I have seen various types of malware that may not cause damage other files but they can stop IE from working properly (lots of crashes). The trouble is that spyware from company A may not work correctly if spyware from company B is present. Both probably have to close a relationship with IE so changes there can cause problems.
Did they compile those sources? From what I undertsand, the source that is distributed isn't complete and the distribution isn't intended for compilation. Some bits apparently do compile, but somebits do not (missing code).
I use and like Adaware and I try to encourage friends to use it. Adware isn't the only hazard though.
Anyne know what is the best anti-dialer? I have been removing dialers by hand for friends (Yes, I warn them to be careful about clicking "Yes", but some sites make it very difficult to escape).
I would extend the para by saying that encouraging people to use software that they can not afford later in life is tantamount to encouraging piracy. This is an argument that everyone must agree with even if it goes against Microsoft's unwritten policy:
If they use pirated software, make sure that it is our software, then the users that can and must afford the license fees can only draw upon Microsoft expertise.
As firewire should be able to do IP and there is as least one open source impleentation of SCSI over firewire, what's the problem?
Actually SCSI over IP sounds real good, but older SAN implementations used other, simpler, non-routable datagram based protocols to make things faster. The regulur SCSI over IP is TCP based.
The first time I have come across multiple files living inside a container was a twenty year old operating system, the idea isn't particularly new.
Well on Winxx we could do it just by hiding the folder where everything is stored. Already that sort of happens with windows because you are 'discouraged' from looking inside 'Program Files'. The issue with moving the program directory from disk to disk is that a lot of info is also kept in the registery.
The pure Unix form is even worse, I don't particulalry like programs that leave bits all over the place (/usr/local/bin,/usr/local/lib and so on). However, there are solutions to that as well (I guess one of the early ones was the system administration database kept by AIX).
The Mac solution is easy when I have a nioce small program. Unfortunately it get less so when I have something unwieldy like Exchange, which even prefers to be spread scross several spindles.
What is really needed is a balance where a package may have a user representation and a technical implementation that are different, but allow a package to be easily maintained yet remain efficiently implemented.
When I first read Vinge and discovered his term Software Archeology, I loved it. What other name can you give for digging in old systems (ours was around 15 years old). There is new code but one heck of a lot of old code that is crying out for a redesign some time.
One of the areas of cruft I had to work on last year was a CRT form based data enty system for product setup. The end-user never sees the screens but market supervision must use them to create products. The screens (there are two inter-related forms) have all manner of stuff there which if you fill in incorrectly, you may be left with an inconsistent database with minimal checking until too late.
Here the author obviously hasn't used a PocketPC. With the PPC its very very easy not to close applications. What happens? The system slows down to a crawl as it tried to run 5 or 6 different applications.
Some developers sneak in an exit code. Theoretically it is against the PowerPC guidelines, but to me it seems eminently sensible. What doesn't help under WinCE is the fact that the apps aren't 100% stable and sometimes you *have* to be able to exit to ensure resures are released.
I agree with the general point about cruft accumulating in old s/w but the guy gives some very bad examples.
In a) he talks about the use of inode numbers as an internal reference used by the system. Regrettably, inodes and other equivalent internal reference numbers used by other file systems under other alternative operating systems can move around. Generally opening by inode is only recommended after first opening by name.
Having more than one pathway to a file as mentioned in d) in windows is most definitely a feature. For engineering reasons a manufacturer may want to keep a set of files from related applications together, however to the user they may be presented somewhat differently. If anything this is an improvement of interface because of the separation between external and internal representations.
As for the problems of moving applications around, that is also an issue with meta information held in INI files or the registery. It is quite possible to make a program easier to move (i.e., by including code to update the file locations), but this isn't often done.
The file/folder metaphor may have probems for newbies but the only real problem is that file (particularly with Unix style file systems) may have more than one name. This is a feature not a bug.
Certainly some of the early computers had to work asynchrnously. They were so physically big that it was quite difficult to synchronize things, so the designs tended to be asynchonous.
A good example is the Ferranti Atlas Computer, a beautiful bit of kit that lacked a central clock. Just in case someone doesn't click on the link and find they information, I'll quote Aspinall on this paper:
The machine, unlike its predecessors, did not have a clock in the central processor. It was felt that to tie down everything to the slowest operation, which was implied by the use of a clock, would be against the principle of the machine. Instead a single Pre-Pulse wandered round the various elements of the machine where it would initiate an action and wait for the self timing of the action to complete before wandering off to the next element. Occasionally it would initiate an action and move on to another element that could operate concurrently. For example the floating-point arithmetic unit would be completing a division operation whilst the program would be executing several fixed-point operations. Also there was a pipeline between the processor and the main core store.
The system had other minor innovations like paging, two level backing store and so on. The Grandfather of C, BCPL was also developed on this system.
Kudos to Ferranti, Plessey and the University of Manchester who did a lot of the design work.
Perhaps it is a sledgehammer to crack a nut but I would rather use GhostScript. Both variants (AFPL and GPL) are esentially and totally free, respectively which I prefer. For such an article, is a commercial (and overpriced)viewer really appropriate?
Um if you put a new locomotive capable of high speeds and heavier loads then you had better uprate the track. The high speed tracks in Germany are completely new.
The only real advantage apart from infrastructure cost of carrying your own fuel is that you don't have to worry about power transmission over long distances. Track tends to be further away from civilisation in the US.
Go to St Pete (not the FL one) and take a trip around the harbour. There are the hulls of massive hovercraft in the naval yards. The propulsion seems to have been gas turbine, but using direct thrust rather than a turbo-prop like the British SRN4 (used for Cross-Channel ferry). This also appeared to be at least twice the size of the SRN4.
Any coding scheme other than straight ASCII (or one or two other represemtations) is also not permitted. Modulation methods are also somewhat restricted, so forget about bandwidth enhancing techniques such as Digital Radio unless you are in the experimental bands.
Has anyone got a graphical simulator for large black holes such as our friend in the middle of the galaxy. Regrettably my relativistic calculus sucks, but a visualisation of the effects would be cool.
The kernel maintainers see the kernel as a unique thing which has its own configuration tool. The truth is that a distribution needs a configuration tool which looks after the kernel and the applications. I would guess that it would be modular, sort of like a Microsoft Management Console where application and subsystems provide managemeny snap-ins. I'm sure something like this could be done but without the bloat.
make all modules, etc is hardley what I would want my poor aged aunt to do, certainly not not make menuconfig or even make xconfig. On the other hand, what is wrong with a question:
Do you want to make an optimised system for your hardware (warning, this maky take some time)?
If the process is transparent and without alarming and misleading little warning messages, where is the problem?
It depends upon the plane's construction. Lightweight aircraft use a lot of GRP, especially sailpanes. They definitely do not provide any Faraday cage around the plane and systems. Flying near a thunderstorm is definitely a no-no. In any case, most casual flyers can only fly VFR which keeps them away from clouds.
I suppose we could get to a state where the connector panel is bigger than the MB, and the cables connecting it to the MB would themselves become a pain.
I don't know if I agree with you about F/W but the size is certainly right.
Slashdot Mirror
I have seen various types of malware that may not cause damage other files but they can stop IE from working properly (lots of crashes). The trouble is that spyware from company A may not work correctly if spyware from company B is present. Both probably have to close a relationship with IE so changes there can cause problems.
Did they compile those sources? From what I undertsand, the source that is distributed isn't complete and the distribution isn't intended for compilation. Some bits apparently do compile, but somebits do not (missing code).
Anyne know what is the best anti-dialer? I have been removing dialers by hand for friends (Yes, I warn them to be careful about clicking "Yes", but some sites make it very difficult to escape).
I would extend the para by saying that encouraging people to use software that they can not afford later in life is tantamount to encouraging piracy. This is an argument that everyone must agree with even if it goes against Microsoft's unwritten policy:
Under such circumstances, you could actually have SCSI over IP over SCSI - just so you can use a remotely attached disk!!!!!
Hah, should there be XML in the middle somewhere.
Actually SCSI over IP sounds real good, but older SAN implementations used other, simpler, non-routable datagram based protocols to make things faster. The regulur SCSI over IP is TCP based.
Well on Winxx we could do it just by hiding the folder where everything is stored. Already that sort of happens with windows because you are 'discouraged' from looking inside 'Program Files'. The issue with moving the program directory from disk to disk is that a lot of info is also kept in the registery.
The pure Unix form is even worse, I don't particulalry like programs that leave bits all over the place (/usr/local/bin, /usr/local/lib and so on). However, there are solutions to that as well (I guess one of the early ones was the system administration database kept by AIX).
The Mac solution is easy when I have a nioce small program. Unfortunately it get less so when I have something unwieldy like Exchange, which even prefers to be spread scross several spindles.
What is really needed is a balance where a package may have a user representation and a technical implementation that are different, but allow a package to be easily maintained yet remain efficiently implemented.
One of the areas of cruft I had to work on last year was a CRT form based data enty system for product setup. The end-user never sees the screens but market supervision must use them to create products. The screens (there are two inter-related forms) have all manner of stuff there which if you fill in incorrectly, you may be left with an inconsistent database with minimal checking until too late.
Anyone from the UK may have noted that Crufts is the name of the annual dog show of the Kennel Club in the uk.
In a) he talks about the use of inode numbers as an internal reference used by the system. Regrettably, inodes and other equivalent internal reference numbers used by other file systems under other alternative operating systems can move around. Generally opening by inode is only recommended after first opening by name.
Having more than one pathway to a file as mentioned in d) in windows is most definitely a feature. For engineering reasons a manufacturer may want to keep a set of files from related applications together, however to the user they may be presented somewhat differently. If anything this is an improvement of interface because of the separation between external and internal representations.
As for the problems of moving applications around, that is also an issue with meta information held in INI files or the registery. It is quite possible to make a program easier to move (i.e., by including code to update the file locations), but this isn't often done.
The file/folder metaphor may have probems for newbies but the only real problem is that file (particularly with Unix style file systems) may have more than one name. This is a feature not a bug.
Even worse, many of the special directory names used by Windows change depending upon the language.
Um 1962, the ATLAS had it.
Kudos to Ferranti, Plessey and the University of Manchester who did a lot of the design work.
Perhaps it is a sledgehammer to crack a nut but I would rather use GhostScript. Both variants (AFPL and GPL) are esentially and totally free, respectively which I prefer. For such an article, is a commercial (and overpriced)viewer really appropriate?
The only real advantage apart from infrastructure cost of carrying your own fuel is that you don't have to worry about power transmission over long distances. Track tends to be further away from civilisation in the US.
Go to St Pete (not the FL one) and take a trip around the harbour. There are the hulls of massive hovercraft in the naval yards. The propulsion seems to have been gas turbine, but using direct thrust rather than a turbo-prop like the British SRN4 (used for Cross-Channel ferry). This also appeared to be at least twice the size of the SRN4.
Any coding scheme other than straight ASCII (or one or two other represemtations) is also not permitted. Modulation methods are also somewhat restricted, so forget about bandwidth enhancing techniques such as Digital Radio unless you are in the experimental bands.
Has anyone got a graphical simulator for large black holes such as our friend in the middle of the galaxy. Regrettably my relativistic calculus sucks, but a visualisation of the effects would be cool.
The kernel maintainers see the kernel as a unique thing which has its own configuration tool. The truth is that a distribution needs a configuration tool which looks after the kernel and the applications. I would guess that it would be modular, sort of like a Microsoft Management Console where application and subsystems provide managemeny snap-ins. I'm sure something like this could be done but without the bloat.
Do you want to make an optimised system for your hardware (warning, this maky take some time)?
If the process is transparent and without alarming and misleading little warning messages, where is the problem?
Actually in Australia, to have a family link back to the transportees is seen as a sign of class!!!!
It depends upon the plane's construction. Lightweight aircraft use a lot of GRP, especially sailpanes. They definitely do not provide any Faraday cage around the plane and systems. Flying near a thunderstorm is definitely a no-no. In any case, most casual flyers can only fly VFR which keeps them away from clouds.
I don't know if I agree with you about F/W but the size is certainly right.