Nope, the compilers that revolutioned compilation were Borland's Turbo compilers
No. Like it or not, the compiler that was most important was the first COBOL compiler. Why? Because for the first time, you could take a deck (punched cards, remember?) of source code, compile it on different computers with different instruction sets and architectures and end up with programs that gave the exact same results for the same data.
Most users don't consider switching to Linux an option so we can charge as much as we want.
Even more important from their POV is that your average Joe Sixpack or Aunt Millie doesn't even know Linux exists, so they're not aware a choice exists.
You can always board Army troops, something they often had to do anyway, since there weren't enough marines to sustain a shore action of any size.
AIUI, the problem with this was that first, Army troops would take time to get accustomed to shipboard life while being transported and second they'd need some time ashore to get back into proper shape for the assault. Marines, OTOH, spent most of their active service aboard ship, and as they were expected to help run the ship (moving stores, hauling lines as the ship tacked and so on) tended not to get out of condition. In fact, unless my understanding's wrong (possible, of course) that was why the were established in the first place.
I agree that there was sometimes need for the Army in a major campaign, but for raids and small actions the fleet's marines were often more than sufficient. Having marines available also meant that a fleet could take advantage of a sudden opportunity without having to wait for troops to be sent out.
(The marines are a holdover from the days when naval battles invariably included boarding actions.)
Not quite. Aside from that, and shipboard security, they were also there so that a fleet had a body of trained ground-pounders available for shore actions. When you read about naval raids on Caribbean islands in the Eighteenth Century, remember that what went ashore was, mostly, the marine contingents of the various ships, with shore parties of sailors if needed, mostly serving as gunners.
AutoRun should bring up a prompt, asking if you want to run the software, and remind you that you shouldn't let it run unless you were expecting it and know what it's for. That way, if you have a thumb drive that's not supposed to have anything on it but some driver updates, and the AutoRun prompt shows up, you know something's wrong. It wouldn't be fool-proof, because there are always going to be people who click OK without understanding what's going on, but it probably would have stopped this from happening.
Would somebody out there please explain why AutoRun was ever considered a Good Idea? I know that before I got rid of Windows and went Linux only, one of the first things I'd do on a new computer was disable it.
My point was that even if service was cut off for non-payment, signals could still be sent to and from the phone. Therefore, they should have been able to track the phone even if it wasn't making a call.
Actually, you can get emergency cell phone access even if you haven't paid your bill. All you have to do is turn it on and call 911. Your call will go through because phone companies are required to connect you to emergency services even after your account's been canceled.
I'd wager the total size of the kernel+all drivers closer to 30MB though.
Remember, today's kernels are compressed, and uncompressed on the fly at boot because it's faster than loading an uncompressed kernel would be. Checking, I have three kernels (By default, Fedora keeps the last two as fallbacks.) and they're 2.5 MB each. How much more the drivers are, I can't say off-hand.
You misunderstand. For most video cards, there are OSS drivers just as good as the Windows ones, and those are on the Live CD. ATI and nVidia cards require special binary (no source code available) drivers from the company, and for various reasons, those aren't on the Live CD. They're easy to get, and Ubuntu, at least, gets them for you if you install to the hard disk. About the only effect this has is, if you need them you can't get optimal video unless you install.
Denying that there are frequent problems with hardware won't help Linux cause quite the contrary.
In my experience, driver issues with Linux come from two sources: bleeding edge hardware where nobody's had time to write the drivers and companies who won't cooperate with Linux. ATI and nVidia may not make their specs available so that OSS drivers can be written, but at least they provide binaries that work. Compare this to Lexmark, who does neither. Their printers Just Don't Work with Linux and they Just Don't Care. Is that a Linux problem, or problem with Lexmark's attitude?
Writing the scripts is the hard part. Training people who already know how to follow scripts to use another one is trivial. I've never used a Mac, but I've done Mac support using scripts and done damned well. In fact, I've had callers tell me that I must love Macs judging by my "Mac support skills."
No, that's not what I wrote, and it's not what I meant. My point is that various distros of Linux run just fine from a Live CD without needing special drivers for various video cards. If you decide to install it to your hard disk, you can then get the drivers if you want the best graphics. I was replying to somebody who thought that Linux had lots of driver/hardware issues and was explaining that the generic kernel and drivers worked well enough that even the Live CD, with only the most generic setup, works on over 90% of the computers out there.
Linux is notoriously finicky when it comes to hardware,
Really? That's not been my experience. Nor, might I add, has it been the experience of most of the people who've experimented with Linux by booting from Live CDs. They Just Work, well over 90% of the time. They may not have the fancy drivers needed to get the optimal performance out of some of the video cards, but they work well enough to get you going until (and unless) you decide to install it.
Well, and what of it? I suspect that I was responding to a Windows user, so I had to put it in terms he could understand. Personally, I'm a Fedora user.
Slashdot Mirror
No. Like it or not, the compiler that was most important was the first COBOL compiler. Why? Because for the first time, you could take a deck (punched cards, remember?) of source code, compile it on different computers with different instruction sets and architectures and end up with programs that gave the exact same results for the same data.
Squeak to me, baby, squeak to me!
Even more important from their POV is that your average Joe Sixpack or Aunt Millie doesn't even know Linux exists, so they're not aware a choice exists.
I've found bits and pieces of what I've written in various history books across the years, but don't have any on-line cites ATM.
AIUI, the problem with this was that first, Army troops would take time to get accustomed to shipboard life while being transported and second they'd need some time ashore to get back into proper shape for the assault. Marines, OTOH, spent most of their active service aboard ship, and as they were expected to help run the ship (moving stores, hauling lines as the ship tacked and so on) tended not to get out of condition. In fact, unless my understanding's wrong (possible, of course) that was why the were established in the first place.
I agree that there was sometimes need for the Army in a major campaign, but for raids and small actions the fleet's marines were often more than sufficient. Having marines available also meant that a fleet could take advantage of a sudden opportunity without having to wait for troops to be sent out.
Not quite. Aside from that, and shipboard security, they were also there so that a fleet had a body of trained ground-pounders available for shore actions. When you read about naval raids on Caribbean islands in the Eighteenth Century, remember that what went ashore was, mostly, the marine contingents of the various ships, with shore parties of sailors if needed, mostly serving as gunners.
AutoRun should bring up a prompt, asking if you want to run the software, and remind you that you shouldn't let it run unless you were expecting it and know what it's for. That way, if you have a thumb drive that's not supposed to have anything on it but some driver updates, and the AutoRun prompt shows up, you know something's wrong. It wouldn't be fool-proof, because there are always going to be people who click OK without understanding what's going on, but it probably would have stopped this from happening.
Would somebody out there please explain why AutoRun was ever considered a Good Idea? I know that before I got rid of Windows and went Linux only, one of the first things I'd do on a new computer was disable it.
You do know, don't you, that the HHGTTG Trilogy ended up with five volumes.
No, they're not The Borg, they're Vogons. Much, much worse.
If you want to see what BO really thinks about the military, see what Tommy has to say about it. It's just as true now as it was when it was written.
Please note that this is only the Army. None of the other branches seem to be following suit.
My point was that even if service was cut off for non-payment, signals could still be sent to and from the phone. Therefore, they should have been able to track the phone even if it wasn't making a call.
Actually, you can get emergency cell phone access even if you haven't paid your bill. All you have to do is turn it on and call 911. Your call will go through because phone companies are required to connect you to emergency services even after your account's been canceled.
And the idea of any political party having that type of power should be giving you nightmares.
Remember, today's kernels are compressed, and uncompressed on the fly at boot because it's faster than loading an uncompressed kernel would be. Checking, I have three kernels (By default, Fedora keeps the last two as fallbacks.) and they're 2.5 MB each. How much more the drivers are, I can't say off-hand.
You misunderstand. For most video cards, there are OSS drivers just as good as the Windows ones, and those are on the Live CD. ATI and nVidia cards require special binary (no source code available) drivers from the company, and for various reasons, those aren't on the Live CD. They're easy to get, and Ubuntu, at least, gets them for you if you install to the hard disk. About the only effect this has is, if you need them you can't get optimal video unless you install.
In my experience, driver issues with Linux come from two sources: bleeding edge hardware where nobody's had time to write the drivers and companies who won't cooperate with Linux. ATI and nVidia may not make their specs available so that OSS drivers can be written, but at least they provide binaries that work. Compare this to Lexmark, who does neither. Their printers Just Don't Work with Linux and they Just Don't Care. Is that a Linux problem, or problem with Lexmark's attitude?
Writing the scripts is the hard part. Training people who already know how to follow scripts to use another one is trivial. I've never used a Mac, but I've done Mac support using scripts and done damned well. In fact, I've had callers tell me that I must love Macs judging by my "Mac support skills."
No, that's not what I wrote, and it's not what I meant. My point is that various distros of Linux run just fine from a Live CD without needing special drivers for various video cards. If you decide to install it to your hard disk, you can then get the drivers if you want the best graphics. I was replying to somebody who thought that Linux had lots of driver/hardware issues and was explaining that the generic kernel and drivers worked well enough that even the Live CD, with only the most generic setup, works on over 90% of the computers out there.
Really? That's not been my experience. Nor, might I add, has it been the experience of most of the people who've experimented with Linux by booting from Live CDs. They Just Work, well over 90% of the time. They may not have the fancy drivers needed to get the optimal performance out of some of the video cards, but they work well enough to get you going until (and unless) you decide to install it.
Well, and what of it? I suspect that I was responding to a Windows user, so I had to put it in terms he could understand. Personally, I'm a Fedora user.
So? You make one image for each motherboard/chipset. I thought that was implicit in what I wrote.
Nonsense! All they have to do is set up one standard Ubuntu install and clone it, just like they do for Windows.
It would also be admitting that Quayle wasn't as stupid as he was made out to be, and that would be even worse.