Linux == servers Linux == desktops Linux == webcams Linux == TVs Linux == Blu-Ray players Linux == phones Linux == anywhere that people want a free, secure OS
So how can a software developer target all of them?
Release the source.
Or if you really must release binary-only software then it's hardly an insurmountable problem; we used to support at least seven or eight different versions of Unix and Mac on numerous different CPUs and that included a lot of code in assembler. If you actually care about releasing multiple versions of your software then abstracting out the differences isn't hard.
Of course what most companies do is dump a load of old, buggy, shared libraries full of security holes that they linked to into the application install directory and then expect you to add that to LD_LIBRARY_PATH because "that's how Windows does it".
Weird. I have to keep uninstalling the Java plugin from Ubuntu because Ubuntu keeps reinstalling it for me when I don't want the damn thing creating security holes in my web browser.
I use it often as well. It runs circles around VNC. If that's the result of Linux having a poor client, then the performance of VNC is really sad.
VNC sucks because it just sends blocks of pixels. RDP, as I understand it, can send blocks of pixels but can also send rendering commands so your local system does the rendering instead (e.g. telling it to draw a line diagonally across the screen rather than drawing the line locally and then sending the entire screen again).
Rather like Unix has been doing with X11 forever, which apparently sucks so bad it has to be replaced with Wayland which will only allow remote display by sending blocks of pixels because no-one ever uses it. Or something.
A hyper-sonic aircraft as a non-disposable first stage is interesting, however, precisely because it doesn't have to be armored against re-entry.
At Mach 20, your entire flight is 're-entry'.
But more than that, given the MD-21's lousy record of separating drones at merely supersonic speed I'm far from convinced that a hypersonic aircraft carrying a rocket on its back will work very well.
You reinforced my point for me - the idea that "if only Londoners had guns and they would;t be bothered by these riots" is just not a useful comparison since we have no gun culture here.
A century ago significant numbers of British people carried guns. Just read police reports from that time and you'll find ordinary folks either shooting at armed criminals or giving their guns to the police who were chasing them.
Of course there weren't many such cases because armed criminals knew that they were likely to get shot.
I just heard what a crime expert had to say on the situation, while Britain is police-stating it up they're cutting funding for the police as well, they try to maintain a harsh atmosphere but are cutting the size of the police force they'd need to actually maintain it.
There are plenty of police in the UK. But thanks to EU legislation they spend most of their time filling out forms rather than dealing with crimes.
Which is good if you want to avoid a police state, but not so good when you want someone to catch the thugs who are trying to burn down your store.
Compared to the UK's current crime rates? I do not think introducing guns into the equation will do much to *lower* the crime rates here - especially deaths that occur as a direct result of crimes (either of police, perpetrators or bystanders).
British per-capita gun crime rates were lower back in the days when anyone with ten shillings to spend could buy a permit to carry a gun, and anyone could buy a gun over the counter no questions asked.
Do you deny that government policy has a part to play in the people's willingness to riot? I'm not saying these are great people here. I'm saying they haven't been governed well.
But you blamed "thirty years of conservative rule", which means you either don't realise that Labour were running the country for about half that time, or just refuse to accept that their policies are even more responsible for the feral underclass than the conservatives. Both have been useless, but if we'd had a conservative government since the 50s, you wouldn't be seeing these problems because you wouldn't have had the bloated welfare state and destruction of effective deterrents which has allowed it to come about.
Trouble is, nobody really knows why these kids have been raised so badly and why the schools have taught them so badly and why their culture hasn't encouraged them to aspire to working hard and why there aren't enough job opportunities that suit their level of ability. It is tragic for them.
Um, the left have spent decades pushing policies which created a feral underclass who believe that they can go out and smash stuff up and burn buildings down and won't be punished for it. If 'nobody' is smart enough to figure that out, then Britain really is doomed.
The real question is what do you do with millions of people who are violent and unemployable who have been told all their lives that they have a right to free stuff paid for by the remainder who are productive and law-abiding? And that's an abyss the politicians don't want to look into because many of them have been instrumental in creating it and there is no good way of dealing with it.
As a resident Brit who is a non-participant in the riots, I certainly don't want either side to have lethal weapons.
One side already have lethal weapons, it's only the law-abiding who have been disarmed. Good luck when a rioting gang come down your street setting your houses on fire.
Personally, I think the PoliceState in that country has spiraled out of control, and now there is a growing underground movement with there backs to the wall, so we are seeing the rebellion swell as more and more dissenters act out the only way they personally feel they can.
No, they're just feral thugs who want a free TV and like destroying stuff. Their parents probably spent their entire lives on welfare and if the police caught them during their earlier crime sprees they either let them go or the court said 'don't do that again' and sent them home.
Hence they have no respect for anything, particularly not police who are more concerned with handing out speeding tickets than dealing with mugging or burglary, and no concern about what will happen after they burn down their own neighbourhood; after all, the law-abiding taxpayers will be forced to rebuild it for them, probably with more new shiny stuff.
The problem with that concept is that rioters don't give a crap about CCTV because the smart ones have sophsiticated stealth 'mask' technology and the dumber ones know that the courts will just slap their wrist and send them home even if they get that far. Many of these kids will have been in and out of the police station so often they're probably on first-name terms with everyone working there.
It was also alleged that a man who looked a bit muslim wearing a thick overcoat in the middle of summer jumped over the barriers at an underground station when challenged by armed police and then ran onto a train where said police shot him dead to avoid a suicide bombing.
Of course that all turned out to be nonsense and he was just an electrician who the police decided to kill because it seemed like a good idea at the time. And in this case, while Duggan was probably worth shooting, the British media is already saying that the policeman was probably shot by another policeman.
If a police officer was shot, that means somebody had a gun who shouldn't have. Given that Mark Duggan was the one who was shot, it would seem logical that he was the one doing the shooting in the first place. So why, precisely, do you have such a problem with any of the above?
Because last night the British media were reporting that the bullet that hit the policeman was probably fired by the police?
I doubt you'll find many people in the UK who believe the police story on any shooting after the Brazilian Electrician fiasco of a few years ago where pretty much every aspect of the initial police story turned out to be wrong.
yes especially when he shoots first... the person who's death sparked this off was stooped in a Taxi and fired at the policemen with a gun before they fired back, this sort of thing is too common to get in the news in America but in England it is rare.
Uh, the latest news reports I've seen were saying that the bullet that hit the policeman was... fired by the police.
So it looks like the police may have shot someone dead for no particularly good reason again, though at least this time it seems that they managed to shoot an actual bad guy.
As they've been moving more and more stuff on die, it's getting to the point where they really need a more tightly tied supply of RAM and I would be surprised if they aren't looking at how to get the RAM closer to the processor.
I just looked at my motherboard and the RAM is already so close to the CPU that it almost touches the heatsink. I'm not sure how much closer you think they can move it.
More seriously, if you're talking about building RAM into the CPU, we already have that: it's called cache. And since the amount of RAM you could add to a CPU die is never going to be enough outside of the low-end market, it would have to operate as a cache rather than a replacement for RAM on the motherboard.
So? Why should the rest of the world care? I'm seriously asking. How will the rest of the world be affected by a decision given in one country, that's the host of a fairly atypical, malformed and out-of-control patent system?
Because the US government spends a considerable amount of time and effort trying to push their concept of 'Intellectual Property' on the rest of the world.
The goal is sufficient deterrence, or sometimes just evidence that you're engaging in behavior you know to be complicit in a crime.
Which it will completely fail to do. The pirate sites can get non-US domains or the people accessing them can easily route around the problem at their end.
It's just more knee-jerk bullcrap from technologically illiterate politicians which harms fundamental Internet infrastructure while it can't possibly achieve what they say they want to achieve. On the plus side, maybe it will help the push toward eliminating DNS in favor of a decentralised alternative which can't be censored.
Slashdot Mirror
Linux == servers
Linux == desktops
Linux == webcams
Linux == TVs
Linux == Blu-Ray players
Linux == phones
Linux == anywhere that people want a free, secure OS
So how can a software developer target all of them?
Release the source.
Or if you really must release binary-only software then it's hardly an insurmountable problem; we used to support at least seven or eight different versions of Unix and Mac on numerous different CPUs and that included a lot of code in assembler. If you actually care about releasing multiple versions of your software then abstracting out the differences isn't hard.
Of course what most companies do is dump a load of old, buggy, shared libraries full of security holes that they linked to into the application install directory and then expect you to add that to LD_LIBRARY_PATH because "that's how Windows does it".
Weird. I have to keep uninstalling the Java plugin from Ubuntu because Ubuntu keeps reinstalling it for me when I don't want the damn thing creating security holes in my web browser.
And it is misleading to imply, as you did, that customers are leaving Windows Phone 7. This just isn't the case.
Surely before customers can leave Windows Phone 7 they need to actually have some customers?
I use it often as well. It runs circles around VNC. If that's the result of Linux having a poor client, then the performance of VNC is really sad.
VNC sucks because it just sends blocks of pixels. RDP, as I understand it, can send blocks of pixels but can also send rendering commands so your local system does the rendering instead (e.g. telling it to draw a line diagonally across the screen rather than drawing the line locally and then sending the entire screen again).
Rather like Unix has been doing with X11 forever, which apparently sucks so bad it has to be replaced with Wayland which will only allow remote display by sending blocks of pixels because no-one ever uses it. Or something.
A hyper-sonic aircraft as a non-disposable first stage is interesting, however, precisely because it doesn't have to be armored against re-entry.
At Mach 20, your entire flight is 're-entry'.
But more than that, given the MD-21's lousy record of separating drones at merely supersonic speed I'm far from convinced that a hypersonic aircraft carrying a rocket on its back will work very well.
Carriers and their aircraft can linger.
Until it's sunk by a hypersonic missile or a submarine, anyway.
You reinforced my point for me - the idea that "if only Londoners had guns and they would;t be bothered by these riots" is just not a useful comparison since we have no gun culture here.
A century ago significant numbers of British people carried guns. Just read police reports from that time and you'll find ordinary folks either shooting at armed criminals or giving their guns to the police who were chasing them.
Of course there weren't many such cases because armed criminals knew that they were likely to get shot.
I just heard what a crime expert had to say on the situation, while Britain is police-stating it up they're cutting funding for the police as well, they try to maintain a harsh atmosphere but are cutting the size of the police force they'd need to actually maintain it.
There are plenty of police in the UK. But thanks to EU legislation they spend most of their time filling out forms rather than dealing with crimes.
Which is good if you want to avoid a police state, but not so good when you want someone to catch the thugs who are trying to burn down your store.
I used a small 'c'. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were conservatives by any meaningful sense of the term.
LOL.
Really, that's the funniest thing I've read on Slashdot in weeks.
Compared to the UK's current crime rates? I do not think introducing guns into the equation will do much to *lower* the crime rates here - especially deaths that occur as a direct result of crimes (either of police, perpetrators or bystanders).
British per-capita gun crime rates were lower back in the days when anyone with ten shillings to spend could buy a permit to carry a gun, and anyone could buy a gun over the counter no questions asked.
Yes, they already HAVE those weapons, but have they deployed them yet?
You mean like burning buildings down when people are living in them?
Cool, so the chavs will shoot back. Problem solved!
There are far more chavs than non-chavs, and the chavs will be shooting 'gansta-style' so they won't hit a damn thing other than by luck.
Plus they're a bunch of cowards, so after the first couple are shot they'll go back home and play gansta on their X-box.
Do you deny that government policy has a part to play in the people's willingness to riot? I'm not saying these are great people here. I'm saying they haven't been governed well.
But you blamed "thirty years of conservative rule", which means you either don't realise that Labour were running the country for about half that time, or just refuse to accept that their policies are even more responsible for the feral underclass than the conservatives. Both have been useless, but if we'd had a conservative government since the 50s, you wouldn't be seeing these problems because you wouldn't have had the bloated welfare state and destruction of effective deterrents which has allowed it to come about.
Trouble is, nobody really knows why these kids have been raised so badly and why the schools have taught them so badly and why their culture hasn't encouraged them to aspire to working hard and why there aren't enough job opportunities that suit their level of ability. It is tragic for them.
Um, the left have spent decades pushing policies which created a feral underclass who believe that they can go out and smash stuff up and burn buildings down and won't be punished for it. If 'nobody' is smart enough to figure that out, then Britain really is doomed.
The real question is what do you do with millions of people who are violent and unemployable who have been told all their lives that they have a right to free stuff paid for by the remainder who are productive and law-abiding? And that's an abyss the politicians don't want to look into because many of them have been instrumental in creating it and there is no good way of dealing with it.
And I don't see a counter argument how else one could stop a rogue flash mob.
A shotgun under the counter tends to discourage robbery.
But, of course, that's not possible in the UK so a police state will be required instead.
As a resident Brit who is a non-participant in the riots, I certainly don't want either side to have lethal weapons.
One side already have lethal weapons, it's only the law-abiding who have been disarmed. Good luck when a rioting gang come down your street setting your houses on fire.
Personally, I think the PoliceState in that country has spiraled out of control, and now there is a growing underground movement with there backs to the wall, so we are seeing the rebellion swell as more and more dissenters act out the only way they personally feel they can.
No, they're just feral thugs who want a free TV and like destroying stuff. Their parents probably spent their entire lives on welfare and if the police caught them during their earlier crime sprees they either let them go or the court said 'don't do that again' and sent them home.
Hence they have no respect for anything, particularly not police who are more concerned with handing out speeding tickets than dealing with mugging or burglary, and no concern about what will happen after they burn down their own neighbourhood; after all, the law-abiding taxpayers will be forced to rebuild it for them, probably with more new shiny stuff.
The problem with that concept is that rioters don't give a crap about CCTV because the smart ones have sophsiticated stealth 'mask' technology and the dumber ones know that the courts will just slap their wrist and send them home even if they get that far. Many of these kids will have been in and out of the police station so often they're probably on first-name terms with everyone working there.
Yes, opinion varies, but it is alleged that Mark Duggan both owned a handgun (an offense under the Firearms Act 1997) and used it to shoot at Police, injuring one: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2022670/Gangster-Mark-Duggan-shot-police-London-cab-shootout.html
It was also alleged that a man who looked a bit muslim wearing a thick overcoat in the middle of summer jumped over the barriers at an underground station when challenged by armed police and then ran onto a train where said police shot him dead to avoid a suicide bombing.
Of course that all turned out to be nonsense and he was just an electrician who the police decided to kill because it seemed like a good idea at the time. And in this case, while Duggan was probably worth shooting, the British media is already saying that the policeman was probably shot by another policeman.
If a police officer was shot, that means somebody had a gun who shouldn't have. Given that Mark Duggan was the one who was shot, it would seem logical that he was the one doing the shooting in the first place. So why, precisely, do you have such a problem with any of the above?
Because last night the British media were reporting that the bullet that hit the policeman was probably fired by the police?
I doubt you'll find many people in the UK who believe the police story on any shooting after the Brazilian Electrician fiasco of a few years ago where pretty much every aspect of the initial police story turned out to be wrong.
yes especially when he shoots first... the person who's death sparked this off was stooped in a Taxi and fired at the policemen with a gun before they fired back, this sort of thing is too common to get in the news in America but in England it is rare.
Uh, the latest news reports I've seen were saying that the bullet that hit the policeman was... fired by the police.
So it looks like the police may have shot someone dead for no particularly good reason again, though at least this time it seems that they managed to shoot an actual bad guy.
As they've been moving more and more stuff on die, it's getting to the point where they really need a more tightly tied supply of RAM and I would be surprised if they aren't looking at how to get the RAM closer to the processor.
I just looked at my motherboard and the RAM is already so close to the CPU that it almost touches the heatsink. I'm not sure how much closer you think they can move it.
More seriously, if you're talking about building RAM into the CPU, we already have that: it's called cache. And since the amount of RAM you could add to a CPU die is never going to be enough outside of the low-end market, it would have to operate as a cache rather than a replacement for RAM on the motherboard.
So? Why should the rest of the world care? I'm seriously asking. How will the rest of the world be affected by a decision given in one country, that's the host of a fairly atypical, malformed and out-of-control patent system?
Because the US government spends a considerable amount of time and effort trying to push their concept of 'Intellectual Property' on the rest of the world.
The goal is sufficient deterrence, or sometimes just evidence that you're engaging in behavior you know to be complicit in a crime.
Which it will completely fail to do. The pirate sites can get non-US domains or the people accessing them can easily route around the problem at their end.
It's just more knee-jerk bullcrap from technologically illiterate politicians which harms fundamental Internet infrastructure while it can't possibly achieve what they say they want to achieve. On the plus side, maybe it will help the push toward eliminating DNS in favor of a decentralised alternative which can't be censored.