Although it is sad to see the Zaurus getting a bad review, this was more or less to be expected. After all the modified version of RTLinux that is included with the Zaurus may offer small footprint, but most people will concur that it's not quite ready for production use yet. I believe Sharp rushed it to market. With development cost on the Zaurus approaching $100 million though, who can blame them.
If this was any other subject most of you freaks would be going on about how input data should never be able to crash the system. We would get to marvel at commentary such as "let me bore you with my recently acquired knowledge of the garbage in garbage out principle", "my program never has buffer overflows because I always jerk off before, after and during the writing of code" and the +5, Pompous "Without wanting to.... However... Although... Reasonably... Microsoft... Still... Granted... <funny tag>... -- Witty Sig".
But I suppose the shoe is on the other foot now. Meanwhile, which one of you wankers a) has actually observed a computer crashing as a result of this and b) has a technical explanation for same?
This is typically the kind of braindead attitude that gives security such a bad rep with management. Just like everything else, security has to undergo cost-benefit analysis. If the cost doesn't justify the benefits, then you shouldn't do it, no matter how good it feels. If your website doesn't store sensitive information and gets defaced once every two years and it costs 2 hours to restore, then it just doesn't pay to bother with 30 character randomized passwords and training plus background checks on all staff.
One of the great benefits of open source software is that you can install it, then barring any critical bugs or flaws, you can forget about it. You don't have to buy new licenses each year and you don't have to upgrade your software just because your vendor needs to kill a competitor with software upgrades that break stuff. Having software expire gives you all of these problems without any of the benefits. And who says that the new version will suit your needs any better?
It depends on how many people use the modified code. If only a few people use it then you are perhaps better off buying licenses. For hundreds or thousands of users, possibly at different branches, it's no longer as clear-cut as you make it out to be.
Uh? What kind of nonsense is this? MS should just fuck off and die. No, wait. YOU should just fuck off and die. MS can just fuck off. Really. Explain to me, why should MS have an open source strategy?
Many people are talking about the need for a new killer app to use all this speed. Some people say that killer app has already arrived in the form of video and other signal processing tasks. Ultimately I don't think that is how it works though. I think most of the processing power will just be absorbed by a much more diffuse and amorphous collection of tasks and requirements than just a single "killer app". For example:
Windows NT. Many people (and most gamers) are still running Win9x. For a variety of reasons, these people will want to migrate to NT/XP/Happy Meal in the future. That takes processing power, both directly and indirectly (e.g. NT uses more memory, which means the OS has to move around more memory, which means it needs a faster CPU, etcetera).
Improved human computer interaction and other "soft" areas such as localization and internationalization. For convenience I'm including things like 200dpi displays and input devices with very high sampling rates/throughput as well as sane error messages and effective automated troubleshooting -- think Clippy, or the IBM effort towards "self managing" systems (if I got the term right).
Increased focus on/awareness of security. It is nice if the computer prevents people from tampering with your data by verifying credentials at every step. It also means the computer has to verify credentials at every step.
Interpreted applications. Someone described Internet Explorer as an "advanced interpreter" on Slashdot the other day. That is a very accurate characterization. Think also of things like Flash, Java(script), and VB.
Bloat (or, what most of you guys would call bloat -- I don't think many of you could or would want to design their own fonts). Think of things like document templates, fonts (and complex font rendering technology) and desktop backgrounds (200dpi desktop images anyone?). Think also of the incorporation of "real world" quantities into software; things like measurements (pixels, inches, cm), "favorites" lists, ISP lists, stock media, etcetera.
Backward compatibility, both on the hardware as on the software level. This includes thunking layers, virtual machines, emulators, and what not. Open source software, incidentally, can avoid some of the cost of backward compatibility, because when you change a piece of software, you can usually simply recompile software which depends on it. It is truly remarkable how much code any random application contains because of the requirement for binary backward compatibility.
Obviously this is just a very fragmented list and there is a lot of overlap in the things I mentioned as well. Still you have to ask, why is it that a 2 GHz machines can take anywhere from 15 to 30 seconds just to boot up? That is more than it used to take my CP/M Bondwell to start up Wordstar. And that was over fifteen years ago. Just a thought.
From my point of view, you changed the subject. From yours, you just brought it back.
I see. That jives.
The point is that gun control advocates are arguing for removing rights and confiscating possessions that people already have.
In the US no doubt that is true. In Europe, by and large, it is exactly the opposite. Thus, I am having a hard time adjusting to your perspective, and you can construe this as a failing or a limitation if you so desire. I do not feel that way.
I have little problem with the New York City ordinances that ban guns, for example.
Then I have misinterpreted your statements. Similarly I have little problem with you carrying a gun, or with you using them to kill "furry animals".
That's a large part of the reason why I debate things on/. and in other fora, to broaden my perspective. Do you? (That's a rhetorical question, but not one that I presume I know the answer to).
No, I'm a troll. Not a very good one at that.
Why does everyone always bring up deer as the canonical game, anyway?
I haven't got a clue. I never understood the attraction of deer either. Nevertheless I am happily furthering the misconception. I suppose it facilitates the understanding for those of us who do not hunt. But I also understand it does subtly (and not so subtly) slant and distort the topic towards the interests of gun-control advocates.
*I* suggest you get away from the crowds, spend some time hiking through forests, climbing mountains and canoeing down rivers and get some perspective.
An entirely different kind of freedom. I can dig that.
The possibility of a bad thing happening frightens them so badly that they want to take tools away from everyone, including those that have legitimate uses for them. Again I'll ask (since this is/.): can you explain how your point of view is logically different from that of the RIAA and MPAA?
I don't propose legislation to take away your guns. More profoundly (bordering on the melodramatic) I do not think the RIAA is concerned about the toll on human life, if you will pardon that indulgence on my behalf.
You are indicating you would support taking my possessions away and changing my lifestyle for absolutely no good reason, however.
Not really. I was under the impression that you would foist guns on people because "the Bill of Rights" <other ideological construct> says so.
If the population continues to grow as it has, then eventually there may be no wild places left, that's true. It will take quite a long time before that's the case, however, and it's possible that it may never happen. Population growth in the U.S. is declining and is already very close to zero if you discount immigration.
We may very well be witnessing the end of explosive population growth and corresponding urbanization. If not, however, then your style of life may become untenable. I don't look forward to that. But I believe it is likely to happen and I don't oppose it either. As such it riled me to see that you would take your own way of life as the measure of all things, which is how I interpreted it.
Actually most people would call it a fascist regime. Nationalists with an aggressively militaristic, expansionist ideology. Nobody would call that a "left wing institution" nowadays. You might know that the Nazi's fought the communists tooth and nail. In Europe, we recognize this as a fight between the left and the right. And guess who was on the left, because it sure wasn't the Nazi's. You should "sit down" yourself sometime. You cannot just apply left/right terminology across the Atlantic and have it make sense.
Cool hack! Will they also start suing (the heirs of) Paul McCartney if it retrospectively turns out that some of his songs encode for some expensive gene?
Yeah, obviously it would get slower and it would be a support nightmare. They have got that right. All your/. morons are making idiots out of yourselves with the whiny little kid "welll, but it IS modular! i seen them disable IE!". That's completely irrelevant. You software gurus sonorously humming that "modular design is good design.. hum humm..." you guys don't get the picture either. Think about it, idiots. Microsoft having to publish, document and maintain a the APIs that they use, that will require new APIs, and that itself will require some new APIs (all kinds of query APIs for example; what kind of media player is installed? what kind of browser? etc.). Of course that makes the system worse as a whole. This whole "solution" just isn't. What it is is another shining example of totally bogus lawpeople making totally bogus claims.
What this comes down to, if it passes, is that the government (i.e. Disney) gets the right to invade software and put their own rubbish there. Why don't you Guevara wannabes just leave Windows alone. Most of you are using IE anyway, fucking hypocrits. Y'all just wanna bitch.
Bah. None of those solve any computing problems or even programmer problems. They solve management problems, and they don't do that very well either. You don't need any of them, unless you need to interface with some other poor sod who fell for that crap. You just end up bludgeoning CORBA/XML/J2EE until it fits your application, at which point you might as well have rolled you own, or, you restrict yourself to the applications that this tech naturally allows, in which case you are headed for the eternal, infernal upgrade treadmill.
Wow, an actual insightful comment, and look, it was even moderated as such (not). You are right of course. The question is whether it matters when it takes ten years or more to implement the better idea.
The only limitation to a Star Trek script is the human imagination. Still they pore the same old dreck time and time again. Sorry kid. Stopped dreaming a long time ago.
Wait a minute. I jumped into a discussion on gun control, then you started waxing lyrically on the pleasures of hunting. I didn't ask for your dewy-eyed description of how great it feels to kill animals in the morning. In fact I showed much restraint in not putting that romantic blather down as the self-absorbed blather that it is. Also, it appears you forgot who originally introduced the "civilized" verbiage; that is, it was you, that is, the arrogant prick who ostensibly feels too good for civilization with all its trials and tribulations.
Anyway. I see you would like to drop the subject of hunting. Fine. Explain to me how it can be that gun control advocates should "bear the burden of proof", when in fact none of us are born with the natural (or "ingrained") capacity to actually fire bullets. Explain to me also how it can be that your country espouses the right to bear arms, yet will go to war on countries that arm themselves. Explain to me, finally, what it is that you hope to achieve by your (exclamated) mention of the Bill of Rights.
Just look at you. You don't know shit about what is going on in the world (you have admitted as much by your contemptuous characterization of various people here as "city-bred", ignoring the fact that over half the world's population lives in same), yet you maintain that the human deaths and sorrow caused by gun-related violence is a fair trade if it means you get to satisfy your indulgence of shooting a deer ONCE or TWICE in your LIFE. Bah. Get out of the woods or whereever it is that you live your rustic life and get some perspective.
"your ilk are the ones trying to invade my privacy and my life"
"go after criminals and leave me the hell alone"
Surprise surprise, paranoid to boot. I am not the one invading your privacy, fella. I am just posting messages on a bulletin board. But it explains your attachment to guns if you feel that easily threatened. Of course it also explains why many people are uncomfortable with the thought of a sheltered individual like you carrying a gun.
No, I'm not the one invading your privacy. All I am doing is telling you that your way of life is going the way of the dodo. But don't worry. We can round y'all up like the Indians and have you shoot deer for the tourists. Spiffy! Doubt if you'd notice the difference anyhoo.
What Eric really means here is, "Why Eric Raymond will rule". Napoleon in his own mind, it is of no use trying to argue with the man. Or you would have to enjoy wrestling pigs in the mud.
There are no new ideas in computing. Anybody who tries to sell you a "new idea" in computing is a gasbag who is either a) blissfully ignorant or b) willfully ignorant.
Jezus. Talk about missing the point. I really don't care what you do in your spare time. If you think it makes sense to kill fish go ahead and kill fish. But don't then come to me that you need guns to do so.
My hands are rather small, weak and lacking in functional claws.
Right. So take the hint. You are a pathetic predator.
Slashdot Mirror
Although it is sad to see the Zaurus getting a bad review, this was more or less to be expected. After all the modified version of RTLinux that is included with the Zaurus may offer small footprint, but most people will concur that it's not quite ready for production use yet. I believe Sharp rushed it to market. With development cost on the Zaurus approaching $100 million though, who can blame them.
Cheap whores for dumb geeks. Push button.
Science fiction, computer games and cartoons. Stunted children? You decide.
But I suppose the shoe is on the other foot now. Meanwhile, which one of you wankers a) has actually observed a computer crashing as a result of this and b) has a technical explanation for same?
Starts looking more and more like C++.
One of the great benefits of open source software is that you can install it, then barring any critical bugs or flaws, you can forget about it. You don't have to buy new licenses each year and you don't have to upgrade your software just because your vendor needs to kill a competitor with software upgrades that break stuff. Having software expire gives you all of these problems without any of the benefits. And who says that the new version will suit your needs any better?
It depends on how many people use the modified code. If only a few people use it then you are perhaps better off buying licenses. For hundreds or thousands of users, possibly at different branches, it's no longer as clear-cut as you make it out to be.
Bwahahaha. This is really not the time or the place for the XML junkies to start getting fussy over bloat.
Uh? What kind of nonsense is this? MS should just fuck off and die. No, wait. YOU should just fuck off and die. MS can just fuck off. Really. Explain to me, why should MS have an open source strategy?
- Windows NT. Many people (and most gamers) are still running Win9x. For a variety of reasons, these people will want to migrate to NT/XP/Happy Meal in the future. That takes processing power, both directly and indirectly (e.g. NT uses more memory, which means the OS has to move around more memory, which means it needs a faster CPU, etcetera).
- Improved human computer interaction and other "soft" areas such as localization and internationalization. For convenience I'm including things like 200dpi displays and input devices with very high sampling rates/throughput as well as sane error messages and effective automated troubleshooting -- think Clippy, or the IBM effort towards "self managing" systems (if I got the term right).
- Increased focus on/awareness of security. It is nice if the computer prevents people from tampering with your data by verifying credentials at every step. It also means the computer has to verify credentials at every step.
- Interpreted applications. Someone described Internet Explorer as an "advanced interpreter" on Slashdot the other day. That is a very accurate characterization. Think also of things like Flash, Java(script), and VB.
- Bloat (or, what most of you guys would call bloat -- I don't think many of you could or would want to design their own fonts). Think of things like document templates, fonts (and complex font rendering technology) and desktop backgrounds (200dpi desktop images anyone?). Think also of the incorporation of "real world" quantities into software; things like measurements (pixels, inches, cm), "favorites" lists, ISP lists, stock media, etcetera.
- Backward compatibility, both on the hardware as on the software level. This includes thunking layers, virtual machines, emulators, and what not. Open source software, incidentally, can avoid some of the cost of backward compatibility, because when you change a piece of software, you can usually simply recompile software which depends on it. It is truly remarkable how much code any random application contains because of the requirement for binary backward compatibility.
Obviously this is just a very fragmented list and there is a lot of overlap in the things I mentioned as well. Still you have to ask, why is it that a 2 GHz machines can take anywhere from 15 to 30 seconds just to boot up? That is more than it used to take my CP/M Bondwell to start up Wordstar. And that was over fifteen years ago. Just a thought.I see. That jives.
The point is that gun control advocates are arguing for removing rights and confiscating possessions that people already have.
In the US no doubt that is true. In Europe, by and large, it is exactly the opposite. Thus, I am having a hard time adjusting to your perspective, and you can construe this as a failing or a limitation if you so desire. I do not feel that way.
I have little problem with the New York City ordinances that ban guns, for example.
Then I have misinterpreted your statements. Similarly I have little problem with you carrying a gun, or with you using them to kill "furry animals".
That's a large part of the reason why I debate things on /. and in other fora, to broaden my perspective. Do you? (That's a rhetorical question, but not one that I presume I know the answer to).
No, I'm a troll. Not a very good one at that.
Why does everyone always bring up deer as the canonical game, anyway?
I haven't got a clue. I never understood the attraction of deer either. Nevertheless I am happily furthering the misconception. I suppose it facilitates the understanding for those of us who do not hunt. But I also understand it does subtly (and not so subtly) slant and distort the topic towards the interests of gun-control advocates.
*I* suggest you get away from the crowds, spend some time hiking through forests, climbing mountains and canoeing down rivers and get some perspective.
An entirely different kind of freedom. I can dig that.
The possibility of a bad thing happening frightens them so badly that they want to take tools away from everyone, including those that have legitimate uses for them. Again I'll ask (since this is /.): can you explain how your point of view is logically different from that of the RIAA and MPAA?
I don't propose legislation to take away your guns. More profoundly (bordering on the melodramatic) I do not think the RIAA is concerned about the toll on human life, if you will pardon that indulgence on my behalf.
You are indicating you would support taking my possessions away and changing my lifestyle for absolutely no good reason, however.
Not really. I was under the impression that you would foist guns on people because "the Bill of Rights" <other ideological construct> says so.
If the population continues to grow as it has, then eventually there may be no wild places left, that's true. It will take quite a long time before that's the case, however, and it's possible that it may never happen. Population growth in the U.S. is declining and is already very close to zero if you discount immigration.
We may very well be witnessing the end of explosive population growth and corresponding urbanization. If not, however, then your style of life may become untenable. I don't look forward to that. But I believe it is likely to happen and I don't oppose it either. As such it riled me to see that you would take your own way of life as the measure of all things, which is how I interpreted it.
snide remarks
Ah. What us flabby gut city-breds do best.
You like my sig, don't you?
It's been noticed for sure.
Actually most people would call it a fascist regime. Nationalists with an aggressively militaristic, expansionist ideology. Nobody would call that a "left wing institution" nowadays. You might know that the Nazi's fought the communists tooth and nail. In Europe, we recognize this as a fight between the left and the right. And guess who was on the left, because it sure wasn't the Nazi's. You should "sit down" yourself sometime. You cannot just apply left/right terminology across the Atlantic and have it make sense.
Cool hack! Will they also start suing (the heirs of) Paul McCartney if it retrospectively turns out that some of his songs encode for some expensive gene?
What this comes down to, if it passes, is that the government (i.e. Disney) gets the right to invade software and put their own rubbish there. Why don't you Guevara wannabes just leave Windows alone. Most of you are using IE anyway, fucking hypocrits. Y'all just wanna bitch.
But maybe I'm biased :)
Wow, an actual insightful comment, and look, it was even moderated as such (not). You are right of course. The question is whether it matters when it takes ten years or more to implement the better idea.
I don't know. Are they trying to sell AtheOS yet? What are its selling points?
"To say that computer science is about computers is like saying that astronomy is about telescopes." -- Dijkstra
Funny. None of the examples you mention are actually new. Was that your intent or did it just come out that way?
The only limitation to a Star Trek script is the human imagination. Still they pore the same old dreck time and time again. Sorry kid. Stopped dreaming a long time ago.
Anyway. I see you would like to drop the subject of hunting. Fine. Explain to me how it can be that gun control advocates should "bear the burden of proof", when in fact none of us are born with the natural (or "ingrained") capacity to actually fire bullets. Explain to me also how it can be that your country espouses the right to bear arms, yet will go to war on countries that arm themselves. Explain to me, finally, what it is that you hope to achieve by your (exclamated) mention of the Bill of Rights.
Just look at you. You don't know shit about what is going on in the world (you have admitted as much by your contemptuous characterization of various people here as "city-bred", ignoring the fact that over half the world's population lives in same), yet you maintain that the human deaths and sorrow caused by gun-related violence is a fair trade if it means you get to satisfy your indulgence of shooting a deer ONCE or TWICE in your LIFE. Bah. Get out of the woods or whereever it is that you live your rustic life and get some perspective.
"your ilk are the ones trying to invade my privacy and my life"
"go after criminals and leave me the hell alone"
Surprise surprise, paranoid to boot. I am not the one invading your privacy, fella. I am just posting messages on a bulletin board. But it explains your attachment to guns if you feel that easily threatened. Of course it also explains why many people are uncomfortable with the thought of a sheltered individual like you carrying a gun.
No, I'm not the one invading your privacy. All I am doing is telling you that your way of life is going the way of the dodo. But don't worry. We can round y'all up like the Indians and have you shoot deer for the tourists. Spiffy! Doubt if you'd notice the difference anyhoo.
What Eric really means here is, "Why Eric Raymond will rule". Napoleon in his own mind, it is of no use trying to argue with the man. Or you would have to enjoy wrestling pigs in the mud.
There are no new ideas in computing. Anybody who tries to sell you a "new idea" in computing is a gasbag who is either a) blissfully ignorant or b) willfully ignorant.