I know you cant link to Bugzilla directly from Slashdot, but for those of you who are interested the relevant Bugzilla bug numbers to look at for these are:
what version of subversion, and how long has it been in release?
The file based backend (termed FSFS) came out in version 1.1.0 which was released on Sep 29, 2004. Since then, a minor bug fix maintenance release V1.1.1 has been released on Oct 22, 2004.
You must be confusing it with a different book by O'Reilly. "Programming Ruby: The Pragmatic Programmer's Guide" is published by Addison-Wesley.
Oops... you're right, O'Reilly isnt the publisher, but neither is Addison-Wesley for the 2nd edition. It is published by the Pragmatic Bookshelf publishers
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. If you are saying thet using MS Visual Studio and setting them up as a "project" (dsp/dsw/vcproj) in the IDE, I might agree with you. However, you can still use the compiler and linker and make file proecessor in Visual Studio and manage massive projects. Mozilla does this for example.
Just to be a bit more specific... the MKS product you refer to is Source Integrity Enterprise Edition as opposed to Source Integrity Standard Edition.
The former has server backend component and is set up for distributed work, changesets, etc. The latter, which they still sell and support, is a file based (RCS) backend end with some project level wrappers around it, and no concept of changesets.
As I understand it, one of the problems with the size is that MNG library includes the ability to decode PNG images. Unfortunately, Mozilla already had its own PNG decoder and didnt want to consider replacing it with the MNG... so part of the code attributed to MNG was redundant. Its footprint could be made much smaller if it did the PNG too...
The other main reason for Mozilla to drop MNG from being included by default was lack of a "suitable" code maintainer in the project... for further gory details check out the bug report at: http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18574
The main thing I dislike about the registry is that it makes it hard to have several separate copies of the same program installed.
You are right in that it is hard to have several copies of the same version of a program run simultaneously. However, if the entries are configured in the recommended way (by using a version number in the branch name), then you should be able to run separate copies of different versions of a given program. Which, I believe is a more common need.
I bought a Radeon 9700 Pro and put it into a P4 2.6GHz system running Win Xp Pro. The drivers that came out of the box (i.e. their initial release) were flaky, but once I downloaded an upgraded version, they have been rock solid! Not one single problem. That was over a year ago.
One would hope that with Novell's superior NDS technology and experience and their Zenworks products, that these issues can and will be addressed in the near future.
My understanding is that the Nelson Email Organizer (NEO) just adds its own indexes externally to the existing Outlook message store. It doesnt maintain its own database copies of the actual mail messages... Outlook (or Exchange) does that part
It does however, give you an idea of the power of being able to provide additional indexes/info regarding the messages. Something that flat text files by themselves cannot do very well.
I thought it already used an internal database backend.
I was under the impression that the Mozilla Mail client uses Mozilla's "Mork" database engine to store all the messages as well as the address book data. I also assumed Thunderbird used the same infrastructure.
Someone care to translate? What's the damn version? 1? 1.5? 2? How can 1.5 be a release on the 2.0 codebase??
As I understand it,
Firebird 1.0x - this is based on the Interbase 6.0 open source release with numerous bug fixes. applied. This codebase was written in C.
Firebird 1.5 - is just released. The codebase was largely rewritten in C++. In addition it contains many new features and optimizations. This is sometimes referred to as the "Firebird 2" codebase.
Firebird 2.0 - development is underway. Amongst other development additions, Jim Starkey (original architect of Interbase) has also been contracted to do a tru 64 bit port to Sparc and AMD platforms.
One argument is to run natively on a Windows server. In saying this, I am not recommending Windsows as as server, just pointing out that Firebird/Interbases has good traction and support there.
Out of curiosity, what version of Interbase were you running? My understanding is that Borland released a couple of really buggy versions prior to the 6.0 release (which was open sourced).
As far as I know, you shouldnt be copying the file unless you are sure the dbase server isnt accessing it (which can happen when a background sweep occurs)... that is the purpose of Gbak... so you can do backups online in a snapshot transaction
Just to make sure I understand, that you are complaining that their gbak utiltity didnt work on corrupted files? I thought the idea was that you backed up before the files got corrupted, and resotred the good copy?
I have used various versions of this one over the years. Primarily for memory testing and for com port testing.
Most windows-based (Win2K/XP) memory-testing diagnostics have to boot into DOS to do their tests anyways, as the OS makes it near impossible (as it should) to read and write some physical memory locations for these kind of tests
Yes Wolfram used a lot of work based on others (and he cites it all), but he has also studied Cellular Automata for somewhere between 12 to 20 years.
There are others who disagree with this to a certain degree. The following quote is from a review of the book published in Science Magazine, by Dr. Melanie Mitchell, a well known researcher and author in the field.
She writes: "In fact, most of what Wolfram describes is the work of many people (including himself), and most of it was done at least ten to twenty years ago. Nearly no credits to the contributions of others appear in the book's main text. Some credits can be found in the long notes section at the book's end, but many are not given at all. For example, the snowflake models Wolfram discusses are based on the work of Packard (13), but Packard is not mentioned in connection with them. This is only one example of such inexcusable omissions. Moreover, the book does not contain a single bibliographic citation--an astounding lapse that will put off serious scientific readers. Wolfram's Web site (14) includes "relevant books," but this list is no substitute."
Unifying the lines in this case is strictly a marketing decision, not a technical one. It allowed them to drop the Win9x/Me codebase entirely... but we are getting off topic here
They have an NTFS for Win95/98 product which provides access to NTFS disks from Win95/98. The limitations are that they don't provide the NTFS security model support (i.e. all files are accessible) and they dont support the encrypting file system.
Slashdot Mirror
Since Firefox went 1.0 about 5 months ago, it has received 5 security warnings from Secunia, and none of them have been fixed yet.
I dont know about you, but I just checked my FireFox 1.0 release string and it read:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041107 Firefox/1.0
The embedded date string of 20041107 means it was cut on November 7th, 2004. By my calculations, that means it was released 2 months, not 5!
I know you cant link to Bugzilla directly from Slashdot, but for those of you who are interested the relevant Bugzilla bug numbers to look at for these are:
what version of subversion, and how long has it been in release?
The file based backend (termed FSFS) came out in version 1.1.0 which was released on Sep 29, 2004. Since then, a minor bug fix maintenance release V1.1.1 has been released on Oct 22, 2004.
You can see the complete release history at the following web page: http://subversion.tigris.org/project_status.html
Not entirely true.
Copernic doesnt support some of the file formats that X1 does including zip files, wordperfect files...
For more discussion see http://forums.x1.com/viewtopic.php?t=1014&highligh t=copernic or for a discussion of X1 vs competitor see http://forums.x1.com/viewtopic.php?t=1014&highligh t=copernic
Note the dates on some of the earlier messages may be referring to older versions of both products.
You must be confusing it with a different book by O'Reilly. "Programming Ruby: The Pragmatic Programmer's Guide" is published by Addison-Wesley.
Oops... you're right, O'Reilly isnt the publisher, but neither is Addison-Wesley for the 2nd edition. It is published by the Pragmatic Bookshelf publishers
When I go to Amazon.com it tells me the book is not yet released, but according to Oreilly it is.
Hmmm.
Anyone know why?
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. If you are saying thet using MS Visual Studio and setting them up as a "project" (dsp/dsw/vcproj) in the IDE, I might agree with you. However, you can still use the compiler and linker and make file proecessor in Visual Studio and manage massive projects. Mozilla does this for example.
I dont know about Rsync mirroring, but if you look at the SVN 1.1RC3 release notes, you will see the following features:
Non-database repositories (i.e. not using BDB)
Symlink versioning (not on windows obviously)
many other fixes + improvements
... so it may be closer to your needs than you think
The former has server backend component and is set up for distributed work, changesets, etc. The latter, which they still sell and support, is a file based (RCS) backend end with some project level wrappers around it, and no concept of changesets.
Do you have a source for this? ...
I am not sure if these provide the details you want, but there are some WinHEC power point presentations which provide further details. In particular, check out the one entitled "Avalon Graphics - 2D, 3D, Imaging and Composition" and the one entitled Avalon Graphics Stack Overview" for further details.
A couple of salient points from these presentations:
GDI and Avalon dont mix in the same window
Mixing Avalon and DirectX requires a child window
Avalon uses DirectX under the covers but doesnt share its DirectX device
As I understand it, one of the problems with the size is that MNG library includes the ability to decode PNG images. Unfortunately, Mozilla already had its own PNG decoder and didnt want to consider replacing it with the MNG... so part of the code attributed to MNG was redundant. Its footprint could be made much smaller if it did the PNG too...
The other main reason for Mozilla to drop MNG from being included by default was lack of a "suitable" code maintainer in the project... for further gory details check out the bug report at: http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18574
-- writing a good optimizing compiler is still a "black art" significantly more difficult than writing a hardware driver...
You have obviously never written a hardware driver for Windows 2K/XP, or you wouldnt say that ;-)
The main thing I dislike about the registry is that it makes it hard to have several separate copies of the same program installed.
You are right in that it is hard to have several copies of the same version of a program run simultaneously. However, if the entries are configured in the recommended way (by using a version number in the branch name), then you should be able to run separate copies of different versions of a given program. Which, I believe is a more common need.
... and David Foster
My experience differs from yours
I bought a Radeon 9700 Pro and put it into a P4 2.6GHz system running Win Xp Pro. The drivers that came out of the box (i.e. their initial release) were flaky, but once I downloaded an upgraded version, they have been rock solid! Not one single problem. That was over a year ago.
One would hope that with Novell's superior NDS technology and experience and their Zenworks products, that these issues can and will be addressed in the near future.
My understanding is that the Nelson Email Organizer (NEO) just adds its own indexes externally to the existing Outlook message store. It doesnt maintain its own database copies of the actual mail messages... Outlook (or Exchange) does that part
It does however, give you an idea of the power of being able to provide additional indexes/info regarding the messages. Something that flat text files by themselves cannot do very well.
I thought it already used an internal database backend.
I was under the impression that the Mozilla Mail client uses Mozilla's "Mork" database engine to store all the messages as well as the address book data. I also assumed Thunderbird used the same infrastructure.
Someone care to translate? What's the damn version? 1? 1.5? 2? How can 1.5 be a release on the 2.0 codebase??
As I understand it,
Firebird 1.0x - this is based on the Interbase 6.0 open source release with numerous bug fixes. applied. This codebase was written in C.
Firebird 1.5 - is just released. The codebase was largely rewritten in C++. In addition it contains many new features and optimizations. This is sometimes referred to as the "Firebird 2" codebase.
Firebird 2.0 - development is underway. Amongst other development additions, Jim Starkey (original architect of Interbase) has also been contracted to do a tru 64 bit port to Sparc and AMD platforms.
One argument is to run natively on a Windows server. In saying this, I am not recommending Windsows as as server, just pointing out that Firebird/Interbases has good traction and support there.
Out of curiosity, what version of Interbase were you running? My understanding is that Borland released a couple of really buggy versions prior to the 6.0 release (which was open sourced).
As far as I know, you shouldnt be copying the file unless you are sure the dbase server isnt accessing it (which can happen when a background sweep occurs)... that is the purpose of Gbak... so you can do backups online in a snapshot transaction
Just to make sure I understand, that you are complaining that their gbak utiltity didnt work on corrupted files? I thought the idea was that you backed up before the files got corrupted, and resotred the good copy?
I concur.
I have used various versions of this one over the years. Primarily for memory testing and for com port testing.
Most windows-based (Win2K/XP) memory-testing diagnostics have to boot into DOS to do their tests anyways, as the OS makes it near impossible (as it should) to read and write some physical memory locations for these kind of tests
Yes Wolfram used a lot of work based on others (and he cites it all), but he has also studied Cellular Automata for somewhere between 12 to 20 years.
There are others who disagree with this to a certain degree. The following quote is from a review of the book published in Science Magazine, by Dr. Melanie Mitchell, a well known researcher and author in the field.
She writes: "In fact, most of what Wolfram describes is the work of many people (including himself), and most of it was done at least ten to twenty years ago. Nearly no credits to the contributions of others appear in the book's main text. Some credits can be found in the long notes section at the book's end, but many are not given at all. For example, the snowflake models Wolfram discusses are based on the work of Packard (13), but Packard is not mentioned in connection with them. This is only one example of such inexcusable omissions. Moreover, the book does not contain a single bibliographic citation--an astounding lapse that will put off serious scientific readers. Wolfram's Web site (14) includes "relevant books," but this list is no substitute."
Unifying the lines in this case is strictly a marketing decision, not a technical one. It allowed them to drop the Win9x/Me codebase entirely... but we are getting off topic here
They have an NTFS for Win95/98 product which provides access to NTFS disks from Win95/98. The limitations are that they don't provide the NTFS security model support (i.e. all files are accessible) and they dont support the encrypting file system.
See here for details.