Yes I agree that each language has its place. However I believe that C/C++ should have the biggest place in the IT environment. Aside from the fact that it's fast, there aren't too many languages that can match the flexibility of C/C++. I've found myself banging my head on the desk when I've used VB and (to a lesser extent) Delphi for certain projects.
My main point however is that I already believe that programmers in general are either too lazy or not competent enough to wright good code. If people come to rely on having all their code/bounds checking done by a compiler then the situation will become worse. The world will depend on a handful of elite programmers who are *still* able to write the compilers. What if an exploit is found in the compiler's compiled code???
OK so there seems to have been a lot of Reiser flaming going on here, so what would people recommend? Taking into account Speed, Reliability and Compatability.
I know a lot of people will pull their hair out when they hear this, but: Speed is my primary concern. On long compiles of new programs or kernels for example the speed difference on a good FS can be important. I'm not saying that I'm willing to have a FS that corrupts every last file and directory, only that given two FSs which both have seemingly similar stability I would prefer the speed boost.
I have tried one or two of the FSs but I haven't used them for any length of time to be able to compare one against another.
Hmmm, I've heard that DVDA is impressive but I have yet to see it working in practise. Without proof of DVDA's existence we'll have to stick to the slightly more boring topic of DVD-R / DVD+R.
If it did take 20mins to rip OGG files nobody would use them. The fact is that I can rip and compress an entire album in less than 20mins using OGG. It's compression is slower than MP3, but that's the small price to pay for far superior sound quality.
Can't really comment too much on WMAs but if it takes you 20mins for a 3mins song on a 3200mhz CPU there must be something wrong with your machine. SURELY YOU CAN SEE THAT.
I'm not making a point about MP3/OGG/WMA being best here I'm just saying it's probably your PC or settings to blame.
P.S. I do use OGG out of preference but I'm not making any claims about quality. I like the Open Source nature of the format and I really prefer the quality to MP3.
On a (very) loosely related note, I'd just like to comment about how new DRM copy protection schemes are actually hurting the music industry. I know that not everyone is the same but I certainly won't be buying any CDs that have copy protection included.
I've just bought an original copy of the "The Darkness" album, fantasic album, sad that I can't listen to it as I want.
Firstly it does work in my PC and doesn't crash it, you may not be so lucky. When I got the CD I was shocked to find the copy protection. I don't have a stereo and I don't have a personal CD player, this means that I might not've been able to use the CD at all, and hence had I have known this in advance I wouldn't have bought the CD at all. Fortunately my PC *does* read the CD, but I can't store the CD on my HD as OGG/MP3, I can't listen to the album on the move in my portable MP3 player, I can't make a genuine backup, and I'm only fortunate that it doesn't crash my PC.
The music industry shouldn't be able to sell you a product that doens't work. How would we all feel if we went to the petrol station to fill up, and after paying for it we found out our car wasn't compatible.
I am now forced to search the internet for illegal copies which I can use in my MP3 player in spite of the fact I have a legitimate copy. I'll reiterate once again I wouldn't buy a CD with copy protection. Hence damaging the industry.
At 300ft we're talking in a straight line no objects in between. I believe the indoor range is 100ft - which can be considered the same as inter-site (if not worse).
I used the example of a house as an example, I qualified it by then using the term site.
You're correct in your inference that I don't have any houses wired by cat5. However I do have a friend who had his network between two UNI flats. The network was over a 10Base-5 coaxial and the cable stretched between two open windows in all weathers. The real point is that there are more uses for networks than just what you may use one for. Let's not forget that there are also corporate users who could make use of such (wireless) technologies. What if a company had more than one building nearby? Entirely feasible. What if friendly neighbours wished to have simple LAN games. Entirely feasible. What if there are dozens of examples that you can't concieve. Entirely feasible.
I'm not trying to sound infallible here but the 300ft range over ideal conditions IS poor. If you could get up to 300ft away what would your speed be like???????
I knew someone would fetch up the point of putting wires through walls, but I have a tendancy to rant and was trying to keep my post short.
Most home users won't see the benefit of the 100Mbps LAN but surely the people who are wanting to have a LAN in the first place ARE the people who can take advantage of it. Internet usage alone won't choke a network (even 10Mbps) but put onto that gaming, file sharing (e.g. Samba) and posssibly other technologies such as VoiP and you're gonna knock the hell out of Wireless.
Sure I'm not gonna deny that Wireless has it's benefits, but it's quite a small bridge between Bluetooth and Wired. Laptops/Palmtops et al are by far the biggest beneficiaries.
At the minute there are too many problems with 802.11x. You can use your WLAN with 2 stories blah blah blah fine, not gonna argue that point. But by the same token I can give you examples whereby the damned things won't work from one room to another. Maybe it's incompatabilities/quality issues between manufacturers - this only adds to the 802.11x problems.
Here's a quote from a wise man to put the cat amongst the pigeons
"Use Wireless if you're gay"
OK, my first beef is with the term WIRELESS you hear two nerds talking about wireless stuff and it makes you think that you've regressed back to the 1950's style of wireless. Which is kind of the point of this post, I think that too many people blinkered by the fact that there are no wires. It must've been amazing to see sound coming out of a box that was "wireless" but should we have the same enthusiasm today?
I can see a whole new generation of kids using the phrase "ere come an' 'ave a look at mi nu-fangled wireless". I was intrigued at first; "54Mbps not too much of a downgrade" I thought. However when you take into consideration how much the signal degrades even between walls let alone other equipment that could intefere ("ok who's baking potatoes in the Microwave!"), the appeal soon drops.
There are two circumstances where I could see this technology having advantages. 1. Mobile devies - damn if I had a laptop I would definitely be using wireless. 2. Inter-house (site) comms - this also would be nice, however the range is abysmal (300ft come on).
I for one will be sticking with my wired 100Mbps LAN. It's reliable, faster, subject to less interferance, more secure and for the moment cheaper.
After running extensive searches and comparisons using diff, ls, grep and more I have found that both system contain the letters U, N, I, and X - albeit transposed somewhat. My next project is to use perl to count the number of times the character 'e' appears in the source code of each, when I have my findings I will submit them here. I think you will all be very surprised at the results which will no doubt support SCO's claims.
But seriously if the code if virutally identical then SCO have nothing to lose by making it publically available. By SCO's thinking the code is ALREADY available under GPL.
Slashdot Mirror
okay, okay just ready what i'd put and before anyone else corrects me *I made a grammar mistake on the first sentence of the second paragraph*
My main point however is that I already believe that programmers in general are either too lazy or not competent enough to wright good code. If people come to rely on having all their code/bounds checking done by a compiler then the situation will become worse. The world will depend on a handful of elite programmers who are *still* able to write the compilers. What if an exploit is found in the compiler's compiled code???
I know a lot of people will pull their hair out when they hear this, but: Speed is my primary concern. On long compiles of new programs or kernels for example the speed difference on a good FS can be important. I'm not saying that I'm willing to have a FS that corrupts every last file and directory, only that given two FSs which both have seemingly similar stability I would prefer the speed boost.
I have tried one or two of the FSs but I haven't used them for any length of time to be able to compare one against another.
;-)
Can't really comment too much on WMAs but if it takes you 20mins for a 3mins song on a 3200mhz CPU there must be something wrong with your machine. SURELY YOU CAN SEE THAT.
I'm not making a point about MP3/OGG/WMA being best here I'm just saying it's probably your PC or settings to blame.
P.S. I do use OGG out of preference but I'm not making any claims about quality. I like the Open Source nature of the format and I really prefer the quality to MP3.
I've just bought an original copy of the "The Darkness" album, fantasic album, sad that I can't listen to it as I want.
Firstly it does work in my PC and doesn't crash it, you may not be so lucky. When I got the CD I was shocked to find the copy protection. I don't have a stereo and I don't have a personal CD player, this means that I might not've been able to use the CD at all, and hence had I have known this in advance I wouldn't have bought the CD at all. Fortunately my PC *does* read the CD, but I can't store the CD on my HD as OGG/MP3, I can't listen to the album on the move in my portable MP3 player, I can't make a genuine backup, and I'm only fortunate that it doesn't crash my PC.
The music industry shouldn't be able to sell you a product that doens't work. How would we all feel if we went to the petrol station to fill up, and after paying for it we found out our car wasn't compatible.
I am now forced to search the internet for illegal copies which I can use in my MP3 player in spite of the fact I have a legitimate copy. I'll reiterate once again I wouldn't buy a CD with copy protection. Hence damaging the industry.
I used the example of a house as an example, I qualified it by then using the term site.
You're correct in your inference that I don't have any houses wired by cat5. However I do have a friend who had his network between two UNI flats. The network was over a 10Base-5 coaxial and the cable stretched between two open windows in all weathers. The real point is that there are more uses for networks than just what you may use one for. Let's not forget that there are also corporate users who could make use of such (wireless) technologies. What if a company had more than one building nearby? Entirely feasible. What if friendly neighbours wished to have simple LAN games. Entirely feasible. What if there are dozens of examples that you can't concieve. Entirely feasible.
I'm not trying to sound infallible here but the 300ft range over ideal conditions IS poor. If you could get up to 300ft away what would your speed be like???????
Most home users won't see the benefit of the 100Mbps LAN but surely the people who are wanting to have a LAN in the first place ARE the people who can take advantage of it. Internet usage alone won't choke a network (even 10Mbps) but put onto that gaming, file sharing (e.g. Samba) and posssibly other technologies such as VoiP and you're gonna knock the hell out of Wireless.
Sure I'm not gonna deny that Wireless has it's benefits, but it's quite a small bridge between Bluetooth and Wired. Laptops/Palmtops et al are by far the biggest beneficiaries.
At the minute there are too many problems with 802.11x. You can use your WLAN with 2 stories blah blah blah fine, not gonna argue that point. But by the same token I can give you examples whereby the damned things won't work from one room to another. Maybe it's incompatabilities/quality issues between manufacturers - this only adds to the 802.11x problems.
Here's a quote from a wise man to put the cat amongst the pigeons
"Use Wireless if you're gay"
I can see a whole new generation of kids using the phrase "ere come an' 'ave a look at mi nu-fangled wireless". I was intrigued at first; "54Mbps not too much of a downgrade" I thought. However when you take into consideration how much the signal degrades even between walls let alone other equipment that could intefere ("ok who's baking potatoes in the Microwave!"), the appeal soon drops.
There are two circumstances where I could see this technology having advantages. 1. Mobile devies - damn if I had a laptop I would definitely be using wireless. 2. Inter-house (site) comms - this also would be nice, however the range is abysmal (300ft come on). I for one will be sticking with my wired 100Mbps LAN. It's reliable, faster, subject to less interferance, more secure and for the moment cheaper.
After running extensive searches and comparisons using diff, ls, grep and more I have found that both system contain the letters U, N, I, and X - albeit transposed somewhat. My next project is to use perl to count the number of times the character 'e' appears in the source code of each, when I have my findings I will submit them here. I think you will all be very surprised at the results which will no doubt support SCO's claims.
But seriously if the code if virutally identical then SCO have nothing to lose by making it publically available. By SCO's thinking the code is ALREADY available under GPL.