Real, subtle nasty one. We had an internal data representation that use large numbers of 7-byte structs. So sometimes you copy them with
s1=s2;
Well, the compiler drops in the code to copy 8 bytes!
This manifested itself as occasional corruption of data.
We ended up changing the structures to classes, and giving them copy constructors and assignment operators that did member copies.
Shame about the language. The points raised, even if only 30% true, should be addressed.
Re:Joke though it may seem
on
DRM Helmet
·
· Score: 1
Please, someone mod up the parent of this message. The following quote needs to be printed really big somewhere:
But aside from that... when I purchase the CD I own the CD and the contents of it. I didn't purchase a right to "listen" to the music via "approved" methods. At the same time I fully understand that you've been mindwashed into thinking that you've only purchased the "license" to listen to the "property" using a select few "methods" and that any attempts to listen to it through another "method" requires a new "license". I'm just saying that we can't let the RIAA try to pull off that nonsense because their ultimate goal is to charge you money _each_ _and_ _every_ _time_ _you_ _listen_ _to_ _a_ _song_. And that is ridiculous.
They really do. Wait for pay-per-listen radio. That's what they want.
Aaaagh! Will you hackers finally get it! The Web is NOT free! It is freely accessable which is not the same thing at all! You have no more right to copy or otherwise pass off as your own the content you see than you have to tape music from the radio and sell (or even give away) the tapes! Just because I show you something, it doesn't stop it being mine.
Silly - the deep linking he refers to is the kind where the original site is hidden. I.e., direct linking to.jpgs, or links to html that has only text and no branding or header info. As such, the linker is trying to pass off the content as their own work. People put stuff on the web for lots of reasons - financial, or personal. The content is still "copyright" even if it's publicly accessable. Otherwise copying posters off the walls and using the images wouldn't be illegal either.
In short - it's not linking that's bad, it's the "passing off" that is.
Because the development tools, and the associated libraries, are the easiest thing to use. MFC and such mean that you can get a good-looking, functional app with the minimum amount of work. VC++5 or 6 is friendly, with a fully-featured and robust debugger. I've used gdb. I've tried (and failed with) Wingdb. I know what I'd rather use.
M$ have an acronym for this. OOBE. Out-Of-Box-Experience. Linux's OOBE is still not good. Hate it or no, Windows lets you stuff the CD in a "dark" machine, follow the wizards, and have it running. Two machines, a pair of network cards and a hub, and any moederately intelligent user has a simple peer-to-peer network that works. It's not secure, it's not particularly optimal, but it works. Heck, he could even share a broadband link by turning on ICS.
This sub-optimal but working functionality extends to Windows servers. An office full of PCs could have shared print, email and public directories, without the guy setting it up really understanding how it works.
Now, even with the latest distros, I remain to be convinced that this mug-proof system configuration really exists for Linux.
Linux servers tend to be operated by trained/experienced admins, who don't need a good OOBE, as they want to set it up "properly" themselves. So Linux wins in the server world.
CDNOW says:
One non-musical caveat: The CD is copy-protected, and cannot be played by anything but a standard audio player. If you wish to use your computer to listen to the music that you purchased on CD, you'll have to go to the website of the company providing the protection technology and download, one at a time, Windows Media file versions of the 15 tracks (and if you own a Mac, you're simply out of luck). Intellectual property holders have legitimate concerns about piracy these days, but this is a ham-handed and unjustifiable response to the problem
So it will play on a standard audio CD player. How long before CD-Drive manufacturers add a "pure audio" mode to drives?
What you buy is accountability. I install Red Hat and set it up. We get hacked. Tough, I goofed. I tell the boss to buy $3k's worth of HP stuff. We get hacked. We sue/ claim compensation from HP for not doing their job right.
Slashdot Mirror
Warning! As far as I know, this bug still exists!
Shame about the language. The points raised, even if only 30% true, should be addressed.
But aside from that... when I purchase the CD I own the CD and the contents of it. I didn't purchase a right to "listen" to the music via "approved" methods. At the same time I fully understand that you've been mindwashed into thinking that you've only purchased the "license" to listen to the "property" using a select few "methods" and that any attempts to listen to it through another "method" requires a new "license". I'm just saying that we can't let the RIAA try to pull off that nonsense because their ultimate goal is to charge you money _each_ _and_ _every_ _time_ _you_ _listen_ _to_ _a_ _song_. And that is ridiculous.
They really do. Wait for pay-per-listen radio. That's what they want.
Aaaagh! Will you hackers finally get it! The Web is NOT free! It is freely accessable which is not the same thing at all! You have no more right to copy or otherwise pass off as your own the content you see than you have to tape music from the radio and sell (or even give away) the tapes!
Just because I show you something, it doesn't stop it being mine.
Silly - the deep linking he refers to is the kind where the original site is hidden. I.e., direct linking to .jpgs, or links to html that has only text and no branding or header info. As such, the linker is trying to pass off the content as their own work.
People put stuff on the web for lots of reasons - financial, or personal. The content is still "copyright" even if it's publicly accessable. Otherwise copying posters off the walls and using the images wouldn't be illegal either.
In short - it's not linking that's bad, it's the "passing off" that is.
Because the development tools, and the associated libraries, are the easiest thing to use. MFC and such mean that you can get a good-looking, functional app with the minimum amount of work. VC++5 or 6 is friendly, with a fully-featured and robust debugger. I've used gdb. I've tried (and failed with) Wingdb. I know what I'd rather use.
This sub-optimal but working functionality extends to Windows servers. An office full of PCs could have shared print, email and public directories, without the guy setting it up really understanding how it works.
Now, even with the latest distros, I remain to be convinced that this mug-proof system configuration really exists for Linux.
Linux servers tend to be operated by trained/experienced admins, who don't need a good OOBE, as they want to set it up "properly" themselves. So Linux wins in the server world.
CDNOW says: One non-musical caveat: The CD is copy-protected, and cannot be played by anything but a standard audio player. If you wish to use your computer to listen to the music that you purchased on CD, you'll have to go to the website of the company providing the protection technology and download, one at a time, Windows Media file versions of the 15 tracks (and if you own a Mac, you're simply out of luck). Intellectual property holders have legitimate concerns about piracy these days, but this is a ham-handed and unjustifiable response to the problem So it will play on a standard audio CD player. How long before CD-Drive manufacturers add a "pure audio" mode to drives?
What you buy is accountability.
I install Red Hat and set it up. We get hacked. Tough, I goofed.
I tell the boss to buy $3k's worth of HP stuff. We get hacked. We sue/ claim compensation from HP for not doing their job right.