Define the applications for which parallel processing is not needed. It might be a smaller list than you think.
It probably is a small list caused by parallel slowdown. Also I have heard anecdotal comments about certain tasks not being appropriate for parallel systems. That is just a vague note in my mind though...
I guess in hindsight I should have been clearer and less "blinkered"...
For real time apps that do transactions Parallel is needed. What I was comparing them to is desktop apps where in many cases the benefit does not really exist. The main point I was trying to get across is that parallel programming is difficult and not needed for every application.
Parallel is not going to go anywhere but is only really valid for certain types if applications. Larger items like operating systems or most system tasks need it. Whether it is worthwhile in lowly application land is a case by case decision; but will mostly depend on the skill of programmers involved and the budget for the particular application in question.
It sounds like he is not interested in finding a job. Someone capable of coordinating their life that well is probably employable. For some reason he dose not want to work.
I agree. While free is good and is often the preferred method of distribution it is not always plausible, especially if your project has a limited scope or audience and free will not put food on your table.
Many companies change and are still well respective members of the software and, yes even the open source industries.
If someone is doing a DOS attack on your server you have bigger problems then passwords. It seems that the existence of regular Password Crash attempts is a whole separate issue from DOS attacks and they need to be handled independently.
But as we saw from the Sarah Palin debacle last year no complex methods are needed if you know a few personal details about the user like their mother's maiden name or their first pet.
Good point. The original license does not account for the fluid nature of articles at wikipedia. From a legal perspective this seems like an improvement (IANAL though).
Because, as as been stated repeatedly above, people don't care (at least most people).
Most people get computers to do things: send email, read webpages, do banking, rip cds. That is why they buy the computer. They do not care that there is some other way to do these things that will save them $X amount. They care that they do not have to spend Y hours relearning how to do those basic tasks.
No one is going to spend their time comparing two operating systems when the one they know already satisfies all their requirements.
Why is is the ISP's job to police their users for the RIAA? If I own a building do I have to arrest drug dealers who congregate on my property? All I have to do is call the police. It is not my job to monitor their conversations and present a report on their "illegal activities" so that they can be persecuted.
Vista wasn't available to general people but I would think/hope that OEM had access to some alpha/beta/per-release version to test their tools against. Since MS makes piles of money from OEM vendors I would think they would help them out.
I don't think that a judge has authority to order MS to change their release dates. A judge can just order them to make restitution to customers who have been misled.
Obviously you have never worked in software QA. There are always bugs that make it into released project. The art of good project management is deciding which bugs can be allowed into the final project (ie which will actually impact users).
Also I am pretty sure that Ubuntu is based on Debian.
Special relativity will not ever be proved "wrong".
Newton's Laws were developed they formed the foundation for the way the universe works. Einstein's work did not prove Newton's work wrong but showed certain cases where Newton's laws did not apply and explained them. Maybe someone will at some point find a situation where special relativity does not apply and will develop a new theory. Special relativity will still apply though, just not in certain circumstances.
It not about "right" or "wrong" but each situation has its own parameters.
Sorry, I didn't mean to jibe... No jibe occurred. I agree with you sentiments entirely. I was just hoping to extract something out of this mess. However I have have scummed to the law of averages....
I was not necessarily saying that open source is just as exciting as jumping out of a plane. I am just saying that it is something that people often do because they enjoy the challenge, not for any particular intrinsic benefit.
Slashdot Mirror
Define the applications for which parallel processing is not needed. It might be a smaller list than you think.
It probably is a small list caused by parallel slowdown. Also I have heard anecdotal comments about certain tasks not being appropriate for parallel systems. That is just a vague note in my mind though...
I guess in hindsight I should have been clearer and less "blinkered"...
For real time apps that do transactions Parallel is needed. What I was comparing them to is desktop apps where in many cases the benefit does not really exist. The main point I was trying to get across is that parallel programming is difficult and not needed for every application.
Parallel is not going to go anywhere but is only really valid for certain types if applications. Larger items like operating systems or most system tasks need it. Whether it is worthwhile in lowly application land is a case by case decision; but will mostly depend on the skill of programmers involved and the budget for the particular application in question.
I suddenly have bad visions of pink ponies on Slashdot...
It sounds like he is not interested in finding a job. Someone capable of coordinating their life that well is probably employable. For some reason he dose not want to work.
This just seems like a cracker tool - to gain passwords. Or am I missing something (since Symantec owns it I probably am)?.
I agree. While free is good and is often the preferred method of distribution it is not always plausible, especially if your project has a limited scope or audience and free will not put food on your table.
Many companies change and are still well respective members of the software and, yes even the open source industries.
If someone is doing a DOS attack on your server you have bigger problems then passwords. It seems that the existence of regular Password Crash attempts is a whole separate issue from DOS attacks and they need to be handled independently.
But as we saw from the Sarah Palin debacle last year no complex methods are needed if you know a few personal details about the user like their mother's maiden name or their first pet.
Good point. The original license does not account for the fluid nature of articles at wikipedia. From a legal perspective this seems like an improvement (IANAL though).
These kind of predictions always remind me of Bill Gates asserting that "640 K should be enough for anybody."
Hardware and software faces change so fast; who has any idea what will be required or available in even ten years?
Because, as as been stated repeatedly above, people don't care (at least most people).
Most people get computers to do things: send email, read webpages, do banking, rip cds. That is why they buy the computer. They do not care that there is some other way to do these things that will save them $X amount. They care that they do not have to spend Y hours relearning how to do those basic tasks.
No one is going to spend their time comparing two operating systems when the one they know already satisfies all their requirements.
Why is is the ISP's job to police their users for the RIAA? If I own a building do I have to arrest drug dealers who congregate on my property? All I have to do is call the police. It is not my job to monitor their conversations and present a report on their "illegal activities" so that they can be persecuted.
The first amendment says that _government_ shall pass no law that abridges free speech. That Fortune 15 company is free to do what they want.
[citation required]
Vista wasn't available to general people but I would think/hope that OEM had access to some alpha/beta/per-release version to test their tools against. Since MS makes piles of money from OEM vendors I would think they would help them out.
I don't think that a judge has authority to order MS to change their release dates. A judge can just order them to make restitution to customers who have been misled.
I have to agree with you that OEM vendors should bear a share of the responsibility.
OEM do piles of testing and development to install their "tools" / malware onto the machines. They must have known that the OS was not capable.
Because they didn't disclose what they were doing.
FMI please RTFA
This page may help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Spaces_Coalition
Obviously you have never worked in software QA. There are always bugs that make it into released project. The art of good project management is deciding which bugs can be allowed into the final project (ie which will actually impact users).
Also I am pretty sure that Ubuntu is based on Debian.
What else would the Police do with that situation? Is what the people were doing illegal?
Special relativity will not ever be proved "wrong".
Newton's Laws were developed they formed the foundation for the way the universe works. Einstein's work did not prove Newton's work wrong but showed certain cases where Newton's laws did not apply and explained them. Maybe someone will at some point find a situation where special relativity does not apply and will develop a new theory. Special relativity will still apply though, just not in certain circumstances.
It not about "right" or "wrong" but each situation has its own parameters.
I would have never thought there was a speed limit for the universe before I read Einstein's special theory of relativity. Anything is possible.
Okay Aneurysm, I'll give you that one.
I was not necessarily saying that open source is just as exciting as jumping out of a plane. I am just saying that it is something that people often do because they enjoy the challenge, not for any particular intrinsic benefit.