I had a similar problem. After reinstalling the newer version of module-init-tools, the older version was still being "which"ed in some of my profiles. I think at the moment insmod still doesn't work, but that doesn't really matter since the others do. I forget if there was anything else involved but I know it was primarily a version conflict.
I'm a proponent of Gentoo but "a breeze" and a "a couple of horus first try" don't exactly fit together for a kernel upgrade. It took me about an hour without a distrubution, about a half an hour to setup the kernel and a half an hour to iron out issues.
Yeah...I'd definitely consider flying planes and playing with old encryption techniques on the same level.
It's cool in its own right (which for me is mostly just novelty) but it's also not cool in a lot of others. I'd personally prefer to spend my time away from my computer playing with tangible things that aren't just basically old computers.
Bugs are bugs, considering MS claims that open source is a bad thing, they should be able to back it up with better written software (pause for laughs). The situations are obviously different, but this situation emphasizes the whole open-source security issue (and the claims of lack thereof). Even in closed source projects, the larger the program the more people that deal with it, and the greater chance for leaks...if not the actual source than some programmer who just looks for amusement by manipulating exploits themselves.
Exactly, which is exactly the fatal flaw in the arguement of closed source being more secure than open-source which is held my MS and other proponents. Just because the vulnerabilities aren't able to be found by looking at the code doesn't make them any less present, harder to find but longer to be fixed.
Software will have flaws, or if not "flaws" exactly, incompatibilies. But flaws and security issues are 2 different things. Bugs don't have to lead somewhere. You can't account for every possibility when you write a program, but it's how the integral error handling type functions of your program handles those things you didn't think of, and when you're writing programs for which security is an issue, those problems shouldn't lead anywhere they're not supposed to go.
Yeah, released source code is horrible for security. Look at OpenBSD, all those servers just waiting to get hacked in to. Maybe now Microsoft will actually have to, I don't know...eliminate exploits instead of waiting for them to appear, then fixing them after it's too late (if it isn't already).
That sounds almost reciprocal to waht I was thinking. They should allow a license where the vast majority of the code is open source, but certain modules or libraries are closed source which allow interface with other closed source apps.
I agree. To strictly adhere to the GPL as it is is unrealistically idealistic. Maybe it shouldn't even be changed, but another more tolerant license should be adopted. It seems that very few projects that want to interact with anything outside of GNU can't be faithful to the GPL out of what is needed to use the outside libraries, etc.. A license should be created for this intermediate software, and the truly GNU software should be left with the GPL. As things are now, one of the greatest strengths of Linux I see is it's ability to handle just about anything that's thrown at it. With the all or nothing idealogy of the GPL, it limits the system, inhibiting part of the very thing which has allowed Linux to gain popularity and which is essential in it's growth at the moment (and most likely will be at least for a LONG time to come).
Re:Best learner's C++?
on
Practical C++
·
· Score: 1
I think the best book to learn something is different for everyone, depending on background and how they like to learn. As far as C++ goes (or other languages), beyond even the question of whether or not progamming experience exsits, there's the type of experience. Learning C++ would be different for someone with object oriented programming as opposed to straight procedural, and different depending on what similar languages are known (like C obviously). No book is going to be the "best". They'll all have their strong points and weak points and among the good books, those will determine which are most tailored to your needs. Even the best one to learn from may be a horrible reference which would disqualify it for some people's wants.
For a comment about legibility that last sentence confused me upon rereading.
That way more time can be spent, by anyone dealing with that code, worrying about things that actually affect the working of the program.
Re:"Practical C++"
on
Practical C++
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It's probably details like that that are better off forgotten anyway. As time consuming as that line is to type in, if anything it makes the code a little more logical at a glance and considering the quirks specific to all the C based languages, I'd say stuff like that should be left in for legibility. That way more time can be spent by anyone dealing with code worrying about things that actually affect the working of the program.
I had actually forgotten about Phoenix (probably because it was one of the heaviest lightweight browsers ever), but it still seemed familiar. Upon inspection, it turns out that there's still code in Firefox (or at least Firebird) since that's the directory name it creates in your home directory. Hope they remember to clean that up.
Just because the Super Bowl is in February this year doesn't mean that it is every year, and even if it was set like that now, considering that was 20 years ago maybe you should look into it before shooting your mouth off. The Super Bowl in 1984 was on January 22nd.
Comparing technoglogies to formats is apples and oranges. Technologies can be licensed and then built upon from there, and normally with progressive technology, unless the company that owns it is particularly possessive over it (which Google doesn't appear to be), then that is what ends up happening. Why couldn't MS just implement the Google engine to search where they need it and then devote their focus to something else that hasn't already been done or needs more attention.
Which would, of course, be doubly interesting as the mail passes through all the MTA's on the Internet, the majority of which aren't Microsoft. And of course massive hardware upgrades would probably be necessary for servers to handle mail loads using bloated Exchange instead of nice elegant Sendmail or Qmail (not to mention any incompatibility issues which may arise...of course maybe MS will release patches and then about 3 years later release some new patches that are finally secure and stable).
More like a huge waste of resources. Rather than working with the great ideas that Google has rather worked out (like most IT companies) and maybe actually contributing something to the future of computers, they'll come up with their own proprietary clone with their own quirks and features and then try to compete with Google, and the cycle will continue with whatever new innovations are released. His statement about Google shows that Microsoft is really just out to compete with the world. Competition is of course a good thing, but that's with new things, not reinventing the wheel just so you can say your's is rounder.
It's funny, after getting WinAMP 5 I was reminded of back playing back with some of the earliest versions when you couldn't even save playlists or do pretty much anything but actually play the songs. At that time there were already other programs (like MuseARC) around which were older and had more features so I don't think WinAMP gets the honor of being the first, and it probably didn't really hit its stride until version 2. Of course there are a lot of reasons why WinAMP is now the standard and those other programs are history.
None of the things that you mentioned are "innovative". They're all adequately engineered implementations of already established technologies, as has been pretty much everything in Microsoft's history. I'd say that it's now more readily apparent that they're not innovative since the industry's grown so much, rather than back when what they were doing was somewhat risky just because of the much smaller computer market. Microsoft's expansion into other PC-related markets is only "innovative" in a business sense, not a technological one. Microsoft has no reason to be on the curring edge of technology..why dump a lot of resources into ideas that may or may not work when you can just dump a bunch of money into making clones of ideas that you know do. They'll probably always be a corporation first and a technology company second.
Slashdot Mirror
I had a similar problem. After reinstalling the newer version of module-init-tools, the older version was still being "which"ed in some of my profiles. I think at the moment insmod still doesn't work, but that doesn't really matter since the others do. I forget if there was anything else involved but I know it was primarily a version conflict.
white paper n. 1. A government report. 2. An authoritative report on a major issue, as by a team of journalists. dictionary.com
I'm a proponent of Gentoo but "a breeze" and a "a couple of horus first try" don't exactly fit together for a kernel upgrade. It took me about an hour without a distrubution, about a half an hour to setup the kernel and a half an hour to iron out issues.
Yeah...I'd definitely consider flying planes and playing with old encryption techniques on the same level.
It's cool in its own right (which for me is mostly just novelty) but it's also not cool in a lot of others. I'd personally prefer to spend my time away from my computer playing with tangible things that aren't just basically old computers.
The parent isn't offtopic...apparently the moderator just didn't get it. That's what popped into my head when I saw the story.
Bugs are bugs, considering MS claims that open source is a bad thing, they should be able to back it up with better written software (pause for laughs). The situations are obviously different, but this situation emphasizes the whole open-source security issue (and the claims of lack thereof). Even in closed source projects, the larger the program the more people that deal with it, and the greater chance for leaks...if not the actual source than some programmer who just looks for amusement by manipulating exploits themselves.
Exactly, which is exactly the fatal flaw in the arguement of closed source being more secure than open-source which is held my MS and other proponents. Just because the vulnerabilities aren't able to be found by looking at the code doesn't make them any less present, harder to find but longer to be fixed.
Software will have flaws, or if not "flaws" exactly, incompatibilies. But flaws and security issues are 2 different things. Bugs don't have to lead somewhere. You can't account for every possibility when you write a program, but it's how the integral error handling type functions of your program handles those things you didn't think of, and when you're writing programs for which security is an issue, those problems shouldn't lead anywhere they're not supposed to go.
Which includes the fact that you can no longer open mail from anyone else or send mail without it first passing through MS's hands.
Yeah, released source code is horrible for security. Look at OpenBSD, all those servers just waiting to get hacked in to. Maybe now Microsoft will actually have to, I don't know...eliminate exploits instead of waiting for them to appear, then fixing them after it's too late (if it isn't already).
Probably a package that weighs 5 pounds, doesn't open right, has about 2 sentences of actual use, and then crubmles while being read.
nt
That sounds almost reciprocal to waht I was thinking. They should allow a license where the vast majority of the code is open source, but certain modules or libraries are closed source which allow interface with other closed source apps.
I agree. To strictly adhere to the GPL as it is is unrealistically idealistic. Maybe it shouldn't even be changed, but another more tolerant license should be adopted. It seems that very few projects that want to interact with anything outside of GNU can't be faithful to the GPL out of what is needed to use the outside libraries, etc.. A license should be created for this intermediate software, and the truly GNU software should be left with the GPL. As things are now, one of the greatest strengths of Linux I see is it's ability to handle just about anything that's thrown at it. With the all or nothing idealogy of the GPL, it limits the system, inhibiting part of the very thing which has allowed Linux to gain popularity and which is essential in it's growth at the moment (and most likely will be at least for a LONG time to come).
I think the best book to learn something is different for everyone, depending on background and how they like to learn. As far as C++ goes (or other languages), beyond even the question of whether or not progamming experience exsits, there's the type of experience. Learning C++ would be different for someone with object oriented programming as opposed to straight procedural, and different depending on what similar languages are known (like C obviously). No book is going to be the "best". They'll all have their strong points and weak points and among the good books, those will determine which are most tailored to your needs. Even the best one to learn from may be a horrible reference which would disqualify it for some people's wants.
For a comment about legibility that last sentence confused me upon rereading. That way more time can be spent, by anyone dealing with that code, worrying about things that actually affect the working of the program.
It's probably details like that that are better off forgotten anyway. As time consuming as that line is to type in, if anything it makes the code a little more logical at a glance and considering the quirks specific to all the C based languages, I'd say stuff like that should be left in for legibility. That way more time can be spent by anyone dealing with code worrying about things that actually affect the working of the program.
I had actually forgotten about Phoenix (probably because it was one of the heaviest lightweight browsers ever), but it still seemed familiar. Upon inspection, it turns out that there's still code in Firefox (or at least Firebird) since that's the directory name it creates in your home directory. Hope they remember to clean that up.
Just because the Super Bowl is in February this year doesn't mean that it is every year, and even if it was set like that now, considering that was 20 years ago maybe you should look into it before shooting your mouth off. The Super Bowl in 1984 was on January 22nd.
That falls in with user friendliness and not elegance. In this case the one probably sacrifices itself for another.
Comparing technoglogies to formats is apples and oranges. Technologies can be licensed and then built upon from there, and normally with progressive technology, unless the company that owns it is particularly possessive over it (which Google doesn't appear to be), then that is what ends up happening. Why couldn't MS just implement the Google engine to search where they need it and then devote their focus to something else that hasn't already been done or needs more attention.
Which would, of course, be doubly interesting as the mail passes through all the MTA's on the Internet, the majority of which aren't Microsoft. And of course massive hardware upgrades would probably be necessary for servers to handle mail loads using bloated Exchange instead of nice elegant Sendmail or Qmail (not to mention any incompatibility issues which may arise...of course maybe MS will release patches and then about 3 years later release some new patches that are finally secure and stable).
More like a huge waste of resources. Rather than working with the great ideas that Google has rather worked out (like most IT companies) and maybe actually contributing something to the future of computers, they'll come up with their own proprietary clone with their own quirks and features and then try to compete with Google, and the cycle will continue with whatever new innovations are released. His statement about Google shows that Microsoft is really just out to compete with the world. Competition is of course a good thing, but that's with new things, not reinventing the wheel just so you can say your's is rounder.
It's funny, after getting WinAMP 5 I was reminded of back playing back with some of the earliest versions when you couldn't even save playlists or do pretty much anything but actually play the songs. At that time there were already other programs (like MuseARC) around which were older and had more features so I don't think WinAMP gets the honor of being the first, and it probably didn't really hit its stride until version 2. Of course there are a lot of reasons why WinAMP is now the standard and those other programs are history.
None of the things that you mentioned are "innovative". They're all adequately engineered implementations of already established technologies, as has been pretty much everything in Microsoft's history. I'd say that it's now more readily apparent that they're not innovative since the industry's grown so much, rather than back when what they were doing was somewhat risky just because of the much smaller computer market. Microsoft's expansion into other PC-related markets is only "innovative" in a business sense, not a technological one. Microsoft has no reason to be on the curring edge of technology..why dump a lot of resources into ideas that may or may not work when you can just dump a bunch of money into making clones of ideas that you know do. They'll probably always be a corporation first and a technology company second.