Maybe you can give me a list of all the bugs filed against djbdns? The security prize is still up for grabs. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I have to agree with his software not having any sane install path. And though daemontools may be unnecessary, I'm sure djb has some ego-centric reason why existing management daemons are insufficient with a hint of truth to it.
I see your point, but I don't see the connection between shoes and prosthetics. With shoes, the playing field is level: there is a limit on the length of spikes, and everybody chooses to wear them. Another good thing about spikes is that without them, there would be eight people with the exact same acceleration because of the way friction works. Allowing spikes allows the stronger athletes to accelerate faster if they want to. With prosthetics, it isn't clear where the line is (you describe striking a balance between ankle efficiency and acceleration). I think it's better to draw the line before prosthetics, even if it does hurt some feelings.
Well, it really is a huge advantage. His legs are almost 100% efficient. That's just how springs work. When his 'legs' impact the track, the springs will store the energy and release it to propel him forward. Human muscles aren't as efficient. My leg's muscles would use energy on the impact and use up even more to push off. When you consider the limited amount of energy available for sprinters in their legs, it becomes a big difference. When I ran the 200m in high school, I would have nothing left in my legs by the time I finished. I'm pretty sure that if he didn't have these spring-loaded legs, he wouldn't have gotten quite so close.
Quite right. It sure was fun, though. If I ever install Gentoo again (still truckin' after three years), I will forgo the graphical installer. I also use OpenBSD, which has a daunting install process as well. I may use NetBSD at some point, and the installer is similar. I'm sure there are many people like me that shun oversimplified interfaces in favor of flexibility, but we're a definite minority.
You cannot easily study closed operating systems. Open operating systems are meant to be studied. Since Windows is a moving target, it's even more difficult to come up with accurate information on it. The Windows design concerns nobody but Microsoft.
:) When I said it was a step up, I really was only considering the mainstream line (98->XP->Vista). I've never used Windows NT. I've taken multiple OS courses, and none of them discussed Windows directly. I never did Windows development. I think you would find that many CS students simply don't care about Windows, and you 'expect [me] to be well aware of' it.
My point is that they are making definite progress. Privilege separation is handled far better in Vista. I wouldn't run any pre-Vista software as admin for the same reason that I don't do anything as root. If software doesn't work properly as root without good reason (such as listening on a reserved port like ftp), I will refuse to ever run it. This admin-only software was not written with security in mind, so it isn't worth a thought.
Registrations are a part of using commercial software. If you want to use commercial software in Linux, you have to deal with the same thing.
I know you can do the same with a Knoppix CD So Linux Live CDs are huge security vulnerabilities waiting to happen? Nice to know. To be serious, physical access is the security vulnerability. It always has been. If it concerns you, disable booting from optical drives, password protect your BIOS and bootloader, and get a lock for your case. Another choice is to encrypt your vista partition.
I whole-heartedly agree. I don't use Vista as I'm more of a UNIX guy, and because I don't expect my slew of special laptop drivers to install cleanly in Vista. But as a computer science graduate and a UNIX user who cares a lot about operating system design, I think Vista is a huge step up. I always hated the security of XP. It's hardware requirements are too steep, though, and it isn't as stable as XP. Most of the complaints I hear, though, are minor quibbles and resistance to the very features that make the OS secure. People still don't realize that running as root is a very bad idea. The rabble doesn't care about the operating system, though.
Anyway, you can mod me down now, you elitists. Everybody else does.
I had a torrent before continually fail the checksum for one of the 'pieces'. I never thought to find a different tracker. I assumed there were a few bad eggs or malicious leachers. Thanks for the tip.
Some hardware can take a bit of work to get working. Maybe it wasn't configured into the kernel. Maybe it was built into the kernel and has to be loaded in with a slew of special options. You can't be afraid to get your hands dirty.
Another option might be to consider one of the BSDs, which all have their own kernels. If they have a driver, it would likely have been written by completely different developers. I have heard of cases where BSD drivers helped where linux drivers didn't.
Yeah, I'm tired of hearing about every alpha/beta/rc that nubuntu comes out with. The BSD developers do far more work than the people working on the linux distros.
I'm not wikipedia:). I read an article on HardOCP(?) a while ago. SLI divides the screen in two halves. Crossfire divides the screen at an optimal (not optimum, of course) point so that the work is divided evenly. There are other ways in which it can distribute work, but I'm not going to look into that again.
nVidia certainly does have more resources, but I've heard that 20% of Vista crashes came from their drivers. ATI had poor Linux drivers, but opening their specs so that open source drivers could be written means a lot more to me than having good drivers.
I don't want to get off topic, but crossfire is a much better technology than SLI. It distributes load far more effectively than SLI. Crossfire will continue to improve while SLI starts to look more and more like Crossfire. AMD processors have been performing better than Intel chips at lower cost for as long as I can remember. When it all comes down to it, most people are not choosing products based on technology or value. They choose based on name recognition, and it annoys me. I cheer for the underdog and for competition, but you don't see things that way.
I hope nVidia continues to be a bastard. ATI and AMD seem to always have better technology than nVidia and Intel, but they get tramped on. If ATI can have an advantage somewhere, I hope it stays that way.
Hopefully they don't. I don't understand why the hell is so necessary about that five page document. If they used BSD or MIT license, then the BSDs could use it. Linux people have seen so much GPL software that they think it must be a good thing. I used to be one of them.
I think Cygwin's full of too many hacks to be a good starting point. For instance, Windows programs have no ability to fork, and yet cygwin has a fork() implementation. Personally, I don't want GNU compatibility but POSIX compatibility. There are POSIX makefiles and there are GNU makefiles. The difference is that POSIX makefiles run everywhere, while GNU makefiles don't. Just the same, I try never use GNU-specific language features in gcc (I use -std=c89 or -std=c99 with -pedantic). GNU hinders interoperability, themselves. It would be good if a Microsoft-developed make (there is nmake, but I don't know how it works at all) had a POSIX mode and a GNU+POSIX mode, in the same way that GCC allows by use of -std=XXX -pedantic flags to disable GNU extensions.
Also, Microsoft's library model is positively nutty. Static libraries are stored as a big.lib file, while shared libraries are stored as a small.lib file together with a.dll file. Unix has.a and.so files, respectively. Inter-operable makefiles need simpler compilation systems than having three kinds of library files.
Slashdot Mirror
He's not a troll. They get far more money in donations than, say, OpenBSD.
Maybe you can give me a list of all the bugs filed against djbdns? The security prize is still up for grabs. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I have to agree with his software not having any sane install path. And though daemontools may be unnecessary, I'm sure djb has some ego-centric reason why existing management daemons are insufficient with a hint of truth to it.
I see your point, but I don't see the connection between shoes and prosthetics. With shoes, the playing field is level: there is a limit on the length of spikes, and everybody chooses to wear them. Another good thing about spikes is that without them, there would be eight people with the exact same acceleration because of the way friction works. Allowing spikes allows the stronger athletes to accelerate faster if they want to. With prosthetics, it isn't clear where the line is (you describe striking a balance between ankle efficiency and acceleration). I think it's better to draw the line before prosthetics, even if it does hurt some feelings.
Well, it really is a huge advantage. His legs are almost 100% efficient. That's just how springs work. When his 'legs' impact the track, the springs will store the energy and release it to propel him forward. Human muscles aren't as efficient. My leg's muscles would use energy on the impact and use up even more to push off. When you consider the limited amount of energy available for sprinters in their legs, it becomes a big difference. When I ran the 200m in high school, I would have nothing left in my legs by the time I finished. I'm pretty sure that if he didn't have these spring-loaded legs, he wouldn't have gotten quite so close.
There was an article. I'm not sure if the article made the front page or if it was just a headline.
At the University of Minnesota they also sell the old equipment, but I don't think it's open to the public.
Quite right. It sure was fun, though. If I ever install Gentoo again (still truckin' after three years), I will forgo the graphical installer. I also use OpenBSD, which has a daunting install process as well. I may use NetBSD at some point, and the installer is similar. I'm sure there are many people like me that shun oversimplified interfaces in favor of flexibility, but we're a definite minority.
You cannot easily study closed operating systems. Open operating systems are meant to be studied. Since Windows is a moving target, it's even more difficult to come up with accurate information on it. The Windows design concerns nobody but Microsoft.
:) When I said it was a step up, I really was only considering the mainstream line (98->XP->Vista). I've never used Windows NT. I've taken multiple OS courses, and none of them discussed Windows directly. I never did Windows development. I think you would find that many CS students simply don't care about Windows, and you 'expect [me] to be well aware of' it.
My point is that they are making definite progress. Privilege separation is handled far better in Vista. I wouldn't run any pre-Vista software as admin for the same reason that I don't do anything as root. If software doesn't work properly as root without good reason (such as listening on a reserved port like ftp), I will refuse to ever run it. This admin-only software was not written with security in mind, so it isn't worth a thought.
Registrations are a part of using commercial software. If you want to use commercial software in Linux, you have to deal with the same thing.
I whole-heartedly agree. I don't use Vista as I'm more of a UNIX guy, and because I don't expect my slew of special laptop drivers to install cleanly in Vista. But as a computer science graduate and a UNIX user who cares a lot about operating system design, I think Vista is a huge step up. I always hated the security of XP. It's hardware requirements are too steep, though, and it isn't as stable as XP. Most of the complaints I hear, though, are minor quibbles and resistance to the very features that make the OS secure. People still don't realize that running as root is a very bad idea. The rabble doesn't care about the operating system, though.
Anyway, you can mod me down now, you elitists. Everybody else does.
I had a torrent before continually fail the checksum for one of the 'pieces'. I never thought to find a different tracker. I assumed there were a few bad eggs or malicious leachers. Thanks for the tip.
Some hardware can take a bit of work to get working. Maybe it wasn't configured into the kernel. Maybe it was built into the kernel and has to be loaded in with a slew of special options. You can't be afraid to get your hands dirty.
Another option might be to consider one of the BSDs, which all have their own kernels. If they have a driver, it would likely have been written by completely different developers. I have heard of cases where BSD drivers helped where linux drivers didn't.
Yeah, I'm tired of hearing about every alpha/beta/rc that nubuntu comes out with. The BSD developers do far more work than the people working on the linux distros.
I'm certain that the image has been up for at least a year, so I don't know when it was 'new'.
It also disproves nothing.
My compiler professor has a beard and he's developing a programming language.
I'm not wikipedia :). I read an article on HardOCP(?) a while ago. SLI divides the screen in two halves. Crossfire divides the screen at an optimal (not optimum, of course) point so that the work is divided evenly. There are other ways in which it can distribute work, but I'm not going to look into that again.
nVidia certainly does have more resources, but I've heard that 20% of Vista crashes came from their drivers. ATI had poor Linux drivers, but opening their specs so that open source drivers could be written means a lot more to me than having good drivers.
I don't want to get off topic, but crossfire is a much better technology than SLI. It distributes load far more effectively than SLI. Crossfire will continue to improve while SLI starts to look more and more like Crossfire. AMD processors have been performing better than Intel chips at lower cost for as long as I can remember. When it all comes down to it, most people are not choosing products based on technology or value. They choose based on name recognition, and it annoys me. I cheer for the underdog and for competition, but you don't see things that way.
I hope nVidia continues to be a bastard. ATI and AMD seem to always have better technology than nVidia and Intel, but they get tramped on. If ATI can have an advantage somewhere, I hope it stays that way.
Hopefully they don't. I don't understand why the hell is so necessary about that five page document. If they used BSD or MIT license, then the BSDs could use it. Linux people have seen so much GPL software that they think it must be a good thing. I used to be one of them.
It just dumps out perl:
http://home.mcom.com/MCOM/search_docs/index.html
I think Cygwin's full of too many hacks to be a good starting point. For instance, Windows programs have no ability to fork, and yet cygwin has a fork() implementation. Personally, I don't want GNU compatibility but POSIX compatibility. There are POSIX makefiles and there are GNU makefiles. The difference is that POSIX makefiles run everywhere, while GNU makefiles don't. Just the same, I try never use GNU-specific language features in gcc (I use -std=c89 or -std=c99 with -pedantic). GNU hinders interoperability, themselves. It would be good if a Microsoft-developed make (there is nmake, but I don't know how it works at all) had a POSIX mode and a GNU+POSIX mode, in the same way that GCC allows by use of -std=XXX -pedantic flags to disable GNU extensions.
Also, Microsoft's library model is positively nutty. Static libraries are stored as a big .lib file, while shared libraries are stored as a small .lib file together with a .dll file. Unix has .a and .so files, respectively. Inter-operable makefiles need simpler compilation systems than having three kinds of library files.