The whole reason people keep using BASIC is because people can use it.
One of the reasons Windows spread to the desktop so well is because of its wealth of applications. The biggest cause of this wealth of applications was Visual Basic-- a language/IDE that would allow even the beginning programmer to create a useful application for the everyday Joe.
As a seasoned C++ programmer, I fully agree that any BASIC variation could never perform as well as its C++ counterpart. However, as a seasoned network administrator, I can also tell you the sole reason our corporation uses Windows is because one of the critical applications is a Windows only application. While C++ and most other languages provide better performance and control than BASIC variants, a good majority of applications in use dont require such performance and control-- and having a pool of programmers that is 10x as large to choose from usually makes for a better application in the end.
whether or not you like this, its what Linux needs
on
KBasic
·
· Score: 4
There is a lot of reason why Linux can and should replace Windows as a desktop OS. For many, this is already the case-- but for most, this is far from the case. One of the major things holding Linux back as a desktop OS is the lack of a solid, gui-based BASIC language to create apps for it. Historically, Visual Basic was one of the key elements in spreading Windows to so many desktops-- such a vast range of programmers, from basic beginners to advanced gurus, could use it to create apps that anyone could use. The abundance of applications written for Windows is basically the sole reason anyone I know uses Windows. The ability to create applications with the same speed and BASIC language syntax as Windows programmers enjoy would be a great boost to spreading Linux (and even other UNIX OS's) to the desktop.
I've only used Debian for a little under a year now after using Red Hat for about four years and basically the only complaint I have had was the installation. I personally think the Debian folks should take a look at Red Hat's 6.x installer. There is enough flexibility that there is all the power in it that the advanced user wants (well, almost.. the ability to configure the kernel during install is the only missing thing I can think of), but at the same time, is easy and quick enough for even a novice user to not break a sweat. This flexibility should be one of the top priorities for the new installer, as it it will draw more people to using Debian. After all, if you get frustrated and annoyed during the install, how likely are you to be patient and forgiving as you "learn" this new OS?
There is a Win32 binary download right there on the Pike download page. Granted, the install process wasn't your typical windows GUI install, but was nonetheless painless and simple. Good thing you checked it out before you said something.
Pike is definitely a very good alternative to Perl-- much better OO, socket support, (easy) threading, support for a good number of platforms, and IMHO is easier to pick up than Perl. I think the homepage is at http://pike.idonex.se, but I know its on Freshmeat too.
i've used pike quite a bit since i first discovered it. its great-- support for many platforms, better OO than any other scripting language, pretty strong threading support-- and i wouldnt hesitate to recommend it, especially to those comfortable with C.
in the online chat they did the other day, they explicitly said they dont care about mp3s of bootlegs and what not because they've always supported bootlegs; it is the mp3s of studio recordings they're pissed about
if you are only going to use a single CPU system or if your software wasnt written for multiple CPUs, the Athlon is definitely the way to go. every benchmark i can remember seeing, the Athlon's FPU smokes the PIII. but, if your software will utilize multiple CPUs, your best bet would be a multi-processor Celeron system. Obviously the FPU isnt up to snuff with the Athlon, but with their rather low cost and 2 or 4 of em crankin away at the same time, you should have all the power you need at a decent price.
I'm afraid you've missed the point. And by a lot, at that.
How you can compare Open Source apps/programming with certification testing is beyond me. There is a sound, logical reason behind sharing source code-- in the end, you have a more solid application. Open Source programming has become so popular because it works.
So, going with this notion, we should open-source tests! Give everyone the answers! Come on, man, use your head! The purpose of a test is to test and show what you do and do not know (more or less). But once we give away the answers, we've defeated that purpose.
See the problems with your asinine comments? Open-sourcing is a great solution-- to programming. But, obviously not to certification. I think you missed the point by a longshot not only on this issue, but it seems like many, many more.
I think that year versioning makes more sense, but only in cases of very large applications. In the case where the application has very few (if any) significant updates, it could be "Application 2000, Release 2" and so on. To me, numbering something that comes out only once (typically) a year by the year it came out makes the most sense (take new cars, for example). Also, saying "Win 98, Win 98 SE, Win 98 SE OEM, etc etc" is no harder, but in fact probably easier, than saying "Win 4.1, Win 4.1 SE, Win 4.1 SE OEM"-- both because the human brain can deal with whole numbers MUCH easier than decimal numbers and we are so accustomed to using years in our day to day activities that a year number will stick with us for longer.
Aha! A relic of the classic DOS utility, fakecd. Fakecd basically fooled games that required their CD in the drive into working without it. Same concept as your proposal, certainly. And although I have not a shred of device driver development experience, I'm almost positive this technique (or something similar) could be used to fool DVD player apps into looking at a file as the DVD itself. Anyone out there with the knowledge/interest for something like this?
Very, very good points. This was the first time I had heard of the programmers actually having to install the application and accept a EULA. Then again, maybe the DVD CCA knows something that the rest of us don't.
I've gotta wonder if their restraining order is denied, will they go after Xing in any way? I'm sure they would have a case if they showed that the unencrypted key on the Xing disk was because of Xing's carelessness-- which it very well could have been. Or even if there are any kind of "penalties" or such written into the license agreement between the dvd consortium or whatever and the licensee. That would be some interesting info to know...
But, as funny as it is, it just seems wrong to me. Although you certainly have the chance of using some kind of loophole like that to get out of a EULA, I have a feeling most judges wouldn't let it pass. Also, at least to me, it would seem wrong for the open source community to come together on such a grand scale to fight a noble cause.. and then not do so in a noble manner, rather than lowering ourselves to the kind of thinking and tactics that the DVD CCA seems to be doing.
First of all, I don't really see myself buying any kind of drugs on the Internet. BUT, if I did (and I'm sure there are plenty of people out there), I would want the same scrutiny and rules and whatnot applied to online pharmacies (in effect what they are) as is applied to traditional brick-and-mortar pharmacies.
I can understand the cries of "less government" and the like when it comes to some things, but when it comes to the legitimate protection of citizens, those cries seem nothing more to me than ignorant babble. Come on people, use your heads on this one.
this OS is a great opportunity for a very large part of the open source community-- it allows developers that have developed higher level applications to get a cleaner, less obscured look at the lowest level part of the OS. Granted, we've always been able to do that with Linux, but V2_OS makes it quite a bit easier. Plus, the fact that it is written completely in Assembly (something many more people have little experience in but would love to learn in a situation like this) gives it a neat twist. Personally, I'm gonna keep up with this OS for a while and see where it goes and how I can help it along the way. I think it oughta be fun.
As a side note, a lot of people made comments saying they didn't see a purpose for the OS. Well, if you download the kernel source from the site, there is a Readme included from the original author that explains how it started and how it got to where its at. Check it out...
A K6-III running at 450 would cost more than a Celery overclocked to 550, right. But, consider some things first. First, the cost difference is roughly $10-$15 (average between 6 local stores carrying both). Second, I have seen countless overclocked Celery systems and NEVER a system where the FSB was clocked up to 100MHz (seen nothing more than 80 and that was on a 466 with a 7.0 mult). Third, the K6-III has a tri-level cache design that gives a rather noticeable performance boost over a Celery at the same clock speed. Lastly, I would hardly call the K6-III's mathematical performance "abysmal"-- no, it is not completely on par with the Celery, but it is so close that the difference is negligible.
So if going only for a single CPU system, the K6-III is a far better way to go for gaming than the Celery.
forget Celery systems unless you are going to go dual. if you are sticking to a single cpu system, the AMD K6-2 or even K6-III would be a far better way to go. I've seen the K6-2 475 for $63 and I'm sure you could get it cheaper. Not only do many games support the chips' 3DNow instructions, but they have a 100MHz FSB (instead of the celery's slower 66MHz FSB). i've got a K6-2 450 system with 128mb pc100 sdram and a couple 7200 rpm ide drives with a Voodoo3 3000 AGP/16mb video card and this box is great for playing any game i've seen on it. and that, ladies and gentlemen, would be my 2 cents.
it isn't very often that i go to see a sequel the day after it comes out. and for it to be an animated movie, thats even less frequent. but i guess thats what movies like Toy Story 2 can do to ya. Toy Story 2 built on the superb foundation laid for it by the original, and then went even farther than I thought it would. it was quite something to see more of the movie focused on the "outside" world and how simple toys adapted to it. quite an amusing movie for adults and kids alike, i'd recommend this to all.
Holding a developer responsible for actions performed with his/her application is such a horrendous idea, I can't believe it was even mentioned. When joe q. criminal goes out and shoots someone, does the FBI knock down the front doors to Smith-Wesson? Nope. Just like guns, every piece of software has some legitimate and legal use to someone-- quite often times, specifically to the developer that created it. Not only would something like this disrupt or ruin the lives of innocent developers, but would also put unnecessary extra strain on commercial development companies and undoubtedly stifle the amount of software coming from OSS developers.
our setup has right about 31,000 users constantly checking and sending email and is running RH 6.1 on a dual PII/333 with 128mb ram and 9g UW SCSI. I haven't seen a load higher than 0.75 since that machine has been the mail server... maybe something about how your mail server is setup is creating a tremendous bog on it.
Slashdot Mirror
maybe its just me, but the last Phrack I remember seeing was #53...
The whole reason people keep using BASIC is because people can use it.
One of the reasons Windows spread to the desktop so well is because of its wealth of applications. The biggest cause of this wealth of applications was Visual Basic-- a language/IDE that would allow even the beginning programmer to create a useful application for the everyday Joe.
As a seasoned C++ programmer, I fully agree that any BASIC variation could never perform as well as its C++ counterpart. However, as a seasoned network administrator, I can also tell you the sole reason our corporation uses Windows is because one of the critical applications is a Windows only application. While C++ and most other languages provide better performance and control than BASIC variants, a good majority of applications in use dont require such performance and control-- and having a pool of programmers that is 10x as large to choose from usually makes for a better application in the end.
There is a lot of reason why Linux can and should replace Windows as a desktop OS. For many, this is already the case-- but for most, this is far from the case. One of the major things holding Linux back as a desktop OS is the lack of a solid, gui-based BASIC language to create apps for it. Historically, Visual Basic was one of the key elements in spreading Windows to so many desktops-- such a vast range of programmers, from basic beginners to advanced gurus, could use it to create apps that anyone could use. The abundance of applications written for Windows is basically the sole reason anyone I know uses Windows. The ability to create applications with the same speed and BASIC language syntax as Windows programmers enjoy would be a great boost to spreading Linux (and even other UNIX OS's) to the desktop.
I would put FreeBSD's install right on par with Debian's current one. Not really bad, but there's definite (and obvious) room for improvement.
I've only used Debian for a little under a year now after using Red Hat for about four years and basically the only complaint I have had was the installation. I personally think the Debian folks should take a look at Red Hat's 6.x installer. There is enough flexibility that there is all the power in it that the advanced user wants (well, almost.. the ability to configure the kernel during install is the only missing thing I can think of), but at the same time, is easy and quick enough for even a novice user to not break a sweat. This flexibility should be one of the top priorities for the new installer, as it it will draw more people to using Debian. After all, if you get frustrated and annoyed during the install, how likely are you to be patient and forgiving as you "learn" this new OS?
doesn't AIM have an official Linux binary now?
that wouldnt, but this would:
not having windows support that's readily available in the form of a downloadable binary
There is a Win32 binary download right there on the Pike download page. Granted, the install process wasn't your typical windows GUI install, but was nonetheless painless and simple. Good thing you checked it out before you said something.
Pike is definitely a very good alternative to Perl-- much better OO, socket support, (easy) threading, support for a good number of platforms, and IMHO is easier to pick up than Perl. I think the homepage is at http://pike.idonex.se, but I know its on Freshmeat too.
i've used pike quite a bit since i first discovered it. its great-- support for many platforms, better OO than any other scripting language, pretty strong threading support-- and i wouldnt hesitate to recommend it, especially to those comfortable with C.
in the online chat they did the other day, they explicitly said they dont care about mp3s of bootlegs and what not because they've always supported bootlegs; it is the mp3s of studio recordings they're pissed about
Do your homework.. the Athlon's FPU is light years ahead of any FPU AMD has ever put out and noticeably better than any FPU Intel has.
if you are only going to use a single CPU system or if your software wasnt written for multiple CPUs, the Athlon is definitely the way to go. every benchmark i can remember seeing, the Athlon's FPU smokes the PIII. but, if your software will utilize multiple CPUs, your best bet would be a multi-processor Celeron system. Obviously the FPU isnt up to snuff with the Athlon, but with their rather low cost and 2 or 4 of em crankin away at the same time, you should have all the power you need at a decent price.
I'm afraid you've missed the point. And by a lot, at that.
How you can compare Open Source apps/programming with certification testing is beyond me. There is a sound, logical reason behind sharing source code-- in the end, you have a more solid application. Open Source programming has become so popular because it works.
So, going with this notion, we should open-source tests! Give everyone the answers! Come on, man, use your head! The purpose of a test is to test and show what you do and do not know (more or less). But once we give away the answers, we've defeated that purpose.
See the problems with your asinine comments? Open-sourcing is a great solution-- to programming. But, obviously not to certification.
I think you missed the point by a longshot not only on this issue, but it seems like many, many more.
Windows 98 is actually Windows 4.1.
I think that year versioning makes more sense, but only in cases of very large applications. In the case where the application has very few (if any) significant updates, it could be "Application 2000, Release 2" and so on. To me, numbering something that comes out only once (typically) a year by the year it came out makes the most sense (take new cars, for example). Also, saying "Win 98, Win 98 SE, Win 98 SE OEM, etc etc" is no harder, but in fact probably easier, than saying "Win 4.1, Win 4.1 SE, Win 4.1 SE OEM"-- both because the human brain can deal with whole numbers MUCH easier than decimal numbers and we are so accustomed to using years in our day to day activities that a year number will stick with us for longer.
Aha! A relic of the classic DOS utility, fakecd. Fakecd basically fooled games that required their CD in the drive into working without it. Same concept as your proposal, certainly. And although I have not a shred of device driver development experience, I'm almost positive this technique (or something similar) could be used to fool DVD player apps into looking at a file as the DVD itself. Anyone out there with the knowledge/interest for something like this?
Very, very good points. This was the first time I had heard of the programmers actually having to install the application and accept a EULA. Then again, maybe the DVD CCA knows something that the rest of us don't.
I've gotta wonder if their restraining order is denied, will they go after Xing in any way? I'm sure they would have a case if they showed that the unencrypted key on the Xing disk was because of Xing's carelessness-- which it very well could have been. Or even if there are any kind of "penalties" or such written into the license agreement between the dvd consortium or whatever and the licensee. That would be some interesting info to know...
Aha, now that's funny.
But, as funny as it is, it just seems wrong to me. Although you certainly have the chance of using some kind of loophole like that to get out of a EULA, I have a feeling most judges wouldn't let it pass. Also, at least to me, it would seem wrong for the open source community to come together on such a grand scale to fight a noble cause.. and then not do so in a noble manner, rather than lowering ourselves to the kind of thinking and tactics that the DVD CCA seems to be doing.
First of all, I don't really see myself buying any kind of drugs on the Internet. BUT, if I did (and I'm sure there are plenty of people out there), I would want the same scrutiny and rules and whatnot applied to online pharmacies (in effect what they are) as is applied to traditional brick-and-mortar pharmacies.
I can understand the cries of "less government" and the like when it comes to some things, but when it comes to the legitimate protection of citizens, those cries seem nothing more to me than ignorant babble. Come on people, use your heads on this one.
this OS is a great opportunity for a very large part of the open source community-- it allows developers that have developed higher level applications to get a cleaner, less obscured look at the lowest level part of the OS. Granted, we've always been able to do that with Linux, but V2_OS makes it quite a bit easier. Plus, the fact that it is written completely in Assembly (something many more people have little experience in but would love to learn in a situation like this) gives it a neat twist.
Personally, I'm gonna keep up with this OS for a while and see where it goes and how I can help it along the way. I think it oughta be fun.
As a side note, a lot of people made comments saying they didn't see a purpose for the OS. Well, if you download the kernel source from the site, there is a Readme included from the original author that explains how it started and how it got to where its at. Check it out...
A K6-III running at 450 would cost more than a Celery overclocked to 550, right. But, consider some things first. First, the cost difference is roughly $10-$15 (average between 6 local stores carrying both). Second, I have seen countless overclocked Celery systems and NEVER a system where the FSB was clocked up to 100MHz (seen nothing more than 80 and that was on a 466 with a 7.0 mult). Third, the K6-III has a tri-level cache design that gives a rather noticeable performance boost over a Celery at the same clock speed. Lastly, I would hardly call the K6-III's mathematical performance "abysmal"-- no, it is not completely on par with the Celery, but it is so close that the difference is negligible.
So if going only for a single CPU system, the K6-III is a far better way to go for gaming than the Celery.
forget Celery systems unless you are going to go dual. if you are sticking to a single cpu system, the AMD K6-2 or even K6-III would be a far better way to go. I've seen the K6-2 475 for $63 and I'm sure you could get it cheaper. Not only do many games support the chips' 3DNow instructions, but they have a 100MHz FSB (instead of the celery's slower 66MHz FSB). i've got a K6-2 450 system with 128mb pc100 sdram and a couple 7200 rpm ide drives with a Voodoo3 3000 AGP/16mb video card and this box is great for playing any game i've seen on it. and that, ladies and gentlemen, would be my 2 cents.
it isn't very often that i go to see a sequel the day after it comes out. and for it to be an animated movie, thats even less frequent. but i guess thats what movies like Toy Story 2 can do to ya. Toy Story 2 built on the superb foundation laid for it by the original, and then went even farther than I thought it would. it was quite something to see more of the movie focused on the "outside" world and how simple toys adapted to it. quite an amusing movie for adults and kids alike, i'd recommend this to all.
Holding a developer responsible for actions performed with his/her application is such a horrendous idea, I can't believe it was even mentioned. When joe q. criminal goes out and shoots someone, does the FBI knock down the front doors to Smith-Wesson? Nope. Just like guns, every piece of software has some legitimate and legal use to someone-- quite often times, specifically to the developer that created it. Not only would something like this disrupt or ruin the lives of innocent developers, but would also put unnecessary extra strain on commercial development companies and undoubtedly stifle the amount of software coming from OSS developers.
our setup has right about 31,000 users constantly checking and sending email and is running RH 6.1 on a dual PII/333 with 128mb ram and 9g UW SCSI. I haven't seen a load higher than 0.75 since that machine has been the mail server... maybe something about how your mail server is setup is creating a tremendous bog on it.