Yeah, but the terrorists hate us for our freedom, don't you know? So, if the government takes it all away, then they don't have any reason to hate us any more. See, that's how we win at this game!
(Long-time ASP/VBScript coder, recently started using PHP) Are you talking about ASP's session and application objects? If so, PHP has an equivalent to ASP's session object at least: $_SESSION. It looks to me like $GLOBALS may be an equivalent to ASP's application object, but I've not had an opportunity to try it yet.
No, PHP's session vars aren't the same thing as caching in memory. Ultimately, the data you write to $_SESSION gets written to disk, and then is retrieved again next time a script using sessions is called.
Incidentally, my first impressions of PHP are that it offers a great deal more than ASP, though if I was using it for any length of time I'd want to check out templating: PHP mixed with HTML makes ASP mixed with HTML look beautiful!
I did some ASP coding about 5 years ago, and started with PHP 4 years ago. I know at that point PHP seemed to offer much more 'out of the box'. Overall, I find it much easier to work with than ASP. Of course, I haven't tried any of the new ASP.NET stuff, so it might be better now.
Transactions would also be nice . . . and I've seen very few people mention them.
I've done a number of smaller projects on MySQL w/ Perl or PHP, and MySQL is perfect for those projects. But, my last project was a rather complex db-driven site, and the client wanted to use MySQL and PHP (partially because their previous contractor had begun to build the site on that platform and they didn't want to completely ditch what they had before), and by the time I got done I was wishing for transactions (and views, triggers, and stored procedures).
And I'm with you on the "gonne ba in 4.whatever" thing . . . it's nice that they are in the works, but until they show up in a production version, they're useless to me.
Senator Fritz Hollings IS NOT from North Carolina, but is from South Carolina. (Yes, I know you were quoting from the story -- this is for the benefit of everyone who doesn't read the stories)
We've got our share of problems in NC, but please don't blame somebody else's on us too!
Re: No G5!?!?!? Let the bitching begin.
on
New iMac Announced
·
· Score: 1
Geez . . . Mac people can be weird sometimes. The bizarre ideas they come up with AND THEN BELIEVE are sometimes simply amazing. Anyone in their right mind knew that the G5 hasn't been stable for long enough to provide for an appropriate amount of time to adequately design and test components such as the logic board.
Disclaimer: I'm a Mac user, and have used machines such as a Plus (still have my first Plus, with the upgraded 4 megs of RAM and a fan that I added myself by cutting a hole in the top to reduce the heat it began to generate), IIcx, Quadras, and I now have a G4 tower and an iBook.
Disclaimer for Linux folk: Yes, I use Linux too. Love it.
At least Linux folk don't have LinuxOSRumours.com.
Yeah, I've seen that time. It was called Windows 1.0.
Seriously, after looking at the ion screen shots, I can't imaging that being terribly useful to me. I've found that enviroments like Window Maker are most suited to my work style, but I'm certainly willing to admit that maybe my workstyle has been influenced too much by the reigning paradigm in UI.
I'd think that having stuff auto-tiled for me would annoy me to no end, but I think I'll try out ion and see how it works. Maybe I'm wrong.
No need for that . . . just search online for Z-code interpreters and then try to find the Z-file for the game. I found it last week, and played it through again, just for the heck of it.
On the other hand, it would be fun to hook up the 800XL again. I had an 800, then an 800XL, and i first experienced HHGTG on that machine. I might have to hook mine up and play some of the old classics again . . .
Not quite -- you won't be able to take the pill until you're wearing the gown:
You wake up. The room is spinning very gently round your head. Or at least it would be if you could see it which you can't.
It is pitch black.
>get up
Very difficult, but you manage it. The room is still spinning. It dips and sways a little.
>turn on light
Good start to the day. Pity it's going to be the worst one of your life. The light is now on.
Bedroom
The bedroom is a mess.
It is a small bedroom with a faded carpet and old wallpaper. There is a washbasin, a chair with a tatty dressing gown slung over it, and a window with the curtains drawn. Near the exit leading south is a phone.
There is a flathead screwdriver here.
There is a toothbrush here.
>get robe
Luckily, this is large enough for you to get hold of. You notice something in the pocket.
>open pocket
It's hard to open or close the pocket unless you're wearing the gown.
>wear gown
You are now wearing your gown.
>look in pocket
Opening your gown reveals a thing your aunt gave you which you don't know what it is, a buffered analgesic, and pocket fluff.
>take pill
You swallow the tablet. After a few seconds the room begins to calm down and behave in an orderly manner. Your terrible headache goes.
Before you criticize these guys, have a look at their hypothesis, and keep in mind they wrote this several months before taking the photo. I read the MSNBC article and initially thought it was hogwash too, until I visited the TIGHAR Earhart Project website.
These guys aren't basing this off of two pixels on a photo shot from space -- they've got pretty good reasons to believe that this is where she ended up. They've really done a bit of research on this; it looks as if they've been working at this since the early sixties, and they've been sending expeditions to the island since the early ninties.
See also some of their research. bulletins.
Sure, they might be wrong, but based the last of the transmissions heard from her plane and such, this is a *very* likely place for her to have ended up.
Yeah, but not AOL 6.0! Imagine all those new, nifty AOL features you're missing out on by using an old version, like . . . like . . . like . . . ummm . . . well, nevermind.
Now, with the release of OS X, I'm thinking about buying myself a Mac portable (probably the next incarnation of the iBook) after Apple starts shipping them with OS X pre-installed. It's not that I can't handle installing it myself or anything, but I don't feel like shelling out $1500 for a new system, then $130 for the OS, when I can wait three months and get it included in a more stable format...
OS X is what caused me to finally purchase a (new) Mac . . . I got one of the G4 machines that they were unloading right after they announced the newer models earlier this year in anticipation of it. I became enamored with the power of UNIX (and UNIX-like operating systems) while in my CS degree, so the classic Mac OS never really appealed to me, except for the interface.
I'm not stuck on OS X though, if I end up not liking it I know I can always go the Linux route on it -- I've always wanted to run something UNIX-like on PPC hardware anyway.
Re: What's wrong with this title?
on
OS X
·
· Score: 2
Well, I was thinking that they could have the X just be "ex", and not refer to ten. Then you could have "OS X 1.0.1" or the like. That, of course, would be confusing since they've insisted that the "X" is really "10", but it's no less confusing to your average person than "OS X 10.0" . . .
In the older OSes, as I understand it, you have a set amount of virtual memory (set in a control panel). Each application reserves a set amount of memory (which in theory is the maximum amount of memory it would ever need) when it launches. So, IE might reserve 16 megs of memory, but only be using 7 or 8 at any given time. This way, each running application will never had its memory used by another app (in theory). The down side is that since the amount of memory an app has reserved is fixed, you don't get as many apps in physical memory as you do in an OS with a real VM system.
From my experience, you run out of memory pretty fast. I've got a old 7100/80 at work I kick around on every now and then, and it has 64 megs. Right now, the OS has reserved 15.1 megs, and it's using about 95% of that. IE has 11.9 megs reserved, and is using about 80% of that. Outlook is using about 50% of the 8.8 megs it. If I launch Excel and Word, then all my physical memory is suddenly "used" and if I run other apps, I have to use the virtual memory.
Re: What's wrong with this title?
on
OS X
·
· Score: 2
Actually, Apple officially calls it "OS X 10.0" from what I understand. That's sort of redundant, if you ask me, since they've insisted all along that the "X" is pronounced "ten" . . .
I'm all for calling it "OS X 1.0" personally, since it's really a different animal from any previous Mac OS.
And even if the *Congressperson* signs, and you know they did, ain't no certainty that they read it.
Yeah, but if *I* was in office, and somebody took the time to spend three bucks to send me a certified letter, I think I'd take the time to read it . . . that sort of person is probably pretty serious. Of course, I get the impression that many of our reps don't care that much . . .
Of course, best case scenario would be all correspondence got read, but I'd bet that at least ten percent of the correspondence these folks get (whether on paper or electronic) is hate mail . . .
This situation - confusion about what is released and what is not - is one that most software developers avoid by utilizing new-fangled conventions such as "beta".
And all this time I've been thinking that this situation -- confusion about what is released and what is not -- was one that most reputable web sites avoided by utilizing new-fangled ideas such as "research".
---- "A fool does not delight in understanding, but only in revealing his own mind."
Yup, I'd hate to have to pay that phone bill . . . a guy in my office told me about it last Tuesday. By last Thursday, it had appeared in the local paper (The Raleigh N&O). And, as if that wasn't bad enough, it shows up on Slashdot . ..
---- "A fool does not delight in understanding, but only in revealing his own mind."
For those of you who missed out on the number thing, it's to National Discount Brokers, who apparently are a stock brokerage firm or something similar. In any case, there's a nice lady who reads off six important sounding brokerage-related options. She then says "If you would like to hear a duck quack, press 7." Upon pressing seven, you get to hear a duck quack twice.
---- "A fool does not delight in understanding, but only in revealing his own mind."
'd have to agree that it would have been wiser to keep the latest stable release of gcc as the default, but Redhat 7.0 does have XFree4.0.1 (using it right
now) and GNOME 1.2.
As far as waiting for KDE 2.0, why bother? No distribution maker is under any obligation to delay their distro for the benefit of an app vendor. I don't
see SuSe, Debian or Corel doing this either. Really the best thing to do - imho - is ship the latest KDE stable, offer the development snapshot as an
option and provide the 2.0 stable when available as a download. In fact doing this with gcc might have averted some of the criticism.
Welp, I didn't really mean to imply that they should wait for KDE 2.0 -- more that rather than releasing a 6.3 as a minor update (since 6.2 seems pretty solid in my experiece -- we've got it running on 3 boxen here), release 6.5 as a more major update (with newer release software) while discarding the attempt at making the transition to kernel 2.4 easier (which seems to be the major driving force behind releasing 7.0 w/ "gcc 2.96" and the like).
In any case, I do think you're absolutely right about releasing a stable gcc and offering the next revision as a download . ..
---- "A fool does not delight in understanding, but only in revealing his own mind."
What I am keen on, though, is for that dominant vendor to say "Here's our product. It will become standard. Here's the source code. Copy and
reimplement to your heart's content."
Yup, that's much better than "Hey, we're the standard, we're not gonna give you the code or the specs, just buy our stuff. And hey, if anybody else figures out how to do it without us, we'll just change the standard again . ..", ain't it?
---- "A fool does not delight in understanding, but only in revealing his own mind."
What I do not understand is, how can you let a distro go 'gold' with so many bugs? Are they not known? Is the beta period to short?
Although I would argue that Red Hat at least didn't beta test the distro long enough, given the fact that the update daemon can flatline the whole OS in a matter of three weeks, I'd say that the number of bugs in the distro as a whole isn't that bad, in the scheme of things. My bugzilla search turns up 790 bugs as of right now. Of these, 203 are marked as duplicates, leaving no more than 587 non-duplicated bug reports. It's quite likely that a number of the new and/or non-closed reports are duplicates as well, I'd hazard that about 550 are non-dupes. 302 are marked as "Not A Bug", although a number of these are dupes as well, or are something like "gcc 2.96 is unacceptable for compiling" (I don't like the idea of a snapshot compiler being included in a release product, but it looks like Red Hat is committed to supporting what they're calling 2.96 on their own, and stabilizing it as much as possible. Furthermore, I hardly think that the deliberate decision on the part of Red Hat to include this snapshot qualifies as a bug, no matter how bad a decision one might think it was). In any case, I'd say we're looking at about 400-450 verifiable bugs.
Now, consider this: Should Red Hat be responsible for fixing bugs in software they did not develop?
In one sense, I don't think they should be responsible for fixing bugs in software they aren't developing. It would certainly be nice if they submitted patches fixing such bugs, but it's simply not economical on their part to do so. Red Hat is in business, and their aim to make money. Red Hat *IS* kind enough, however, to contribute to the development of certain projects like the kernel, as well as GNOME.
Furthermore, a Linux distribution is in theory a compilation of software the ultimately makes the Linux kernel useful -- and I wouldn't task the publishers of compilation discs with fixing bugs in software on that disc. (Of course, Red Hat *SHOULD* be responsible for bugs in their installation software, etc.
OTOH, Red Hat *should* check thoroughly to make sure that the packages they do include in their distro are stable and relatively bug-free (since it's probably well-nigh impossible to produce COMPLETELY bug-free software).
I would compare this to Linus and co. releasing a new major rev. kernel, it takes a long time, and a lot of eyes.
Actually, it's a whole order of magnitude past the release of a kernel, since we're dealing with hundreds of seperate software packages relying of all sorts of different libraries, written by a number of different authors . . .
What can we do to help this? It's not like people are not reporting bugs in the beta, it's more like there's not enough time to address the issues. Or am I all wet here?
Well, they could do like Debian, and test for years before releasing . . .:-) Of course, you're not likely to be the first on the market with the newest and hotest stuff like that, though.
DISCLAIMER: I'm a Red Hat user. I do, however, know how to compile my own software. (Yup, I'm one of the three!)
---- "A fool does not delight in understanding, but only in revealing his own mind."
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but the terrorists hate us for our freedom, don't you know? So, if the government takes it all away, then they don't have any reason to hate us any more. See, that's how we win at this game!
(Long-time ASP/VBScript coder, recently started using PHP) Are you talking about ASP's session and application objects? If so, PHP has an equivalent to ASP's session object at least: $_SESSION. It looks to me like $GLOBALS may be an equivalent to ASP's application object, but I've not had an opportunity to try it yet.
No, PHP's session vars aren't the same thing as caching in memory. Ultimately, the data you write to $_SESSION gets written to disk, and then is retrieved again next time a script using sessions is called.
Incidentally, my first impressions of PHP are that it offers a great deal more than ASP, though if I was using it for any length of time I'd want to check out templating: PHP mixed with HTML makes ASP mixed with HTML look beautiful!
I did some ASP coding about 5 years ago, and started with PHP 4 years ago. I know at that point PHP seemed to offer much more 'out of the box'. Overall, I find it much easier to work with than ASP. Of course, I haven't tried any of the new ASP.NET stuff, so it might be better now.
They won't have the opportunity to do so. He's retiring at the end of this term, and is about to be replaced in a few months . . .
Transactions would also be nice . . . and I've seen very few people mention them.
I've done a number of smaller projects on MySQL w/ Perl or PHP, and MySQL is perfect for those projects. But, my last project was a rather complex db-driven site, and the client wanted to use MySQL and PHP (partially because their previous contractor had begun to build the site on that platform and they didn't want to completely ditch what they had before), and by the time I got done I was wishing for transactions (and views, triggers, and stored procedures).
And I'm with you on the "gonne ba in 4.whatever" thing . . . it's nice that they are in the works, but until they show up in a production version, they're useless to me.
We've got our share of problems in NC, but please don't blame somebody else's on us too!
Disclaimer: I'm a Mac user, and have used machines such as a Plus (still have my first Plus, with the upgraded 4 megs of RAM and a fan that I added myself by cutting a hole in the top to reduce the heat it began to generate), IIcx, Quadras, and I now have a G4 tower and an iBook.
Disclaimer for Linux folk: Yes, I use Linux too. Love it.
At least Linux folk don't have LinuxOSRumours.com.
Seriously, after looking at the ion screen shots, I can't imaging that being terribly useful to me. I've found that enviroments like Window Maker are most suited to my work style, but I'm certainly willing to admit that maybe my workstyle has been influenced too much by the reigning paradigm in UI.
I'd think that having stuff auto-tiled for me would annoy me to no end, but I think I'll try out ion and see how it works. Maybe I'm wrong.
No need for that . . . just search online for Z-code interpreters and then try to find the Z-file for the game. I found it last week, and played it through again, just for the heck of it. On the other hand, it would be fun to hook up the 800XL again. I had an 800, then an 800XL, and i first experienced HHGTG on that machine. I might have to hook mine up and play some of the old classics again . . .
Not quite -- you won't be able to take the pill until you're wearing the gown:
You wake up. The room is spinning very gently round your head. Or at least it would be if you could see it which you can't.
It is pitch black.
>get up
Very difficult, but you manage it. The room is still spinning. It dips and sways a little.
>turn on light
Good start to the day. Pity it's going to be the worst one of your life. The light is now on.
Bedroom
The bedroom is a mess.
It is a small bedroom with a faded carpet and old wallpaper. There is a washbasin, a chair with a tatty dressing gown slung over it, and a window with the curtains drawn. Near the exit leading south is a phone.
There is a flathead screwdriver here.
There is a toothbrush here.
>get robe
Luckily, this is large enough for you to get hold of. You notice something in the pocket.
>open pocket
It's hard to open or close the pocket unless you're wearing the gown.
>wear gown
You are now wearing your gown.
>look in pocket
Opening your gown reveals a thing your aunt gave you which you don't know what it is, a buffered analgesic, and pocket fluff.
>take pill
You swallow the tablet. After a few seconds the room begins to calm down and behave in an orderly manner. Your terrible headache goes.
These guys aren't basing this off of two pixels on a photo shot from space -- they've got pretty good reasons to believe that this is where she ended up. They've really done a bit of research on this; it looks as if they've been working at this since the early sixties, and they've been sending expeditions to the island since the early ninties.
See also some of their research. bulletins. Sure, they might be wrong, but based the last of the transmissions heard from her plane and such, this is a *very* likely place for her to have ended up.
It's "humane interface".
Yeah, but not AOL 6.0! Imagine all those new, nifty AOL features you're missing out on by using an old version, like . . . like . . . like . . . ummm . . . well, nevermind.
Try www.photo.net
OS X is what caused me to finally purchase a (new) Mac . . . I got one of the G4 machines that they were unloading right after they announced the newer models earlier this year in anticipation of it. I became enamored with the power of UNIX (and UNIX-like operating systems) while in my CS degree, so the classic Mac OS never really appealed to me, except for the interface.
I'm not stuck on OS X though, if I end up not liking it I know I can always go the Linux route on it -- I've always wanted to run something UNIX-like on PPC hardware anyway.
Well, I was thinking that they could have the X just be "ex", and not refer to ten. Then you could have "OS X 1.0.1" or the like. That, of course, would be confusing since they've insisted that the "X" is really "10", but it's no less confusing to your average person than "OS X 10.0" . . .
From my experience, you run out of memory pretty fast. I've got a old 7100/80 at work I kick around on every now and then, and it has 64 megs. Right now, the OS has reserved 15.1 megs, and it's using about 95% of that. IE has 11.9 megs reserved, and is using about 80% of that. Outlook is using about 50% of the 8.8 megs it. If I launch Excel and Word, then all my physical memory is suddenly "used" and if I run other apps, I have to use the virtual memory.
I'm all for calling it "OS X 1.0" personally, since it's really a different animal from any previous Mac OS.
Yeah, but if *I* was in office, and somebody took the time to spend three bucks to send me a certified letter, I think I'd take the time to read it . . . that sort of person is probably pretty serious. Of course, I get the impression that many of our reps don't care that much . . .
Of course, best case scenario would be all correspondence got read, but I'd bet that at least ten percent of the correspondence these folks get (whether on paper or electronic) is hate mail . . .
And all this time I've been thinking that this situation -- confusion about what is released and what is not -- was one that most reputable web sites avoided by utilizing new-fangled ideas such as "research".
----
"A fool does not delight in understanding, but only in revealing his own mind."
----
"A fool does not delight in understanding, but only in revealing his own mind."
----
"A fool does not delight in understanding, but only in revealing his own mind."
----
"A fool does not delight in understanding, but only in revealing his own mind."
As far as waiting for KDE 2.0, why bother? No distribution maker is under any obligation to delay their distro for the benefit of an app vendor. I don't see SuSe, Debian or Corel doing this either. Really the best thing to do - imho - is ship the latest KDE stable, offer the development snapshot as an option and provide the 2.0 stable when available as a download. In fact doing this with gcc might have averted some of the criticism.
Welp, I didn't really mean to imply that they should wait for KDE 2.0 -- more that rather than releasing a 6.3 as a minor update (since 6.2 seems pretty solid in my experiece -- we've got it running on 3 boxen here), release 6.5 as a more major update (with newer release software) while discarding the attempt at making the transition to kernel 2.4 easier (which seems to be the major driving force behind releasing 7.0 w/ "gcc 2.96" and the like).
In any case, I do think you're absolutely right about releasing a stable gcc and offering the next revision as a download . . .
----
"A fool does not delight in understanding, but only in revealing his own mind."
Yup, that's much better than "Hey, we're the standard, we're not gonna give you the code or the specs, just buy our stuff. And hey, if anybody else figures out how to do it without us, we'll just change the standard again . . .", ain't it?
----
"A fool does not delight in understanding, but only in revealing his own mind."
Although I would argue that Red Hat at least didn't beta test the distro long enough, given the fact that the update daemon can flatline the whole OS in a matter of three weeks, I'd say that the number of bugs in the distro as a whole isn't that bad, in the scheme of things. My bugzilla search turns up 790 bugs as of right now. Of these, 203 are marked as duplicates, leaving no more than 587 non-duplicated bug reports. It's quite likely that a number of the new and/or non-closed reports are duplicates as well, I'd hazard that about 550 are non-dupes. 302 are marked as "Not A Bug", although a number of these are dupes as well, or are something like "gcc 2.96 is unacceptable for compiling" (I don't like the idea of a snapshot compiler being included in a release product, but it looks like Red Hat is committed to supporting what they're calling 2.96 on their own, and stabilizing it as much as possible. Furthermore, I hardly think that the deliberate decision on the part of Red Hat to include this snapshot qualifies as a bug, no matter how bad a decision one might think it was). In any case, I'd say we're looking at about 400-450 verifiable bugs.
Now, consider this: Should Red Hat be responsible for fixing bugs in software they did not develop?
In one sense, I don't think they should be responsible for fixing bugs in software they aren't developing. It would certainly be nice if they submitted patches fixing such bugs, but it's simply not economical on their part to do so. Red Hat is in business, and their aim to make money. Red Hat *IS* kind enough, however, to contribute to the development of certain projects like the kernel, as well as GNOME.
Furthermore, a Linux distribution is in theory a compilation of software the ultimately makes the Linux kernel useful -- and I wouldn't task the publishers of compilation discs with fixing bugs in software on that disc. (Of course, Red Hat *SHOULD* be responsible for bugs in their installation software, etc.
OTOH, Red Hat *should* check thoroughly to make sure that the packages they do include in their distro are stable and relatively bug-free (since it's probably well-nigh impossible to produce COMPLETELY bug-free software).
I would compare this to Linus and co. releasing a new major rev. kernel, it takes a long time, and a lot of eyes.
Actually, it's a whole order of magnitude past the release of a kernel, since we're dealing with hundreds of seperate software packages relying of all sorts of different libraries, written by a number of different authors . . .
What can we do to help this? It's not like people are not reporting bugs in the beta, it's more like there's not enough time to address the issues. Or am I all wet here?
Well, they could do like Debian, and test for years before releasing . . . :-) Of course, you're not likely to be the first on the market with the newest and hotest stuff like that, though.
DISCLAIMER: I'm a Red Hat user. I do, however, know how to compile my own software. (Yup, I'm one of the three!)
----
"A fool does not delight in understanding, but only in revealing his own mind."