's your source for compiled with GCC? I'd have thought they'd use their own compilers through the/bin/cc wrapper.
IF it is for developers THEN it would be stupid to cripple it.
Express is not meant as a development platform if you're deploying to real SQL Server 2005: that's SQL Server 2005 Developer edition. And that's isn't cripplied, it's essentially the Enterprise edition. However, you can't use it in production or redistribute it.
SQL Server Express is a redistributable database engine you can bundle with your products when you need an embedded database.
OWA has used it extensively for years, as has the Microsoft tree view control used in the MSDN web site.
Fair play with OWA and all, but the tree in the MSDN site is fairly new: six weeks at most. And I think it's just one of the new.NET 2 controls anyone can use in their site.
The tree used to be DHTML in a single download which you didn't need authentication to fetch. I rigged up a cron job to download it every morning just before I got in and diff it against yesterday's as my own "New Stuff on MSDN" feed - their RSS feed always lags behind the site.
But you only need #import for COM type libraries, don't you? Which you'll only ever need on Windows, so MSVC-only isn't that big a deal?
Unless you're programming Objective C, that is.
In any case I think you can simulate it with one of the tools in your makefile anyway to generate a.h you can just #include.
The great thing with open source libraries like wxWidgets (which is very similar to MFC, by the way) is that you know what you're linking to and how they work.
But you do get the MFC source with MSVC! And the ATL and CRT sources too.
The GPL doesn't even threaten the user with legal action.... EULAs usually include verbage which implies pain of death.
In general I don't think they do. The WinXP one is the one I have to hand, and I don't see anything threatening in it. There's bount to be crackpot cases like the one in the article summary about chargebacks but I think they're the exception not the rule: in any case, I'd think it's in their favour to not write explicit penalties or threats into the agreement so they can push it as far as they possibly can in court.
And there's at least an explicit threat in the GPL: it's a legal document. What's the point of it if it's never going to be enforced?
Therefore, the windows is removing a right and not giving you anything. I.e.
GPL: You are allowed to distribute as long as... MS: You cannot do...
since the MS side goves you nothing you do not already have the right to do.
MS's says 'grant, provided'
1. GRANT OF LICENSE. Microsoft grants you the following rights provided that you comply with all terms and conditions of this EULA:
and the GPL says 'you may, provided', e.g.
1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided
Isn't that about the same?
I guess you're arguing that by purchasing a Windows CD you have free reign to do whatever you like with the bits on the CD? IANAL, so I can't give you the specifics here but I don't see a moral distinction between "may not use unless you agree" and "may not distribute unless you agree". I guess that's tied up in the finer points of copyright law and contract law.
The GPL asks that, if you do derive works from, that you distribute the source code for the result to your customers on demand.
OK, yes, I should probably have said "you may distribute derived works" then. That was wasn't the point of my argument and I do understand the GPL: I was just trying to present everything in simple terms.
My point was that EULAs don't just to take rights away (as the guy I replied to said), they're a grant of rights but with caveats. Which is what the GPL is too: it grants you rights to distribute derived works but only if you obey the terms.
The distinction between the GPL and most software licenses is that the GPL GIVES YOU RIGHTS that you would not otherwise have, whereas most ohter licenses TAKE RIGHTS AWAY
Uh, not really. They both grant you rights, but conditionally (AIUI, IANAL). The Windows EULA says "you may use Windows if you agree to our terms" whereas the GPL says "you may derive works from this code if you agree to our terms". I don't see the distiction. The Windows EULA doesn't just take rights away because you had no rights to use Windows in the first place.
A simplistic player for playing CD's, instead of the bloated mediaplayer that replaced it, adding nothing but taking up much more space on the screen.
Well, it added auto-CDDB via Gracenote.
It also now reads the data from the CD digitally, ostensibly tunes it up somehow, and feeds that to your speakers rather than using the direct CD audio connection between your CD and your soundcard like the old one did.
Re:I'd like IMDB more if...
on
IMDb Turns 15
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Do A-list movie stars have to pay to get their picture submitted?
IMDB also use pictures from wireimage, so if the A-lister attends virtually any premiere they'll get a photo on IMDB for free.
If they want a different photo, I'd guess they have to pay, yeah.
Are you saying that Microsoft broke the standard C libary?
No, they're trying to convince you to use safer versions of the functions with extra parameters. You get a warning
This function or variable may be unsafe. Consider using strnset_s instead. To disable deprecation, use _CRT_SECURE_NO_DEPRECATE. See online help for details.
They've proposed all the new *_s versions to the C standards committee, I think - they're trying to improve things rather than lock everyone in. In general the functions just add an extra parameter so you could always #define the *_s versions to call the originals discarding the extra param.
The old compiler (VC6, which I use by the way) didn't recognize variables declared in the for clause as existing only within the scope of the for loop.
This is a documented Microsoft syntax extension. You can disable it with/Za.
The problem is one of lockin. MS depricated ALL of the C standard library. Every strlen() is now a compile error. Best of all the only documented way to enable the old functionality (some obscure #pragma) was broken.
Uh, no, it's a define: _CRT_SECURE_NO_DEPRECATE. The warning message actually tells you that. Or at least it does in beta2 and beyond.
And it's not necessarily lockin: MS have proposed the *_s versions to the C committee, I think.
If an employee download the free version of Apache from the web site, makes a change,
The problem is that the employer almost certainly owns copyright on the change. That's a separate issue to the licence: even if Apache was GPL, the employee still couldn't offer that change for distribution without his employer's consent.
That's what the employer disclaimer section at the bottom of the GPL text is all about. And it's why you can't contribute to GCC, binutils, etc. without legally disclaiming all copyright interest in your changes and assigning copyright to the FSF, and without a note from your employeer legal disclaiming their interest in your changes.
Didn't Passport get cancelled? Are they building new systems based on a deprecated system?
It's being replaced in the upcoming Windows Communication Foundation (a.k.a. Indigo) with a more paranoid-friendly digital identity system. You can get your hands on a beta already. I expect that'll be a drop-in replacement and they need something to work with.
A stripped "regular" hw is 3192 bytes, 1 quadword longer than the -O3 binary.
-O3 has permission to make the file much larger in order to run quicker (e.g. extreme loop unrolling and inlining, etc.). -O2 and -Os, for example, don't.
But frankly 3K is reasonable for the CRT start-up, etc., anyway.
So if you eant to find say, "lost" you have to page through a ton of pages to find it.
Uh, no, you type "Lost" in the search box at the top and click the first result.
Look, it's not that big a deal is it? When Amazon bought imdb we all thought they'd ruined it but actually it's still pretty good. I get the feeling tv.com have held back a lot of the tvtome content until they've had a chance to review it - they're a better target to sue than tvtome - but there's still plenty there.
Well, duh, that was an analogy. He's saying you're dissing SFU for not being Cygwin without good cause, the way zealot-types diss BSD just because it's not Linux.
Besides, cygwin is GPLed - like Linux - and uses the GNU tool distributions to build up its environment - like (GNU/)Linux.
libraries and a compiler this side of the stone age
Huh? It's got GCC 3.3. What's wrong with that?
There's even a cc script that'll let you use regular MSVC compilers to target Interix although that doesn't usually work out of the box, it needs a few edits because it assumes extra paths etc. in the environment.
Slashdot Mirror
So, do they actually manufacture RAM, or just retail it?
Judging by the article, they take Elpida's RAM chips and put them on their own custom "Brain Power" PCBs.
I don't see how much difference the PCB can make though: it's just an electrical connection to the chips, right? Sure, you can keep the circuits short and use really high purity copper but that's about it isn't it?
Right there under SFU:
Just to drive the point home;
Where is fork()?
What point? Win32 does not have a fork, as that MSDN page describes. Win32 itself is not POSIX. SFU *is* POSIX. SFU *does* have fork(). Try 'man fork'.
Windows Server 2003 R2's Unix interop feature is derived from Microsoft's Services For Unix (SFU) which pulled a lot of source code from OpenBSD compiled by and packaged with GNU GCC.
/bin/cc wrapper.
What's your source for compiled with GCC? I'd have thought they'd use their own compilers through the
IF it is for developers THEN it would be stupid to cripple it.
Express is not meant as a development platform if you're deploying to real SQL Server 2005: that's SQL Server 2005 Developer edition. And that's isn't cripplied, it's essentially the Enterprise edition. However, you can't use it in production or redistribute it.
SQL Server Express is a redistributable database engine you can bundle with your products when you need an embedded database.
Uh, this bit:exactly as he said. The latest MSDE is the SQL 2000 engine, exactly as he said. Access uses the Jet database engine.
OWA has used it extensively for years, as has the Microsoft tree view control used in the MSDN web site.
.NET 2 controls anyone can use in their site.
Fair play with OWA and all, but the tree in the MSDN site is fairly new: six weeks at most. And I think it's just one of the new
The tree used to be DHTML in a single download which you didn't need authentication to fetch. I rigged up a cron job to download it every morning just before I got in and diff it against yesterday's as my own "New Stuff on MSDN" feed - their RSS feed always lags behind the site.
Just try doing an #import with GCC.
.h you can just #include.
But you only need #import for COM type libraries, don't you? Which you'll only ever need on Windows, so MSVC-only isn't that big a deal?
Unless you're programming Objective C, that is.
In any case I think you can simulate it with one of the tools in your makefile anyway to generate a
The great thing with open source libraries like wxWidgets (which is very similar to MFC, by the way) is that you know what you're linking to and how they work.
But you do get the MFC source with MSVC! And the ATL and CRT sources too.
Fair enough, but
... EULAs usually include verbage which implies pain of death.
The GPL doesn't even threaten the user with legal action.
In general I don't think they do. The WinXP one is the one I have to hand, and I don't see anything threatening in it. There's bount to be crackpot cases like the one in the article summary about chargebacks but I think they're the exception not the rule: in any case, I'd think it's in their favour to not write explicit penalties or threats into the agreement so they can push it as far as they possibly can in court.
And there's at least an explicit threat in the GPL: it's a legal document. What's the point of it if it's never going to be enforced?
GPL: You are allowed to distribute as long as...
MS: You cannot do
since the MS side goves you nothing you do not already have the right to do.
MS's says 'grant, provided'and the GPL says 'you may, provided', e.g.Isn't that about the same?
I guess you're arguing that by purchasing a Windows CD you have free reign to do whatever you like with the bits on the CD? IANAL, so I can't give you the specifics here but I don't see a moral distinction between "may not use unless you agree" and "may not distribute unless you agree". I guess that's tied up in the finer points of copyright law and contract law.
The GPL asks that, if you do derive works from, that you distribute the source code for the result to your customers on demand.
OK, yes, I should probably have said "you may distribute derived works" then. That was wasn't the point of my argument and I do understand the GPL: I was just trying to present everything in simple terms.
My point was that EULAs don't just to take rights away (as the guy I replied to said), they're a grant of rights but with caveats. Which is what the GPL is too: it grants you rights to distribute derived works but only if you obey the terms.
The distinction between the GPL and most software licenses is that the GPL GIVES YOU RIGHTS that you would not otherwise have, whereas most ohter licenses TAKE RIGHTS AWAY
Uh, not really. They both grant you rights, but conditionally (AIUI, IANAL). The Windows EULA says "you may use Windows if you agree to our terms" whereas the GPL says "you may derive works from this code if you agree to our terms". I don't see the distiction. The Windows EULA doesn't just take rights away because you had no rights to use Windows in the first place.
A simplistic player for playing CD's, instead of the bloated mediaplayer that replaced it, adding nothing but taking up much more space on the screen.
Well, it added auto-CDDB via Gracenote.
It also now reads the data from the CD digitally, ostensibly tunes it up somehow, and feeds that to your speakers rather than using the direct CD audio connection between your CD and your soundcard like the old one did.
Do A-list movie stars have to pay to get their picture submitted?
IMDB also use pictures from wireimage, so if the A-lister attends virtually any premiere they'll get a photo on IMDB for free.
If they want a different photo, I'd guess they have to pay, yeah.
No, they're trying to convince you to use safer versions of the functions with extra parameters. You get a warning
They've proposed all the new *_s versions to the C standards committee, I think - they're trying to improve things rather than lock everyone in. In general the functions just add an extra parameter so you could always #define the *_s versions to call the originals discarding the extra param.
The old compiler (VC6, which I use by the way) didn't recognize variables declared in the for clause as existing only within the scope of the for loop.
/Za.
This is a documented Microsoft syntax extension. You can disable it with
Anyone can get hold of an 'express' edition of the whole IDE for free - there's no reason to judge it on the 2003 compiler.
And if they're a serious Windows dev shop they'll probably have an MSDN subscription and already have access to the new version anyway.
The problem is one of lockin. MS depricated ALL of the C standard library. Every strlen() is now a compile error. Best of all the only documented way to enable the old functionality (some obscure #pragma) was broken.
Uh, no, it's a define: _CRT_SECURE_NO_DEPRECATE. The warning message actually tells you that. Or at least it does in beta2 and beyond.
And it's not necessarily lockin: MS have proposed the *_s versions to the C committee, I think.
If an employee download the free version of Apache from the web site, makes a change,
The problem is that the employer almost certainly owns copyright on the change. That's a separate issue to the licence: even if Apache was GPL, the employee still couldn't offer that change for distribution without his employer's consent.
That's what the employer disclaimer section at the bottom of the GPL text is all about. And it's why you can't contribute to GCC, binutils, etc. without legally disclaiming all copyright interest in your changes and assigning copyright to the FSF, and without a note from your employeer legal disclaiming their interest in your changes.
Didn't Passport get cancelled? Are they building new systems based on a deprecated system?
It's being replaced in the upcoming Windows Communication Foundation (a.k.a. Indigo) with a more paranoid-friendly digital identity system. You can get your hands on a beta already. I expect that'll be a drop-in replacement and they need something to work with.
(In fact, MS Identity guy Kim Cameron's latest blog entry is called InfoCard Not Son Of Passport.)
A stripped "regular" hw is 3192 bytes, 1 quadword longer than the -O3 binary.
-O3 has permission to make the file much larger in order to run quicker (e.g. extreme loop unrolling and inlining, etc.). -O2 and -Os, for example, don't.
But frankly 3K is reasonable for the CRT start-up, etc., anyway.
So if you eant to find say, "lost" you have to page through a ton of pages to find it.
Uh, no, you type "Lost" in the search box at the top and click the first result.
Look, it's not that big a deal is it? When Amazon bought imdb we all thought they'd ruined it but actually it's still pretty good. I get the feeling tv.com have held back a lot of the tvtome content until they've had a chance to review it - they're a better target to sue than tvtome - but there's still plenty there.
cygwin has absolutely nothing to do with linux.
Well, duh, that was an analogy. He's saying you're dissing SFU for not being Cygwin without good cause, the way zealot-types diss BSD just because it's not Linux.
Besides, cygwin is GPLed - like Linux - and uses the GNU tool distributions to build up its environment - like (GNU/)Linux.
If no one's pirating a Microsoft product, you'd think next to no one actually uses it.
Pirate it? It's a free download.
libraries and a compiler this side of the stone age
Huh? It's got GCC 3.3. What's wrong with that?
There's even a cc script that'll let you use regular MSVC compilers to target Interix although that doesn't usually work out of the box, it needs a few edits because it assumes extra paths etc. in the environment.