So the unhappy Mandrake community members are the ones that don't understand the new naming scheme?
We would have been even more unhappy if they had chosen to name it Mandrake Edition 2005. My personal qualm is that if they think a yearly release is best, how good of a job can they do of merging the distros for a stable release in just six months?
Dude, whoever built and looks after your computer is doing a really shitty job of it:-)
I can't comment on his computer, but something causes Windows to crash, and I have one computer that doesn't want to run it. The machine is a K6 without anything fancy - fairly vanilla stuff with an ATI Rage 128 card. It won't (actively) run Windows 98 (that was the last time I tried) for more than 30 minutes without crashing. However, it has run every version of Mandrake Linux from 7.2 to 10.1 without problems.
When using Windows, it would run for hours as long as you didn't actually do anything like open a program or use the mouse. When I did try to use Windows, it would crash at seemingly random times, and not a BSOD either - it would freeze solid or give a black screen. One person suggested the power supply was marginal and just wasn't enough to support Windows, but I find that a bit hard to believe. In any case, I can vouch for the fact that Windows has problems with certain hardware when Linux doesn't.
Image if google all of a sudden put up a link on their front page: "Sorry, internet explorer is not longer supported by google. Please download Firefox here". Right now they're the only ones that can really pull a microsoft on microsoft.
Google is not going to cut off 90% of their users. However, if they added a link saying, "You are using an insecure browser according to US-CERT. Download a better browser here," that could generate some interest and poke a finger in Microsoft's eye(-ee).
Plus, as long as you keep nursing at the MS teat, you are assured a job in the tech support industry, as you are sure to have many, many fires to fight each day, to justify your presence.
Testify. Our security chief at work is constantly putting out memos on how not to get infected or bring malware into the building. When US-CERT put out an advisory suggesting people not use IE, I emailed him asking if there was a plan to move our users to a more secure browser. His answer was one word: No. People don't want their rice bowl messed with. I've introduced several people who were tired of IE problems to Firefox, and the word is speading slowly, despite our laughable "security" folks.
Management in such organisations are quite aware of what they are doing.
So EA deliberately killed the MOH franchise by switching developers in midstream and leaving MOH Rising Sun to a bunch of n00bs? At first glance, that seems absurd, but having observed how managers think, you could be right. The managers got paid (and bonuses too no doubt).
The "northwast passage" was ice-locked year-round until recently:
Yeah, my southwaste passage was blocked until recently too, but fiber fixed it. It seems to me your post compared the presence of ice in the Northwest Passage in human terms while comparing the production of fuels in geological terms. Again, nice troll, but the [tt] stuff is being M2'd accordingly. That might actually help to remove some idiot moderators. It's really interesting that you seem to have started your own little troll troupe. What's your deal? A new generation of Slashdot trolls to waste everyone's bandwidth?
This is the second time someone has responded with an indication that the problem could be a certain flag. If there's a problem here you could help document, then why respond as AC, which will get little credence? And again, there is the question of proper standard implementation versus breaking working code.
If you have the time and the gcc compiler that's breaking things, try compiling your code with both -fstrict-aliasing and -fno-strict-aliasing. My bet is that -fno-strict-aliasing will produce code that works. (and conversely, if the "correct" compiler is version 2.95.2 or later, using -fstrict-aliasing will produce a broken executeable)
This is interesting since there is a linked library that uses some unions and a related cast to get a string in one of the affected programs (although we're talking about a single gcc 3.2.3 patch). There is no way I'll be able to recompile and test that stuff within the next two weeks (new release in the works), but I have printed out your comment and will keep it in view. After the next release is done, I'll try to test it. Maybe I'll have to retract my remarks about the Slashdot help desk.:) Thanks.
apparently in those 20 years you became smug and lost all capabilities of dealing with others.
Thanks for notifying me. I'll immediately advise the wife, kids, other family, and all the people at work.
heres a tip: never start a sentance with "i didnt spend 20 years of my life..."
Boy, am I ever glad I didn't write that then. I suggest you read the relevant sentence; it's an admission of fallibility. Here's a tip: Don't learn how to spell on Slashdot - you won't be taken seriously.
no one takes you seriousely because you come off as an asshole who "knows it all"
Nobody who actually read the whole comment would think that, but even so it's still better than being a pontificating rectum who can't spell "here's", "sentence", "seriously", or use the proper form of "capability". You probably need to work on your communication skills.
You probably also have noticed by now that 99% of the people who *claim* in public fora that the compiler is broken actually have broken code themselves.
I guess that would depend on your definition of "broken code". There have been numerous arguments about correct implementations of *the standard* and breaking working code, but that's another discussion.
You might be the other 1%, but blaiming the/. readers for suggesting that maybe you belong to the 99% case is silly.
If you accept programming advice from 99% of the readers on Slashdot, that's silly. I've also previously identified a couple of bugs in the MIPSPro compiler after exhausting the possibilities with my own code. The admins didn't believe me either until SGI admitted the problems. I'm getting used to the catcalls and thinly veiled insults. (I probably shouldn't be saying "compiler" when really talking about the whole compiler package, but it's standard usage.)
All I ask is that you stop and consider the possibility that it's your code because - and I know you don't want to hear this - but it probably is your code.
I didn't spend over twenty years in this craft without learning that 99.9% of problems with my code is my code. I have also learned to identify the 0.1% that are not my fault, and I'm really surprised not to have had more problems with gcc given its infamous reputation for bugs. As I said, I love the Slashdot help desk.:)
It goes without saying that correctness is most important. A compiler that doesn't compile correctly is worthless. Having said that, if I'm working on a big project and a compile takes one minute instead of two, it will save me a couple of workdays of wasted time by my thousandth compilation.
Okay. Sure, all things being equal, faster is better if the end result is the correct expected end product. Recent experiences with gcc (under Red Hat at least) lead me to believe that the promised faster/better/smaller results may not work with non-trivial programs. In that case, gimme that ol' slow-time religion every time - just make it work.
The other possibility is that your code was always broken but was simply not crashing under the old gcc. Did you investigate the bugs? It sounds like memory leaks.
The particular piece of code I'm talking about has worked for years under various *nix systems. Purify says it's fine. Would it make any difference if I ran valgrind and came up with exactly the same results? The only problem came from one gcc patch. You still think it's broken code with memory leaks? That's what I love about the Slashdot help desk: Blame it on the messenger. It's the same way at work.:)
But then that C++ preprocessor generally called the C compiler and produced a binary executable as the end product.
Re:More incompatibilities on the way?
on
GCC 4.0 Preview
·
· Score: 1
And you want to compile your legacy code with the latest-and-greatest compiler...why?
I'm not the GP, but machines get upgrades. In a work environment, you often have little choice about what compiler you use. If your code is open source, you have the same problem.
If you write code that is standard conforming, then GCC can compile even K&R C without trouble.
Wow! gcc can even compile K&R C? Now, that is truly above and beyond the call of a C compiler.
If you rely on obscure, non-standard features, do not expect them to work. Your fault, not GCC's.
I maintain a large app (one of many), composed of about fifty files and written in vanilla C. It has worked for over seven years on a variety of *nix platforms, but a recent gcc patch broke it on Linux.
Solution: Use an older GCC. They still work, you know.
That's not a solution - it's a copout. There have been too many instances of gcc breaking compliant code for your comment to have any real meaning.
I don't care if it compiles any faster, just as long as it compiles correctly. We were in the middle of a port of a major system to Linux recently, and the sysadmins decided we really need to install some patches. I shoulda' known better. I shoulda' said no.
They applied the Red Hat AS patches (which included patches to gcc) on the target machine, and suddenly newly compiled programs that had been working for years had memory overwrite problems. Strings and char arrays would contain things that should be in adjacent memory. The most obvious difference was the newly compiled code was much smaller than that produced by the unpatched gcc.
Luckily, we had another Red Hat AS machine which had not been patched, and I moved all the development work there. Then I promised the admins that I'd go postal if they touched gcc on that box. So far, so good, but I'd really appreciate it if the gcc guys would get it right before releasing stuff. One of the promised results of the above mentioned patch was a significant reduction in size. They got that part right at least.
Theres no denying that statistically, the shuttle is a deathtrap. I'm literally ashamed that this is the best the US can do in space exploration.
Let's see. How many astronauts have died during any mission vs. miles flown? How many people died exploring the poles? Climbing Everest? During deep-sea exploration? During experimental aircraft test flights? As dirigible passengers? Personally, I'd take my chances on a shuttle flight just as readily as a day on a L.A. freeway. (NASA wouldn't let me on a shuttle, but that's a totally different problem.)
While that might be a tolerable trait in a state official or a House Rep, Senators are *supposed* to look at the bigger picture and Do the Right Thing.
The senate was designed to protect states' rights and interests, while the house was intended to represent the individual voter. That's why there are two senators for every state, no matter how large or small. While some claim the senate is supposed to be the more contemplative body, I've seen nothing that historically supports that claim.
You're confused. There is no "Mars Exploration Vision".
Then I'm as confused as the GP because I remember reading this, which states:
The president did not announce a date for a Mars mission, but administration sources said the earliest date for a journey to the red planet would be 2030.
That sounds like a vision to me.
The pertinent point is the budget anyway. NASA does not get a pile of money that they can spend as they see fit. They are already in trouble for not spending money earmarked for Hubble as Congress intended. The proposed budget reduces money for current projects in favor of the president's grand vision of whatever sounds good in a speech. NASA doesn't have much leeway in how they spend the appropriated funds.
But it's only legal for the wealthy. If you make 30,000 a year and pay no taxes, you're guilty of tax evasion. If you make 30,000,000 per year and pay no taxes, then you're a valuable member of society who creates jobs, and you're just saving that money for more jobs by practicing tax avoidance. There's a nuance there that is only appreciated by those in the appropriate stratus of society and Congress Critters.
HP is just so punch drunk it has no idea what's going on.
I think that's a fair definition of the condition when you give someone who just trashed you $45 million to go away. A sane company would be screaming "rape" and calling for the police (regarding the board of directors).
Data can also be semi-structured or unstructured. You can extend the FS with your own properties. WinFS come with a set of services such as synchronization, notification, a unified store and a common security model. Data, and files can have types, properties, fields, relationships, even constraints.
That should prove a speedy beast, especially when every third-party vendor starts giving new "properties" to their own files or any others they're concerned with whether you want them or not.
You're no longer using files, you're using full blown objects.
Hmm. That's one way of putting it, I suppose. It sounds as though the "full blown" part would certainly apply to the overhead.
Slashdot Mirror
So the unhappy Mandrake community members are the ones that don't understand the new naming scheme?
We would have been even more unhappy if they had chosen to name it Mandrake Edition 2005. My personal qualm is that if they think a yearly release is best, how good of a job can they do of merging the distros for a stable release in just six months?
Dude, whoever built and looks after your computer is doing a really shitty job of it :-)
I can't comment on his computer, but something causes Windows to crash, and I have one computer that doesn't want to run it. The machine is a K6 without anything fancy - fairly vanilla stuff with an ATI Rage 128 card. It won't (actively) run Windows 98 (that was the last time I tried) for more than 30 minutes without crashing. However, it has run every version of Mandrake Linux from 7.2 to 10.1 without problems.
When using Windows, it would run for hours as long as you didn't actually do anything like open a program or use the mouse. When I did try to use Windows, it would crash at seemingly random times, and not a BSOD either - it would freeze solid or give a black screen. One person suggested the power supply was marginal and just wasn't enough to support Windows, but I find that a bit hard to believe. In any case, I can vouch for the fact that Windows has problems with certain hardware when Linux doesn't.
Image if google all of a sudden put up a link on their front page: "Sorry, internet explorer is not longer supported by google. Please download Firefox here". Right now they're the only ones that can really pull a microsoft on microsoft.
Google is not going to cut off 90% of their users. However, if they added a link saying, "You are using an insecure browser according to US-CERT. Download a better browser here," that could generate some interest and poke a finger in Microsoft's eye(-ee).
Plus, as long as you keep nursing at the MS teat, you are assured a job in the tech support industry, as you are sure to have many, many fires to fight each day, to justify your presence.
Testify. Our security chief at work is constantly putting out memos on how not to get infected or bring malware into the building. When US-CERT put out an advisory suggesting people not use IE, I emailed him asking if there was a plan to move our users to a more secure browser. His answer was one word: No. People don't want their rice bowl messed with. I've introduced several people who were tired of IE problems to Firefox, and the word is speading slowly, despite our laughable "security" folks.
Management in such organisations are quite aware of what they are doing.
So EA deliberately killed the MOH franchise by switching developers in midstream and leaving MOH Rising Sun to a bunch of n00bs? At first glance, that seems absurd, but having observed how managers think, you could be right. The managers got paid (and bonuses too no doubt).
The "northwast passage" was ice-locked year-round until recently:
Yeah, my southwaste passage was blocked until recently too, but fiber fixed it. It seems to me your post compared the presence of ice in the Northwest Passage in human terms while comparing the production of fuels in geological terms. Again, nice troll, but the [tt] stuff is being M2'd accordingly. That might actually help to remove some idiot moderators. It's really interesting that you seem to have started your own little troll troupe. What's your deal? A new generation of Slashdot trolls to waste everyone's bandwidth?
This is the second time someone has responded with an indication that the problem could be a certain flag. If there's a problem here you could help document, then why respond as AC, which will get little credence? And again, there is the question of proper standard implementation versus breaking working code.
If you have the time and the gcc compiler that's breaking things, try compiling your code with both -fstrict-aliasing and -fno-strict-aliasing. My bet is that -fno-strict-aliasing will produce code that works. (and conversely, if the "correct" compiler is version 2.95.2 or later, using -fstrict-aliasing will produce a broken executeable)
This is interesting since there is a linked library that uses some unions and a related cast to get a string in one of the affected programs (although we're talking about a single gcc 3.2.3 patch). There is no way I'll be able to recompile and test that stuff within the next two weeks (new release in the works), but I have printed out your comment and will keep it in view. After the next release is done, I'll try to test it. Maybe I'll have to retract my remarks about the Slashdot help desk. :) Thanks.
apparently in those 20 years you became smug and lost all capabilities of dealing with others.
Thanks for notifying me. I'll immediately advise the wife, kids, other family, and all the people at work.
heres a tip: never start a sentance with "i didnt spend 20 years of my life..."
Boy, am I ever glad I didn't write that then. I suggest you read the relevant sentence; it's an admission of fallibility. Here's a tip: Don't learn how to spell on Slashdot - you won't be taken seriously.
no one takes you seriousely because you come off as an asshole who "knows it all"
Nobody who actually read the whole comment would think that, but even so it's still better than being a pontificating rectum who can't spell "here's", "sentence", "seriously", or use the proper form of "capability". You probably need to work on your communication skills.
You probably also have noticed by now that 99% of the people who *claim* in public fora that the compiler is broken actually have broken code themselves.
I guess that would depend on your definition of "broken code". There have been numerous arguments about correct implementations of *the standard* and breaking working code, but that's another discussion.
You might be the other 1%, but blaiming the /. readers for suggesting that maybe you belong to the 99% case is silly.
If you accept programming advice from 99% of the readers on Slashdot, that's silly. I've also previously identified a couple of bugs in the MIPSPro compiler after exhausting the possibilities with my own code. The admins didn't believe me either until SGI admitted the problems. I'm getting used to the catcalls and thinly veiled insults. (I probably shouldn't be saying "compiler" when really talking about the whole compiler package, but it's standard usage.)
Otherwise, why is the Northwest passage now open for much of the year, when it never was before?
Never was? Oh, wait. I forgot it was Troll Tuesday - by all means carry on then.
Red Hat has gained a certain amount of notoriety by releasing broken patches to the compiler toolchain.
Hmm. That's something I hadn't heard and a possibility I hadn't considered.
All I ask is that you stop and consider the possibility that it's your code because - and I know you don't want to hear this - but it probably is your code.
I didn't spend over twenty years in this craft without learning that 99.9% of problems with my code is my code. I have also learned to identify the 0.1% that are not my fault, and I'm really surprised not to have had more problems with gcc given its infamous reputation for bugs. As I said, I love the Slashdot help desk. :)
It goes without saying that correctness is most important. A compiler that doesn't compile correctly is worthless. Having said that, if I'm working on a big project and a compile takes one minute instead of two, it will save me a couple of workdays of wasted time by my thousandth compilation.
Okay. Sure, all things being equal, faster is better if the end result is the correct expected end product. Recent experiences with gcc (under Red Hat at least) lead me to believe that the promised faster/better/smaller results may not work with non-trivial programs. In that case, gimme that ol' slow-time religion every time - just make it work.
The other possibility is that your code was always broken but was simply not crashing under the old gcc. Did you investigate the bugs? It sounds like memory leaks.
The particular piece of code I'm talking about has worked for years under various *nix systems. Purify says it's fine. Would it make any difference if I ran valgrind and came up with exactly the same results? The only problem came from one gcc patch. You still think it's broken code with memory leaks? That's what I love about the Slashdot help desk: Blame it on the messenger. It's the same way at work. :)
No. Early C++ compilers translated C++ into C.
But then that C++ preprocessor generally called the C compiler and produced a binary executable as the end product.
And you want to compile your legacy code with the latest-and-greatest compiler...why?
I'm not the GP, but machines get upgrades. In a work environment, you often have little choice about what compiler you use. If your code is open source, you have the same problem.
If you write code that is standard conforming, then GCC can compile even K&R C without trouble.
Wow! gcc can even compile K&R C? Now, that is truly above and beyond the call of a C compiler.
If you rely on obscure, non-standard features, do not expect them to work. Your fault, not GCC's.
I maintain a large app (one of many), composed of about fifty files and written in vanilla C. It has worked for over seven years on a variety of *nix platforms, but a recent gcc patch broke it on Linux.
Solution: Use an older GCC. They still work, you know.
That's not a solution - it's a copout. There have been too many instances of gcc breaking compliant code for your comment to have any real meaning.
But will it compile C++ any faster?
I don't care if it compiles any faster, just as long as it compiles correctly. We were in the middle of a port of a major system to Linux recently, and the sysadmins decided we really need to install some patches. I shoulda' known better. I shoulda' said no.
They applied the Red Hat AS patches (which included patches to gcc) on the target machine, and suddenly newly compiled programs that had been working for years had memory overwrite problems. Strings and char arrays would contain things that should be in adjacent memory. The most obvious difference was the newly compiled code was much smaller than that produced by the unpatched gcc.
Luckily, we had another Red Hat AS machine which had not been patched, and I moved all the development work there. Then I promised the admins that I'd go postal if they touched gcc on that box. So far, so good, but I'd really appreciate it if the gcc guys would get it right before releasing stuff. One of the promised results of the above mentioned patch was a significant reduction in size. They got that part right at least.
In fact we are only just now completing our deployment of XP to replace Win2k, and XP Service Pack Two deployment is still a good six months away.
Deploying XP without SP2. It brings that old oxymoron military intelligence to mind.
Theres no denying that statistically, the shuttle is a deathtrap. I'm literally ashamed that this is the best the US can do in space exploration.
Let's see. How many astronauts have died during any mission vs. miles flown? How many people died exploring the poles? Climbing Everest? During deep-sea exploration? During experimental aircraft test flights? As dirigible passengers? Personally, I'd take my chances on a shuttle flight just as readily as a day on a L.A. freeway. (NASA wouldn't let me on a shuttle, but that's a totally different problem.)
While that might be a tolerable trait in a state official or a House Rep, Senators are *supposed* to look at the bigger picture and Do the Right Thing.
The senate was designed to protect states' rights and interests, while the house was intended to represent the individual voter. That's why there are two senators for every state, no matter how large or small. While some claim the senate is supposed to be the more contemplative body, I've seen nothing that historically supports that claim.
You're confused. There is no "Mars Exploration Vision".
Then I'm as confused as the GP because I remember reading this, which states:
That sounds like a vision to me.The pertinent point is the budget anyway. NASA does not get a pile of money that they can spend as they see fit. They are already in trouble for not spending money earmarked for Hubble as Congress intended. The proposed budget reduces money for current projects in favor of the president's grand vision of whatever sounds good in a speech. NASA doesn't have much leeway in how they spend the appropriated funds.
Lying on your taxes is a time-honored tradition.
But it's only legal for the wealthy. If you make 30,000 a year and pay no taxes, you're guilty of tax evasion. If you make 30,000,000 per year and pay no taxes, then you're a valuable member of society who creates jobs, and you're just saving that money for more jobs by practicing tax avoidance. There's a nuance there that is only appreciated by those in the appropriate stratus of society and Congress Critters.
HP is just so punch drunk it has no idea what's going on.
I think that's a fair definition of the condition when you give someone who just trashed you $45 million to go away. A sane company would be screaming "rape" and calling for the police (regarding the board of directors).
Data can also be semi-structured or unstructured. You can extend the FS with your own properties. WinFS come with a set of services such as synchronization, notification, a unified store and a common security model. Data, and files can have types, properties, fields, relationships, even constraints.
That should prove a speedy beast, especially when every third-party vendor starts giving new "properties" to their own files or any others they're concerned with whether you want them or not.
You're no longer using files, you're using full blown objects.
Hmm. That's one way of putting it, I suppose. It sounds as though the "full blown" part would certainly apply to the overhead.