We get an article a week pointing out how Linux is ready for the desktop with lots of Yay comments. Then we get this rant (from a relativaly respected open source guy) pointing out that Linux isn't ready for the desktop and it gets called troll.
He is pointing out a concern about Open source, namely that it is oriented towards people who are happy hacking around in rc files. Possibly it might be a good idea to take what he has to say on board.
Then why keep saying Linux is ready for the desktop? Why WHY WHY?
I write code for a living. I can code in Perl, C++, C, VB6,.Net, ASP, Javascript, HTML, VBS, PHP, SQL, VBA. The only commonly used languages (scripting and other) that I haven't write code in that I am aware of are Java and python and I've read a fair bit about java. I write my utilities to manage my computer, for example I coded a quick C++ app to manage my backups recently and I coded a perl utility to find duplicate bookmarks in my mozilla. I'm trying to establish here that I'm pretty technically oriented.
Guess what? I don't run linux. There are two reasons: 1. I write code generally for windows and occasionally I take work home. 2. I don't have hours on end to spare learning how to use Linux effectively.
I love the idea of Linux and at times have made the attempt to migrate my desktop to Linux, with the plan of starting by dual booting, and migrating my environment across bit by bit. Well guess what: each time the GUIs didn't work and I spent half my time hacking around in RC files. You get *awfully* tired of that after a while (or I did).
I might think about running Linux for servers, but I want to see a lot more work of the quality of knoppix done before I consider it with making the effort. Unless of course I get fired and have a lot of spare time on my hands.
If you want linux to achieve market acceptance it must be written to work for the dumb home users and it has a hell of a long way to come.
PS I'm not interested in being told that Ruby, D, ALGOL, Brainf**k or $favorite_language are commonly used languages.
I think I should turn in my geek status. I fried 3 power supplies the exact same stupid way (shorting on/off front pane connector contacts with a screwdriver).
There really isn't that much to get worked up about here.
There is something to get worked up about. Microsoft is saying that if you patch as soon as they are released, then you are always safe. I agree it is said in the context of encouraging people to patch more, but it is still a really dumb thing to say.
I personally don't know of a case where a blackhat has exploited a hole before the patch was released, I'm not deep in the security side of the industry, but I would be very surprised if it hans't happened. Logically it is possible. The latest exploit was discovered by eEye (who seem to find almost as many holes as Microsoft), a researcher not directly linked to Micorosft. It could equally have been discovered by someone else.
This is less of an issue that the/. crowd is making out, but it is an incredibly stupid thing to say.
Add Javascript into the mix and this gets pretty difficult. I write some pages that only display stuff as the result of an onload event for the page. For example it is often more efficient to load up a javascript array with values and use that to populate a drop down list, as it can avoid roud trips to the server to regenerate the ddlist.
There are also pages that only display stuff when you click on something. The MSDN pages commonly do this, often for things like code samples. They display a basic page with the option to show more information under relevant sections.
I've also written a page that is generated almost entirely by javascript, basically because you can regenerate the page in response to certain actions on the client without having to make a round trip to the server each time.
How intelligent are you going to make this parser again?
There is more to it than just that. From the article, the documentation does not explicitly state that the instruction sets are the same. If you are a developer coming to the platform for the first time, you wouldn't know that the instruction sets are the same. This could lead to a number of unsavoury senarios:
1. Comparing the two sets documentation to see where they diverge and worrying about missing a crucial difference. 2. Writing one set of code for each platform. Maintenence becomes an issue.
I think it would be nice of Intel to credit AMD, but I think it it critical that they explicitly state that the instruction sets are the same.
Or you lose the thumb in an accident. Equally it could be damaged to an extent that the scanner could not read it (eg you cut it and put a bandaid on).
You have a reader that reads everything on the card on the way in, so they get the public key. They get the pin from the camera. Make a duplicate and we are back where we started.
How about using the STL? I mean if you are writing C++ and you are still using char * you might need to rethink. std::string offers you all the protection you need.
Re:Best learner's C++?
on
Practical C++
·
· Score: 1
Absolutely. A great book.
Add to that "The C++ Standard Library" by Nicolai M Josuttis. An excellent STL reference.
I learnt early on that there are two approaches to making changes (whether coding or in my training, mechanical engineering). One says throw everything out and rebuild. The other says extend and work what we have now.
The second option, while it isn't as pretty and leaves with the nasty hacks of the past, is the best way forward 90% of the time.
Take the tinfoil hat off. XP is very close to 2000 under the bonnet, hence any security vulerabilities discovered in this code are likely to migrate across to XP as well.
If you take a moment to look at the documentation for the Win32 API, you will see that 2000 and XP share the same major number for the OS (5), but have a different minor number (0 and 1). In other words 2000 is Win 5.0, XP is 5.1.
You've just earnt yourself a foe. If there was another classifiction of idiot, I'd use that instead, but as all/. has to offer is foe I guess I'll have to use that.
* the WTC crashes were criminal acts, the kind of behaviour that requires police, not armies... unless of course you are the kind of proto-fascist-jingoist-American I am worried about, who refuses to consider this reality....(and the article-author sees her country-men becoming)
You are right on the money. Terrorism is a police action, and this is where the actions of America have been so misguided. The Military is a blunt weapon and you want to use that only when you must use it.
Sorry, I missed your point, however I'd take copyright witch hunts over terrorists witch hunts any day.
Hunting terrorist witches involves monitoring your computer. Hunting Copyright witches involves monitoring your computer.
Hunting terrorists means getting shipped off to Gitmo without any trial, or in the case of one Canadian citizen, off to a 'friendly' nation to be tortured on behalf of the US. Hunting copyright means you get sued in court.
At least with copyright you remain inside the legal system. At least you can get lawyers.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't get /.
We get an article a week pointing out how Linux is ready for the desktop with lots of Yay comments. Then we get this rant (from a relativaly respected open source guy) pointing out that Linux isn't ready for the desktop and it gets called troll.
He is pointing out a concern about Open source, namely that it is oriented towards people who are happy hacking around in rc files. Possibly it might be a good idea to take what he has to say on board.
Then why keep saying Linux is ready for the desktop? Why WHY WHY?
.Net, ASP, Javascript, HTML, VBS, PHP, SQL, VBA. The only commonly used languages (scripting and other) that I haven't write code in that I am aware of are Java and python and I've read a fair bit about java. I write my utilities to manage my computer, for example I coded a quick C++ app to manage my backups recently and I coded a perl utility to find duplicate bookmarks in my mozilla. I'm trying to establish here that I'm pretty technically oriented.
I write code for a living. I can code in Perl, C++, C, VB6,
Guess what? I don't run linux. There are two reasons:
1. I write code generally for windows and occasionally I take work home.
2. I don't have hours on end to spare learning how to use Linux effectively.
I love the idea of Linux and at times have made the attempt to migrate my desktop to Linux, with the plan of starting by dual booting, and migrating my environment across bit by bit. Well guess what: each time the GUIs didn't work and I spent half my time hacking around in RC files. You get *awfully* tired of that after a while (or I did).
I might think about running Linux for servers, but I want to see a lot more work of the quality of knoppix done before I consider it with making the effort. Unless of course I get fired and have a lot of spare time on my hands.
If you want linux to achieve market acceptance it must be written to work for the dumb home users and it has a hell of a long way to come.
PS I'm not interested in being told that Ruby, D, ALGOL, Brainf**k or $favorite_language are commonly used languages.
What is it called if an instance of class bar that extends foo disects foo? Is it still an autopsy?
I think I should turn in my geek status. I fried 3 power supplies the exact same stupid way (shorting on/off front pane connector contacts with a screwdriver).
There is something to get worked up about. Microsoft is saying that if you patch as soon as they are released, then you are always safe. I agree it is said in the context of encouraging people to patch more, but it is still a really dumb thing to say.
I personally don't know of a case where a blackhat has exploited a hole before the patch was released, I'm not deep in the security side of the industry, but I would be very surprised if it hans't happened. Logically it is possible. The latest exploit was discovered by eEye (who seem to find almost as many holes as Microsoft), a researcher not directly linked to Micorosft. It could equally have been discovered by someone else.
This is less of an issue that the /. crowd is making out, but it is an incredibly stupid thing to say.
Java is legible. Perl cannot compete with that.
IANAL (BTFMA, But Family Members Are)
In my country (Aus), something is libelous if it lowers your opinion of the person. However it is not actionable if it can be proven:
1. That it is true
2. That it is in the public interest.
I far prefer our laws to US laws.
What about a background image? You'd need to somehow work out where the text is going render to relative to the background.
OCR isn't such a bad idea, except for the reasons onlined in my earlier comment about Javascript.
Add Javascript into the mix and this gets pretty difficult. I write some pages that only display stuff as the result of an onload event for the page. For example it is often more efficient to load up a javascript array with values and use that to populate a drop down list, as it can avoid roud trips to the server to regenerate the ddlist.
There are also pages that only display stuff when you click on something. The MSDN pages commonly do this, often for things like code samples. They display a basic page with the option to show more information under relevant sections.
I've also written a page that is generated almost entirely by javascript, basically because you can regenerate the page in response to certain actions on the client without having to make a round trip to the server each time.
How intelligent are you going to make this parser again?
There is more to it than just that. From the article, the documentation does not explicitly state that the instruction sets are the same. If you are a developer coming to the platform for the first time, you wouldn't know that the instruction sets are the same. This could lead to a number of unsavoury senarios:
1. Comparing the two sets documentation to see where they diverge and worrying about missing a crucial difference.
2. Writing one set of code for each platform. Maintenence becomes an issue.
I think it would be nice of Intel to credit AMD, but I think it it critical that they explicitly state that the instruction sets are the same.
Thanks, that is a lot clearer. I should really have worked that out. I will now retreat back to my hole in shame.
If it is impossible to read everything on the way in how do the ATMs do it? Why can't some disaffected Diebold employee replicate this in a skimmer?
Or you lose the thumb in an accident. Equally it could be damaged to an extent that the scanner could not read it (eg you cut it and put a bandaid on).
How exactly does this help?
You have a reader that reads everything on the card on the way in, so they get the public key. They get the pin from the camera. Make a duplicate and we are back where we started.
How about using the STL? I mean if you are writing C++ and you are still using char * you might need to rethink. std::string offers you all the protection you need.
Absolutely. A great book.
Add to that "The C++ Standard Library" by Nicolai M Josuttis. An excellent STL reference.
No, but it is good engineering.
I learnt early on that there are two approaches to making changes (whether coding or in my training, mechanical engineering). One says throw everything out and rebuild. The other says extend and work what we have now.
The second option, while it isn't as pretty and leaves with the nasty hacks of the past, is the best way forward 90% of the time.
Take the tinfoil hat off. XP is very close to 2000 under the bonnet, hence any security vulerabilities discovered in this code are likely to migrate across to XP as well.
If you take a moment to look at the documentation for the Win32 API, you will see that 2000 and XP share the same major number for the OS (5), but have a different minor number (0 and 1). In other words 2000 is Win 5.0, XP is 5.1.
I'm looking forward to the "fake moonlanding" plugin.
(yes that was a joke)
Agreed. The US should stop spending money on the military and 'liberating' other countries (1939 style) and spend some money on space.
You've just earnt yourself a foe. If there was another classifiction of idiot, I'd use that instead, but as all /. has to offer is foe I guess I'll have to use that.
I prefer thje term techo-spastic. This was suggested to me by someone else in relation to himself. I laughed for a long time.
> Just try getting a Pentecostal, a Zionist, and a Wahabbist to admit that they all worship the same diety.
Try getting people to admit that black is white. See, your suggestion was pretty stupid too.
* the WTC crashes were criminal acts, the kind of behaviour that requires police, not armies... unless of course you are the kind of proto-fascist-jingoist-American I am worried about, who refuses to consider this reality....(and the article-author sees her country-men becoming)
You are right on the money. Terrorism is a police action, and this is where the actions of America have been so misguided. The Military is a blunt weapon and you want to use that only when you must use it.
Sorry, I missed your point, however I'd take copyright witch hunts over terrorists witch hunts any day.
Hunting terrorist witches involves monitoring your computer. Hunting Copyright witches involves monitoring your computer.
Hunting terrorists means getting shipped off to Gitmo without any trial, or in the case of one Canadian citizen, off to a 'friendly' nation to be tortured on behalf of the US. Hunting copyright means you get sued in court.
At least with copyright you remain inside the legal system. At least you can get lawyers.