> (1) Threads are in the same process, so you would see just 1 in ps ax. On Linux , as far as the kernel is concerned, a thread is a process, threads are shown as a process in ps. This will change much with the new 2.6 kernel(and newer ps/top utils)
>Threads are new. Not many apps use it and older linuxen dont either. There are wast number of application that uses it(though not as common as forking/nonblocking programming yet) Most desktops. Mozilla,OpeoOffice, Java, named, etc.
>(3) Everything is shared btw threads. Not the stack.
Why would a manager need to know this ?
Secondly, if he wants to know it, and already understands fork/exec approache, it should be very easy for you developers to exlain what
threads are, and the various synchronization primitives provided. Thats basically all he needs to know, the pthreads api in detail shouldn't concern him unless he wants to program.
What he might be concerned about is portability, remember pthreads are not fully supported on many platforms, and also there are many surprises on other platforms. this chapter should be all he needs to know + portability issues.
Re:The market frowns on Sun's 'monopoly potential'
on
Sun vs. OpenBSD?
·
· Score: 1
Of course it exists.
Talk to the linux guy who got it, and how hard it actually was
to get it.
Because it exists doesn't mean Sun wants to give it to OpenBSD.
Re:The market frowns on Sun's 'monopoly potential'
on
Sun vs. OpenBSD?
·
· Score: 1
Well, gee. Send this to Theo, I guess he was wrong. He can just get ALL
the specs he need on the Net. duh..
That is an idiotic thing to say. Trolltech is a company that exists because it makes money. Having Qt LGPL would be nice for many, except the people working at Trolltech. The don't owe nothing to anyone, noone can demand that they license it under LGPL.
In fact one should be grateful that they even relased it under GPL..
You seem not to understand that people are diffrent. There are many, many developers that wants companies to use their source, and they dont care if they make money of it.
Why do they put any effort in this? All they have to to is not block jabber.org, they'll iteroperat with most other IM'systems. You folks that dont know what Jabber is, take a look at Jabber.org. Its an opensource, XML based IM system. It has gateways to ICQ,AOL,IRC and others. The thing is, AOL blocks jabber.org because they only want their users to use AOL messaging with their software.
I agree that there are plenty of good source control programs. SourceSafe is NOT one of them, I have to use it every now and then and know The idea is that you control the system, not the other way around. Besides, it isnt free, and there some people that would like a free source control system - imagine that. Good source control systems includes Bitkeeper and ClearCase. Neither of those are free/opensource.
His visions might be true, but he seems to forget the fact that traffic lights, pacemakers and the like are _not_ going to be controlled over internet in any near future. And if so, I guess Microsoft will try their best to make an OS to do so,large consumer market here, havoc will then arise anyway.
Can someone please point me to more info? As where it says.NET on Linux(not Mono, you Monons). Remember that Apache also runs on Windows? Could this just be ".NET for Apache on Windows?"
Despite beeing a Redhat user, I find NetBSD very nice, and occasionally play around with it.
So, you Linux guys beeig thinking about testing FreeBSD? Try NetBSD as well.
Actually Linux already has a new scheduler, Ingo Molnars O(1) is already in 2.5. But almost noone(of the kernel developers) thinks it should go in the 2.4. Redhat ships it though.
Slashdot Mirror
> (1) Threads are in the same process, so you would see just 1 in ps ax.
On Linux , as far as the kernel is concerned, a thread is a process,
threads are shown as a process in ps. This will change much with the new 2.6 kernel(and newer ps/top utils)
>Threads are new. Not many apps use it and older linuxen dont either.
There are wast number of application that uses it(though not as common as forking/nonblocking programming yet)
Most desktops. Mozilla,OpeoOffice, Java, named, etc.
>(3) Everything is shared btw threads.
Not the stack.
Why would a manager need to know this ?
Secondly, if he wants to know it, and already understands fork/exec approache, it should be very easy for you developers to exlain what threads are, and the various synchronization primitives provided. Thats basically all he needs to know, the pthreads api in detail shouldn't concern him unless he wants to program.
What he might be concerned about is portability, remember pthreads are not fully supported on many platforms, and also there are many surprises on other platforms.
this chapter should be all he needs to know + portability issues.
Of course it exists. Talk to the linux guy who got it, and how hard it actually was to get it. Because it exists doesn't mean Sun wants to give it to OpenBSD.
Well, gee. Send this to Theo, I guess he was wrong. He can just get ALL the specs he need on the Net. duh..
Ahremm. You want slashdotters to contribute to this book ?? I thought this would be a serious book.
That is an idiotic thing to say. Trolltech is a company that exists because it makes money. Having Qt LGPL would be nice for many, except the people working at Trolltech. The don't owe nothing to anyone, noone can demand that they license it under LGPL. In fact one should be grateful that they even relased it under GPL..
No. That applies only to the Qt 2.3.x versions(and probably some previous). You dont want to be stuck with that version now that Qt 3.1 is out.
The mod talked about here is much less intrusive and difficult than the linux kit.
This roadmap is pretty useless when one doesn't see what
features and the like are targeted.
Anyone knows where to find out where mozilla is heading ?
Remember that gcc is not only for x86. icc hardly produces faster code than gcc on an Alpha.
THat would depend on what the membership implies, if its _only_(which I think not) for getting the CVS and somewhat expensive, it most likely is.
Just remember that just because you GPL something, you are not required make people beeing able to get the latest development sources at any time.
You seem not to understand that people are diffrent. There are many, many developers that wants companies to use their source, and they dont care if they make money of it.
Why do they put any effort in this? All they have to to is not block jabber.org, they'll iteroperat with most other IM'systems.
You folks that dont know what Jabber is, take a look at Jabber.org.
Its an opensource, XML based IM system. It has gateways to ICQ,AOL,IRC and others.
The thing is, AOL blocks jabber.org because they only want their users to use AOL messaging with their software.
Go try UltraEdit Its a real nice editor. Also runs fine under Wine, if you for whatever obscure reason need to run it under Linux.
That goes only for C++(Cbloatbloat)
I agree that there are plenty of good source control programs. SourceSafe is NOT one of them, I have to use it every now and then and know The idea is that you control the system, not the other way around. Besides, it isnt free, and there some people that would like a free source control system - imagine that.
Good source control systems includes Bitkeeper and ClearCase. Neither of those are free/opensource.
Slashdot seriously need a troll filter.
Just the bot suffix should say enough.
Or software have plenty of bugs, can they be used? I'm willing to sell them for scientific purpose.
His visions might be true, but he seems to forget the fact that traffic lights, pacemakers and the like are _not_ going to be controlled over internet in any near future.
And if so, I guess Microsoft will try their best to make an OS to do so,large consumer market here, havoc will then arise anyway.
Can someone please point me to more info? .NET on Linux(not Mono, you Monons).
As where it says
Remember that Apache also runs on Windows?
Could this just be ".NET for Apache on Windows?"
You trollers have serious issues. I dont know if you had a bad childhood or something, but there no excuse whatsoever for beeing this stupid.
In case you havnt noticed it *BSD is 3 times as popular as Linux on the desktop. (thanks to MacOS X)
Despite beeing a Redhat user, I find NetBSD very nice, and occasionally play around with it. So, you Linux guys beeig thinking about testing FreeBSD? Try NetBSD as well.
Actually Linux already has a new scheduler, Ingo Molnars O(1) is already in 2.5. But almost noone(of the kernel developers) thinks it should go in the 2.4. Redhat ships it though.
O(1) will not increase - right. That is a good thing, wou want the scheduler to be as efficient as possible - right?