'Why is that, if C++ is (mostly) a superset of C?'
That's why. A C++ programmer can set the superset aside and master actual C (just learning the functions briefly while learning C++ is a long way from mastering C) and a C programmer can incorporate the new functions and design concepts in C++ that isn't what I am talking about. When I say no problem, I mean just sitting down and doing it without learning anything.
Why is it a problem for a C++ programmer but not a C programmer? That's easy. For the most part you can write code and compile it in a C++ compiler without modification. TADA, you have written C++. A C++ native on the other hand largely uses the superset and their code won't compile in a C compiler.
Yes but we aren't talking about C vs scripting languages. We are talking about C vs C++ and there is no barrier I am aware of preventing someone who likes the C++ design concepts (sorry C++ fans, it is just another way of thinking about the code, not a superior design concept) from writing an operating system using C++ in place of C. The portions in ASM will of course stay in ASM for performance reasons.
Maybe nobody hires C programmers for coding jobs anymore but it is hardly an obsolete skill. There are millions of lines of C code that require an actual C programmer (a C programmer can move to C++ without a problem but the reverse is not true) to maintain and update.
Further anyone working in the *nix world administrating systems and networks is far more likely to get hired with C skills.
I have had similar experience with Dell. They are usually great about shipping replacement parts. My annoyance with Dell is the rate at which the parts fail in the first place. If you buy a Dell laptop you can pretty much bet on needing a new motherboard and hard drive within 3 years. Needing to replace the replacements is pretty typical as well.
Nonsense. Vendors don't allow their support staff to turn on classic mode selections. That means training staff that can't see the machines anyway to support Vista is no less costly than training them to support Linux.
'Lower volume sales translate to higher costs. Linux sales will be much lower than windows so having a separate production process (even if it's just an install on a HD) costs more.'
Its even less than that, they just have to image the HD. You have a single employee who sits in front a machine and connects drives. If he picks option 1 it images windows, if he picks option 2 it images Linux. TADA.
'Training and implementing new techhnical support for Linux for users costs money.'
Not much, I've worked in tech support. Training amounts to a two hour seminar in house done by supposedly knowledgeable staff reading from a booklet. The support staff just reads from the screen. Since it is only hardware support I imagine Dell is just going to use a standard diagnostic tool they ship on the PC's.
'Lack of kickbacks from crap-ware. Dell gets paid money to install those trial programs and AOL/internet icons. You can get a windows PC without them as well if you pay extra too'
You are right, you can get a windows pc without them but last I checked there was no price difference.
The Linux version of the PC is $599, the windows version is $369, that is $230 difference. Why would anyone try something new if it's going to cost them drastically more for the same machine?
You can make all the excuses you want. The lack of bundled software subsidies *yawn* I can purchase a windows-based PC from Dell and there is an option not to include the bundled crap and it doesn't cost extra.
Costs to put together a new machine and support procedures (Dell won't be supporting these but they do need put phone routes and procedures in place for handling the warranty calls). Sure, those are valid but price unless Dell is just gaining a few extra bucks from early adopters and intends to lower prices shortly their Linux attempt will fail again. If they are smart they could charge the same price for the PCs and recover their costs a little more slowly (after all, they do profit on a per machine basis). This will give them the Linux market foothold they need.
Instead they obviously want the same profit on each machine as the windows counterparts out of the gate. Bad Call. This is bad for Linux. There won't be any new drivers because Dell is only going to use already supported hardware and not push manufacturers to produce Linux drivers. There won't be increased adoption because nobody is going to pay more for the privilege of trying something new. It's bad for Dell because everything they invest in this attempt will be wasted. They won't recover their costs, they won't be a Linux desktop pioneer.
Obviously Dell still blames their previous failures on the lack of a Linux market instead of their own incompetence in implementation and Dell is destined to fail again for the same reasons they failed before. Michael Dell, listen before it is too late. It doesn't matter how large the Linux market grows, there will NEVER be a day when rolling out Linux support with non-standard models that come at increased prices will work.
Yes, and your phone company pays taxes per minute on any call that crosses a LATA line. Hence the original poster was correct in saying that taxes are charged per minute.
The simplest explanation doesn't require any malice on the part of the video card manufacturers. If the developers and engineers develop the cards and drivers to optimize the features they believe the most important for performance, it stands to reason they will think those same features the most important when collaborating on a benchmark program. Magically, the benchmarks will score heavily in favor of the features that camp optimized their hardware and drivers for.
Since graphics technology is actually a fairly complex field and the design philosophies of these two companies are different, the other companies cards/drivers will be optimized for what THEY feel are the real performance metrics and therefore they won't test as well on those benchmarks.
All of this can happen without anyone doing anything but coding and designing in the manner they believe to be the best balance of technology and practicality.
Say what you want about Steve Ballmer but the sad fact is that Erectus stimulation comes in proportion to wealth. I imagine Ballmer snorts coke off the breasts of Playboy and Penthouse centerfolds fairly regularly with his kind of cash.
I'm giving up moderation but it has to be pointed out. You can get court appointed representation for ANY criminal offense, not just felonies.
The quality of the attorney varies depending on where you are. In many locations they are regular defense attorneys that you would pay outrageous rates and they take turns or have a lottery for short terms as public defender. They will always try to get you to plea bargain because they don't want to invest the time but as an adult you can refuse (I know from experience that if you are a minor they can wrestle control from you and your guardian if you choose not to follow their recommendations).
Exactly, even as a punk teenager dealing weed I knew to get a copy of the court papers from anyone who was snitched on. Unfortunately for the snitches of the world, in order to rat someone out you have to sign an affidavit and/or testify, either way the defense gets a copy and if you are over 18 then anyone can get a copy.
Nonsense, this is a compilation of information that is already publicly available. All this site does it make it easier to reference. It isn't as if the site blows the whistle on anyone, the whistle is already blown.
That's like giving Slashdot credit for terrorism hysteria when all Slashdot did was post links to the stories on CNN, FOX, and the BBC.
Apparently you missed the point. Nobody is claiming we live in a perfect world where everything that should be standardized is standardized. You didn't need to stretch that far either, DVD+R and DVD-R are good examples. The world should standardize on one, it doesn't matter which. Even if an inferior one is selected that is okay. Standards can be extended, revised, and updated.
'and in the case of ODF and PDF, they're used for different purposes. one is meant to be editted, the other isnt.'
Your point is spot on. But you are the second person I have seen either implying or outright saying the purpose of PDF is associated with the inability to edit it. The purpose of PDF is to provide a document that can be displayed on different media in the same way rather than having document information be tied to the physical characteristics of the display device. Of course PDF is commonly polluted with image formats that break this ability and more and more is used as you describe.
'Why is it, by the way, that having 300+ Linux distro's and dozens of GUI is "choice" and a good thing, but having more than one document format is "stupid"?'
Because those distros and GUI's adopt standards that allow them to all interoperate and exchange information. A document format is a means of storing and conveying information. All means of storing and conveying information should be standardized. It makes sense to have different document creation applications but they should all store the results in the same format so that your preferred application is interoperable with mine.
'Rather, it's to sufficiently document something such that anybody could use it.'
That is a specification not a standard. I know that 'standards organizations' like ANSI and ISO make the arrogant assumption that they are defining standards but specifications they release are NOT standards unless they are actually adopted by the industry. The specifications these organizations release are supposedly developed by members of the industry who by participating are giving implicit agreement to adhere to the standards. In practice they often don't.
Many standards wouldn't even work without universal adoption. SMTP, HTTP, and TCP/IP are good examples of this. DVD-R and DVD+R are examples of specifications that are NOT standards. No standard has emerged to the detriment of manufacturers and consumers.
I disagree. Your distinction while technically accurate ignores the fact standards bodies do not exist to publish standards just for the hell of it. A standard is published with the full intention of being universally accepted as THE standard way of accomplishing the given task. Standards aren't open merely opening details, they are about actual inter operation and predictable behavior. SMTP wouldn't be a useful worthwhile standard if I couldn't anticipate EVERY mail server adhering to it.
'"THE Standard" means "the most common way of doing it", and can refer to things that may or not actually be open standards.'
A closed standard is still a standard. Microsoft is a strong proponent of taking an open standard, extending it, and making their closed standard 'the most common way of doing it'. Once upon a time all standards were closed. Open standards were created so that open specifications could become the 'the most common way of doing it'. The entire idea is that the industry collaborates to develop an open specification and everyone agrees to use that specification.
'There are many cases where there is more than one standard to do the same thing'
Not beneficial cases.
'For example, bolt sizes. There are metric and English standards for precisely the same thing.'
That an excellent example that illustrates my point nicely. Metric is a unifying standard that has been adopted by almost the entire world. The United States has not converted to metric and this creates large amounts of confusion, errors in calculation, and general mayhem. It has even cost billion dollars spacecraft. Two standards for the same thing runs contrary to the purpose of devising a standard and is always a bad thing.
'Even document formats have multiple standards already. Both ODF and PDF are ISO standards, for example.'
It is actually you who are misusing the word standard. A standard is a specification that is adopted throughout the industry. A standards body develops those specifications and they call them standards on the arrogant assumption that everyone will use them. In principle these organizations have members that constitute a lion share of the industry and those members have an unspoken agreement to adopt the specifications they are helping to develop. Unless the industry actually DOES adopt the specification, it is simply a specification not a standard.
There are plenty of existing document specifications ODF and PDF are bad examples since they serve different purposes. Adopting a single open specification as the standard is the best thing for the industry in every case. Industry has recognized this long ago, that is why we have standards organizations.
Slashdot Mirror
I, for one, welcome our Linux running monkey dance overlords.
'Why is that, if C++ is (mostly) a superset of C?'
That's why. A C++ programmer can set the superset aside and master actual C (just learning the functions briefly while learning C++ is a long way from mastering C) and a C programmer can incorporate the new functions and design concepts in C++ that isn't what I am talking about. When I say no problem, I mean just sitting down and doing it without learning anything.
Why is it a problem for a C++ programmer but not a C programmer? That's easy. For the most part you can write code and compile it in a C++ compiler without modification. TADA, you have written C++. A C++ native on the other hand largely uses the superset and their code won't compile in a C compiler.
Yes but we aren't talking about C vs scripting languages. We are talking about C vs C++ and there is no barrier I am aware of preventing someone who likes the C++ design concepts (sorry C++ fans, it is just another way of thinking about the code, not a superior design concept) from writing an operating system using C++ in place of C. The portions in ASM will of course stay in ASM for performance reasons.
Maybe nobody hires C programmers for coding jobs anymore but it is hardly an obsolete skill. There are millions of lines of C code that require an actual C programmer (a C programmer can move to C++ without a problem but the reverse is not true) to maintain and update.
Further anyone working in the *nix world administrating systems and networks is far more likely to get hired with C skills.
I have had similar experience with Dell. They are usually great about shipping replacement parts. My annoyance with Dell is the rate at which the parts fail in the first place. If you buy a Dell laptop you can pretty much bet on needing a new motherboard and hard drive within 3 years. Needing to replace the replacements is pretty typical as well.
Nonsense. Vendors don't allow their support staff to turn on classic mode selections. That means training staff that can't see the machines anyway to support Vista is no less costly than training them to support Linux.
'Lower volume sales translate to higher costs. Linux sales will be much lower than windows so having a separate production process (even if it's just an install on a HD) costs more.'
Its even less than that, they just have to image the HD. You have a single employee who sits in front a machine and connects drives. If he picks option 1 it images windows, if he picks option 2 it images Linux. TADA.
'Training and implementing new techhnical support for Linux for users costs money.'
Not much, I've worked in tech support. Training amounts to a two hour seminar in house done by supposedly knowledgeable staff reading from a booklet. The support staff just reads from the screen. Since it is only hardware support I imagine Dell is just going to use a standard diagnostic tool they ship on the PC's.
'Lack of kickbacks from crap-ware. Dell gets paid money to install those trial programs and AOL/internet icons. You can get a windows PC without them as well if you pay extra too'
You are right, you can get a windows pc without them but last I checked there was no price difference.
Not when you can choose the 'no bundled software' option on the windows pc for no additional charge.
Linux runs on chairs now? Imagine a beowulf cluster of...
The Linux version of the PC is $599, the windows version is $369, that is $230 difference. Why would anyone try something new if it's going to cost them drastically more for the same machine?
You can make all the excuses you want. The lack of bundled software subsidies *yawn* I can purchase a windows-based PC from Dell and there is an option not to include the bundled crap and it doesn't cost extra.
Costs to put together a new machine and support procedures (Dell won't be supporting these but they do need put phone routes and procedures in place for handling the warranty calls). Sure, those are valid but price unless Dell is just gaining a few extra bucks from early adopters and intends to lower prices shortly their Linux attempt will fail again. If they are smart they could charge the same price for the PCs and recover their costs a little more slowly (after all, they do profit on a per machine basis). This will give them the Linux market foothold they need.
Instead they obviously want the same profit on each machine as the windows counterparts out of the gate. Bad Call. This is bad for Linux. There won't be any new drivers because Dell is only going to use already supported hardware and not push manufacturers to produce Linux drivers. There won't be increased adoption because nobody is going to pay more for the privilege of trying something new. It's bad for Dell because everything they invest in this attempt will be wasted. They won't recover their costs, they won't be a Linux desktop pioneer.
Obviously Dell still blames their previous failures on the lack of a Linux market instead of their own incompetence in implementation and Dell is destined to fail again for the same reasons they failed before. Michael Dell, listen before it is too late. It doesn't matter how large the Linux market grows, there will NEVER be a day when rolling out Linux support with non-standard models that come at increased prices will work.
Yes, and your phone company pays taxes per minute on any call that crosses a LATA line. Hence the original poster was correct in saying that taxes are charged per minute.
The simplest explanation doesn't require any malice on the part of the video card manufacturers. If the developers and engineers develop the cards and drivers to optimize the features they believe the most important for performance, it stands to reason they will think those same features the most important when collaborating on a benchmark program. Magically, the benchmarks will score heavily in favor of the features that camp optimized their hardware and drivers for.
Since graphics technology is actually a fairly complex field and the design philosophies of these two companies are different, the other companies cards/drivers will be optimized for what THEY feel are the real performance metrics and therefore they won't test as well on those benchmarks.
All of this can happen without anyone doing anything but coding and designing in the manner they believe to be the best balance of technology and practicality.
Say what you want about Steve Ballmer but the sad fact is that Erectus stimulation comes in proportion to wealth. I imagine Ballmer snorts coke off the breasts of Playboy and Penthouse centerfolds fairly regularly with his kind of cash.
*sigh* Sorry man, I just can't back an overlord joke when the overlord is Ballmer and the evil empire of Microsoft.
Unless... you are posting in soviet russia?
I'm giving up moderation but it has to be pointed out. You can get court appointed representation for ANY criminal offense, not just felonies.
The quality of the attorney varies depending on where you are. In many locations they are regular defense attorneys that you would pay outrageous rates and they take turns or have a lottery for short terms as public defender. They will always try to get you to plea bargain because they don't want to invest the time but as an adult you can refuse (I know from experience that if you are a minor they can wrestle control from you and your guardian if you choose not to follow their recommendations).
Exactly, even as a punk teenager dealing weed I knew to get a copy of the court papers from anyone who was snitched on. Unfortunately for the snitches of the world, in order to rat someone out you have to sign an affidavit and/or testify, either way the defense gets a copy and if you are over 18 then anyone can get a copy.
Nonsense, this is a compilation of information that is already publicly available. All this site does it make it easier to reference. It isn't as if the site blows the whistle on anyone, the whistle is already blown.
That's like giving Slashdot credit for terrorism hysteria when all Slashdot did was post links to the stories on CNN, FOX, and the BBC.
Apparently you missed the point. Nobody is claiming we live in a perfect world where everything that should be standardized is standardized. You didn't need to stretch that far either, DVD+R and DVD-R are good examples. The world should standardize on one, it doesn't matter which. Even if an inferior one is selected that is okay. Standards can be extended, revised, and updated.
Sorry I only troll on Tuesday. Please remod the above post accordingly and mod this offtopic.
Love,
Some guy with too high of a karma rating to actually care anymore.
'and in the case of ODF and PDF, they're used for different purposes. one is meant to be editted, the other isnt.'
Your point is spot on. But you are the second person I have seen either implying or outright saying the purpose of PDF is associated with the inability to edit it. The purpose of PDF is to provide a document that can be displayed on different media in the same way rather than having document information be tied to the physical characteristics of the display device. Of course PDF is commonly polluted with image formats that break this ability and more and more is used as you describe.
'Why is it, by the way, that having 300+ Linux distro's and dozens of GUI is "choice" and a good thing, but having more than one document format is "stupid"?'
Because those distros and GUI's adopt standards that allow them to all interoperate and exchange information. A document format is a means of storing and conveying information. All means of storing and conveying information should be standardized. It makes sense to have different document creation applications but they should all store the results in the same format so that your preferred application is interoperable with mine.
'Rather, it's to sufficiently document something such that anybody could use it.'
That is a specification not a standard. I know that 'standards organizations' like ANSI and ISO make the arrogant assumption that they are defining standards but specifications they release are NOT standards unless they are actually adopted by the industry. The specifications these organizations release are supposedly developed by members of the industry who by participating are giving implicit agreement to adhere to the standards. In practice they often don't.
Many standards wouldn't even work without universal adoption. SMTP, HTTP, and TCP/IP are good examples of this. DVD-R and DVD+R are examples of specifications that are NOT standards. No standard has emerged to the detriment of manufacturers and consumers.
'I think you're misusing the term.'
I disagree. Your distinction while technically accurate ignores the fact standards bodies do not exist to publish standards just for the hell of it. A standard is published with the full intention of being universally accepted as THE standard way of accomplishing the given task. Standards aren't open merely opening details, they are about actual inter operation and predictable behavior. SMTP wouldn't be a useful worthwhile standard if I couldn't anticipate EVERY mail server adhering to it.
'"THE Standard" means "the most common way of doing it", and can refer to things that may or not actually be open standards.'
A closed standard is still a standard. Microsoft is a strong proponent of taking an open standard, extending it, and making their closed standard 'the most common way of doing it'. Once upon a time all standards were closed. Open standards were created so that open specifications could become the 'the most common way of doing it'. The entire idea is that the industry collaborates to develop an open specification and everyone agrees to use that specification.
'There are many cases where there is more than one standard to do the same thing'
Not beneficial cases.
'For example, bolt sizes. There are metric and English standards for precisely the same thing.'
That an excellent example that illustrates my point nicely. Metric is a unifying standard that has been adopted by almost the entire world. The United States has not converted to metric and this creates large amounts of confusion, errors in calculation, and general mayhem. It has even cost billion dollars spacecraft. Two standards for the same thing runs contrary to the purpose of devising a standard and is always a bad thing.
'Even document formats have multiple standards already. Both ODF and PDF are ISO standards, for example.'
It is actually you who are misusing the word standard. A standard is a specification that is adopted throughout the industry. A standards body develops those specifications and they call them standards on the arrogant assumption that everyone will use them. In principle these organizations have members that constitute a lion share of the industry and those members have an unspoken agreement to adopt the specifications they are helping to develop. Unless the industry actually DOES adopt the specification, it is simply a specification not a standard.
There are plenty of existing document specifications ODF and PDF are bad examples since they serve different purposes. Adopting a single open specification as the standard is the best thing for the industry in every case. Industry has recognized this long ago, that is why we have standards organizations.
'Surely, this isn't news to you, is it?'
Hardly, I was just pointing out that the comment made by the GP spouting MS PR nonsense was fundamentally flawed.
'What's "the" standard programming language?
What's "the" standard webserver?
What's "the" standard OS?'
Yup, that would be why they aren't standards.