AOL would just eat this up. Now they can send you a crappy 2 gig browser "custom made" just for you.. And of course you get your free 90 hours (or whatever it's up to now)..
Some people complain that open sourcing S@h would lead to more falsification of results. However, this is already occuring, and S@h will eventually be forced to do more and more redundancy checks anyway (i.e. sending the same packet to multiple people). Another interesting idea is that S@h will run out of packets to process sooner than expected and for this reason does not WANT to speed up the project. I think that overall, open sourcing the project, and then doing multiple redundancy checks will result in both faster and more accurate results.
Hehe.. You've got to be kidding.. For 100Mhz RAM at least, I know prices have gone up 400% since just a few months ago.. (And I know, because I was forced to pay the full price):(
When Code Fusion came out, I posted a question asking people about other IDEs available for Linux. After searching for myself for a few hours, I came up with several that weren't mentioned. In fact, I downloaded all the IDE's I could in order to evaluate them.
I found that Code Warrior and one other IDE had no evaluation versions, but I looked through all the rest.
Code Crusader was the basic vanilla-box editor which has none of the advanced features I was looking for. However, it was also the easiest to use and is probably a good starting point.
The second one I tried was KDevelop. The interface was very easy to use, but there were several things that bothered me about the program itself. One was that the integration was not complete. In order to develop C++ programs, it was necessary to edit command line arguments. Althought the docs were helpful, this type of tweaking should be unnecessary in an IDE. The other problem was that KDevelop kept crashing at random intervals with a Segmentation Fault. I don't know if anyone else has experienced this, or even if it was my fault, but I didn't experience any problems of this type with the other six or seven IDE's that I installed.
Code Fusion I believe was one of the IDEs that had no evaluation version.
Of all the IDE's that I reviewed, I found that several were missing important feature sets.
Take for example SlickEdit. This was IMNSHO, the best C++ editor available for Linux. The interface was intuitive, the code-complete features were especially dazzling, and the class browser was first-rate. However, SlickEdit lacks Multi-User functionality, and there is no integrated debugging. The debugger can be linked in of course, but there is no way to make the multi-user portion work. Although SlickEdit interfaces with several IDEs on other platforms, it does no such thing with any of the other Linux IDEs. I was very excited about this product and was disappointed to learn from their tech-support department that there was no way to get the type of integration I needed for multi-user support. Oh well, maybe next release.
Sniff+ was next on my list. To tell everyone the truth, I never even got around to installing it the first time. The download page was the most annoying I have ever seen. I hate it when companies ask for such extraneous information as postal code etc.. Just to get an evaluation version. Ok back to the topic at hand..
Sniff+ was simply exasperating and the installation was a hassle. I know that many people use this product successfully, but I had to make a fast decision about the choice of IDEs and after looking at the ugly custom interface that Sniff+ provides, and the lack of a real-time color coding tool, I decided Sniff+ was not for me.
The next product on my list was C-Forge. Initially, I did not like this product. I found it very hard to make even a simple hello world program. There was no help available within the program, as documentation is only available online. The program advertises that it has complete abstraction of the make tool. Well, this is all very nice, but it only serves to complicate matters. For example, the tutorial that shows how to create a hello world program fails to mention that for some reason C-Forge will ignore any #include statements in the code. Maybe I didn't have my libraries set up right or something, but there was no #include statement at all in the tutorial, and even I know that this is necessary to access printf() or cout.. My Linux installation used all the defaults, so there is no excuse for why the program should not work right away.
These faults are however temporary, and are not an underlying problem. The multi-user support of this package is immediately obvious as it requires a TCP port on which to run the server-side portion of itself. It has complete integration with RCS, and the way it handles everything is superfluous. The editor is very nice in that it will actually auto-tab to the correct space for code-beatification etc.. Of course, some people may find this annoying, but it can be turned off.
The function and class browsers are first-rate, and supposedly, there is a code-complete feature that I haven't gotten around to figuring out. The program itself is pre-setup for interfacing with the debugging tool DDD, which I have not yet had a chance to use.
This IDE had everything I needed, with a decent interface to boot. Although I was set on SlickEdit, this program simply has more of the functionality that I need. In the end, this was the IDE that I decided on, and it will be the one I use in the future. The support options look great. Included in the $150 price tag is a free upgrade to version 2.0 which is due out later this year.. For a little bit of additional money, the makers of C-Forge will send out quarterly updates on CD.
There were several other IDE's that I reviewed (I went through all the ones I could find, in total maybe 8 or 9 of them), but none of them were of any note.
One German one, of which I can't remember the name initially looked good, but I found such a simple fault in it, that I lost all confidence in the product. Simply put, the code-colorizer was crap. I had a class called "fooclass" and even though the "class" was part of the variable name, it was still highlighted as if it was a keyword.
In the end, c-forge was the right product for me. Even though the documentation is lacking, and the program has a steeper learning curve, it does not have any fundamental flaws that would keep me from working with this product successfully.
For about the past week, I've been searching for various IDE's for linux...
I am particularily interested in those which have evaluation periods. The only one I have been able to install and actually put to any use is Code Crusader.
Can someone please submit links to other alternatives? I looked through all the IDE's that were listed on Freshmeat and Redhat, but the links were either dead, or no evaluation edition was available.
Code Crusader is open source, and it seems decent from what I've seen so far (even though the interface takes a bit of getting used to).. However, I'm interested in evaluating other products and then chosing the one which most meets my needs..
It seems to me that the serial processing of visual information may simply be nothing more than a learned behaviour.
The most comon form of visual information requiring cognitive reasoning is written text.
And this is read serially, from left to right and top to bottom (at least English is).
But there are many speed readers who are able to assimilate entire pages at a time. This seems to be a type of parallel processing.
I wonder how these people would do when tested in similar conditions to those mentioned in the study.
The majority of people are not speed readers, and they process information the old fashioned way (serially). This would in turn be transferred to the method they would use to process other serial information. Certainly, the test performed in the study proves nothing that a word search couldn't.
Some people can just stare at a word search and be able to pick out words.
The only thing that the study proved was the people PREFER to use the serial method of visual congition.. Probably because that is what they are conditioned to do, or because they haven't learned how to do it in parallel.
Slashdot Mirror
AOL would just eat this up. Now they can send you a crappy 2 gig browser "custom made" just for you.. And of course you get your free 90 hours (or whatever it's up to now)..
Some people complain that open sourcing S@h would lead to more falsification of results. However, this is already occuring, and S@h will eventually be forced to do more and more redundancy checks anyway (i.e. sending the same packet to multiple people). Another interesting idea is that S@h will run out of packets to process sooner than expected and for this reason does not WANT to speed up the project. I think that overall, open sourcing the project, and then doing multiple redundancy checks will result in both faster and more accurate results.
LongShlongDong But then the suits noticed and made us get rid of it :(
This is slightly unrelated to the original story, but I noticed the link at the bottom of the press release was for www.ati.com
Wasn't it just a while ago that ATI's homepage was at www.atitech.ca or something?
Does anyone have any information on how they acquired this page from its previous owner?
Hehe.. You've got to be kidding.. For 100Mhz RAM at least, I know prices have gone up 400% since just a few months ago.. (And I know, because I was forced to pay the full price) :(
When Code Fusion came out, I posted a question asking people about other IDEs available for Linux. After searching for myself for a few hours, I came up with several that weren't mentioned. In fact, I downloaded all the IDE's I could in order to evaluate them.
I found that Code Warrior and one other IDE had no evaluation versions, but I looked through all the rest.
Code Crusader was the basic vanilla-box editor which has none of the advanced features I was looking for. However, it was also the easiest to use and is probably a good starting point.
The second one I tried was KDevelop. The interface was very easy to use, but there were several things that bothered me about the program itself. One was that the integration was not complete. In order to develop C++ programs, it was necessary to edit command line arguments. Althought the docs were helpful, this type of tweaking should be unnecessary in an IDE. The other problem was that KDevelop kept crashing at random intervals with a Segmentation Fault. I don't know if anyone else has experienced this, or even if it was my fault, but I didn't experience any problems of this type with the other six or seven IDE's that I installed.
Code Fusion I believe was one of the IDEs that had no evaluation version.
Of all the IDE's that I reviewed, I found that several were missing important feature sets.
Take for example SlickEdit. This was IMNSHO, the best C++ editor available for Linux. The interface was intuitive, the code-complete features were especially dazzling, and the class browser was first-rate. However, SlickEdit lacks Multi-User functionality, and there is no integrated debugging. The debugger can be linked in of course, but there is no way to make the multi-user portion work. Although SlickEdit interfaces with several IDEs on other platforms, it does no such thing with any of the other Linux IDEs. I was very excited about this product and was disappointed to learn from their tech-support department that there was no way to get the type of integration I needed for multi-user support. Oh well, maybe next release.
Sniff+ was next on my list. To tell everyone the truth, I never even got around to installing it the first time. The download page was the most annoying I have ever seen. I hate it when companies ask for such extraneous information as postal code etc.. Just to get an evaluation version. Ok back to the topic at hand..
Sniff+ was simply exasperating and the installation was a hassle. I know that many people use this product successfully, but I had to make a fast decision about the choice of IDEs and after looking at the ugly custom interface that Sniff+ provides, and the lack of a real-time color coding tool, I decided Sniff+ was not for me.
The next product on my list was C-Forge. Initially, I did not like this product. I found it very hard to make even a simple hello world program. There was no help available within the program, as documentation is only available online. The program advertises that it has complete abstraction of the make tool. Well, this is all very nice, but it only serves to complicate matters. For example, the tutorial that shows how to create a hello world program fails to mention that for some reason C-Forge will ignore any #include statements in the code. Maybe I didn't have my libraries set up right or something, but there was no #include statement at all in the tutorial, and even I know that this is necessary to access printf() or cout.. My Linux installation used all the defaults, so there is no excuse for why the program should not work right away.
These faults are however temporary, and are not an underlying problem. The multi-user support of this package is immediately obvious as it requires a TCP port on which to run the server-side portion of itself. It has complete integration with RCS, and the way it handles everything is superfluous. The editor is very nice in that it will actually auto-tab to the correct space for code-beatification etc.. Of course, some people may find this annoying, but it can be turned off.
The function and class browsers are first-rate, and supposedly, there is a code-complete feature that I haven't gotten around to figuring out. The program itself is pre-setup for interfacing with the debugging tool DDD, which I have not yet had a chance to use.
This IDE had everything I needed, with a decent interface to boot. Although I was set on SlickEdit, this program simply has more of the functionality that I need. In the end, this was the IDE that I decided on, and it will be the one I use in the future. The support options look great. Included in the $150 price tag is a free upgrade to version 2.0 which is due out later this year.. For a little bit of additional money, the makers of C-Forge will send out quarterly updates on CD.
There were several other IDE's that I reviewed (I went through all the ones I could find, in total maybe 8 or 9 of them), but none of them were of any note.
One German one, of which I can't remember the name initially looked good, but I found such a simple fault in it, that I lost all confidence in the product. Simply put, the code-colorizer was crap. I had a class called "fooclass" and even though the "class" was part of the variable name, it was still highlighted as if it was a keyword.
In the end, c-forge was the right product for me. Even though the documentation is lacking, and the program has a steeper learning curve, it does not have any fundamental flaws that would keep me from working with this product successfully.
The 'I' stands for "Integrated".
I thought Code Crusader interfaced directly to Code Medic?
I haven't really tried using any of the features, but this was specifically mentioned in the docs..
Are you looking for tighter integration than CC offers?
For about the past week, I've been searching for various IDE's for linux...
I am particularily interested in those which have evaluation periods. The only one I have been able to install and actually put to any use is Code Crusader.
Can someone please submit links to other alternatives? I looked through all the IDE's that were listed on Freshmeat and Redhat, but the links were either dead, or no evaluation edition was available.
Code Crusader is open source, and it seems decent from what I've seen so far (even though the interface takes a bit of getting used to).. However, I'm interested in evaluating other products and then chosing the one which most meets my needs..
It seems to me that the serial processing of visual information may simply be nothing more than a learned behaviour.
The most comon form of visual information requiring cognitive reasoning is written text.
And this is read serially, from left to right and top to bottom (at least English is).
But there are many speed readers who are able to assimilate entire pages at a time. This seems to be a type of parallel processing.
I wonder how these people would do when tested in similar conditions to those mentioned in the study.
The majority of people are not speed readers, and they process information the old fashioned way (serially). This would in turn be transferred to the method they would use to process other serial information. Certainly, the test performed in the study proves nothing that a word search couldn't.
Some people can just stare at a word search and be able to pick out words.
The only thing that the study proved was the people PREFER to use the serial method of visual congition.. Probably because that is what they are conditioned to do, or because they haven't learned how to do it in parallel.