Right, and the Nightly Business Report really has the research and the data to back up their claims. What research? What data? Oh, right, forgot that none exists.
Politics is a complicated thing, and the media pretends that they understand it, but they don't. The conclusions by these people are no more valid than yours or mine. (Actually, they are probably more worthless)
I'm beginning to get very frustrated by these usability studies because they all tend to make the same false assumption that "familiarity for new users" == "usability for all users."
This is simply NOT true. Usability is a complex quality, and it is the result of compromises among often conflicting goals such as discoverability of options, reduction of keystrokes/clicks for common tasks, customizability where common base cannot be established, compatibility with competing interfaces, humaneness of interface after long-usage, accessibility, internationalization, etc. etc. How quickly New Users can discover and perform tasks is only one dimension of the usability scale, and one that's not even all that important except in a setting like public access kiosks or Internet cafes.
Different OSes approach this problem differently, and where as Mac OS X has chosen to compromise all the goals with an emphasis on discoverability and tolerance after long usage, Windows has chosen to place a different emphasis on sacrificing flexibility for complex tasks in favor of making simple, repetitive tasks easy to accomplish. Both approaches have their advantages and disadvantages.
The traditional strength of the various Linux desktop systems has been flexibility and customizability, with less emphasis on the other issues. I'm not suggesting that the needs of new users whose primary OS is not Linux in settings like Kiosks and labs should not be taken into consideration, but it should not be the ONLY consideration.
Usability studies like this one emphasize the needs of new users with Linux as a secondary OS over everything else. Take this as an example:
These extra areas (the desktop-reveal button, the workspace switcher, the file manger icon, the terminal icon, and the running application button in the top right) could be removed by default...
This is the sort of recommendation that makes sense for kiosk machines (simplify the UI as much as possible and go for task-orientation), but it doesn't make sense for long-term usability. Removal of these features means that users will have to discover them and add them back in, and that plays into one of the weaknesses of the current Linux desktops: discoverability is relatively poor. This is a very shortsighted and pointless recommendation for a desktop system that is also meant to be used as a primary desktop system for many home users.
I wish usability studies would really think about what usability is, over all and long-term, rather than just "can new users in a hurry get an email written?"
Reading this interview just made me realize how much I dislike Dell.
Dell CEO: So what? Did customers benefit? Did employees benefit? Did shareholders benefit?
Funny he should ask that question of HP/Compaq. I could ask the same question of him and Dell's activities over the last two years. Quality has plunged across the line. The Inspiron series is now a joke. I've yet to meet a single customer of those laptops who did not have a problem within the first year (failed hard drive, fried motherboard, you name it). Outsourcing of support has made it impossible to get problems resolved in an efficient/competent manner. Who's benefitting? Not the customers, not the employees, and if they keep this up, people will stop buying Dells and the shareholders don't benefit either.
Obsolescence and just wearing out. You have to upgrade your PCs. You have to do that at some point in time because they just fall apart. They don't last forever.
Glad that he's so honest. Sorry, the ThinkPads I own do NOT just "wear out" within a year -- six years now and my ThinkPad still works great. I wish I can just shake all the companies that are buying Dells and tell them to wake up. This is a company that is deliberately building crappy products that fall apart in six months because their business model is to automatically "wear out" their machines so you can buy again. God, Dell makes my blood boil.
Yeah. They're selling very well. Absolutely. Because you all want them.
Please don't use "you all" as if you really are born around here. You are no more entitled to say this than Kerry's wife is entitled to say she's an "African American."
(Chief information officers) were holding some of these things with duct tape because they have been around for so long.
No. It's because you built them so poorly. Again, my company's Compaqs and IBMs are NOT wearing out. Only Dells. Guess who we are NOT buying from again?
o, I can't comment on that. But I can tell you, categorically, we're not going to buy Sun. There's just no strategic reason to be doing that.
Thank God. I never want Dell anywhere near a company with some real integrity and solid products.
That is not the fault of the universities, you know? It's the students who are demanding these things and acting as if they were "customers" of their education experience. The universities, in order to compete, will have to cave in and provide "entertainment." That's what happens when you make everybody go to college, they turn into daycare.
yes, you are a party pooper. why do people do anything? 'cause it's fun. you are not a slave to corporations unless you think you are. if this guy finds doing what he does fun and a good way to use his energy, then good for him. that's what hobbies and geeky interests are all about. your criticism of his efforts to enjoy himself is more "pathetic" by far.
How did this get modded insightful? The poster is apparently in a bad mood and wanted to slash out at people who are in a good humor. Geez, calm down. These are funny to the rest of us. If you are not in the mood to laugh at jokes, just go do something else. No need to yell at the rest of us and claim to define what "humor" is for us. You are getting to be like a Malvolio.
Sorry, first time through all my quotation marks and apostrophes were swallowed.
There are many comments here about how the judges must be stupid and don't understand the technology, and that's why they ruled this way, etc. etc.
I find it obnoxious that many of the commenting/.ers apparently never bothered to read the opinion or try to understand what the court is really deciding and the grounds for their decision. The article submitter is himself one of the greatest sinners in this respect.
Listen to me. Unless you try to understand what the law is and how judges are supposed to apply the law and read this decision carefully, you are not giving them the level of respect that you expect them to give to you, the technical community. The judges work with a technically complex and intricate art, much like us programmers. Moreover, the judges' actions have profound consequences: they send people to jail and make people pay millions of dollars to each other with their pronouncements. That's an awesome responsibility. Do you really think they are "stupid" just because you may not understand their decision at first glance?
Let me try to explain what is going on in this case.
First, this is a criminal case. The government is charging the defendant ISp with violating the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA") or commonly called the "wiretap act." In a criminal case, the courts try to construe the statute as narrowly as possible so that they make sure the government is only sending people to jail when it's clear that's what Congress intended. That the courts are careful in this manner is a good thing , if you value our freedom.
Next, the court looked at the statute carefully and found that it defines two types of communication: "wire communication" and "electronic communication." It then noted that the statute clearly gave different levels of protections for the two. Wire communication is given a lot more protection than electronic communication. Whereas "interception" of wire communications while in transmission and while in "electronic storage" is clearly illegal, only "interception" of electronic communication is made illegal. The statute made it clear that obtaining an electronic communication while it's in electronic storage is not covered as a punishable crime. Congress quite clearly meant for different treatment to be given to wire communication versus electronic communication. Electronic communication in electronic storage are just not covered by the statute.
Thus, the court ruled that the government couldn't prosecute the defendant under the ECPA.
THAT'S IT! Okay? That's all the court held. Just that the government can't prosecute the defendants under this particular law. They are not saying "ISPs Can Read Your Email" -- as the headline sensationally claims. They are not saying privacy is not important. They are not saying emails are equal to postcards. They are just saying that this particular law did not cover what the defendants did. That's all.
And quite honestly, the court is doing its job correctly. For the court to rule the way most of you would like here, the judges would be making law, and what's worse, making a criminal law. Most of us would be appalled by that idea. Congress should do so, not the courts.
Let me be clear, the judges here understood what was going on technologically very well. They recognize the force of your arguments and concerns about privacy, but their hands are tied. They lament, quite movingly, that "it may well be that the protections of the Wiretap Act have been eviscerated as technology advances" and go on to say, "We observe, as most courts have, that the language may be out of step with the technological realities of computer crimes." This is a clear call for Congress to do something about the problem.
They are interpreting the law as they should, and the ancient wiretap act clearly was made at a time when people didn't care much about "electronic communication" and it is our duty to convince Congress to change the law so that the courts will have the power to hand out justice to these privacy violators.
There are many comments here about how the judges must be stupid and dont understand the technology, and thats why they ruled this way, etc. etc.
I find it obnoxious that many of the commenting/.ers apparently never bothered to read the opinion or try to understand what the court is really deciding and the grounds for their decision. The article submitter is himself one of the greatest sinners in this respect.
Listen to me. Unless you try to understand what the law is and how judges are supposed to apply the law and read this decision carefully, you are not giving them the level of respect that you expect them to give to you, the technical community. The judges work with a technically complex and intricate art, much like us programmers. Moreover, the judges actions have profound consequences: they send people to jail and make people pay millions of dollars to each other with their pronouncements. Thats an awesome responsibility. Do you really think they are stupid just because you may not understand their decision at first glance?
Here's what's going on in this case.
First, this is a criminal case. The government is charging the defendant ISp with violating the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) or commonly called the wiretap act. In a criminal case, the courts try to construe the statute as narrowly as possible so that they make sure the government is only sending people to jail when its clear thats what Congress intended. That the courts are careful in this manner is a good thing if you value our freedom.
Next, the court looked at the statute carefully and found that it defines two types of communication: wire communication and electronic communication. It then noted that the statute clearly gave different levels of protections for the two. Wire communication is given a lot more protection than electronic communication. Whereas interception of wire communications while in transmission and while in electronic storage is clearly illegal, only interception of electronic communication is made illegal. The statute made it clear that obtaining an electronic communication while its in electronic storage is not covered as a punishable crime. Congress quite clearly meant for different treatment to be given to wire communication versus electronic communication. Electronic communication in electronic storage are just not covered by the statute.
Thus, the court ruled that the government couldnt prosecute the defendant under the ECPA.
THAT'S IT! Okay? That's all the court held. Just that the government can't prosecute the defendants under this particular law. They are not saying "ISPs Can Read Your Email" -- as the headline sensationally claims. They are not saying privacy is not important. They are not saying emails are equal to postcards. They are just saying that this particular law did not cover what the defendants did. That's all
And quite honestly, the court is doing its job correctly. For the court to rule the way most of you would like here, the judges would be making law, and whats worse, making a criminal law. Most of us would be appalled by that idea. Congress should do so, not the courts.
Let me be clear, the judges here understood what was going on technologically very well. They recognize the force of your arguments and concerns about privacy, but their hands are tied. They lament, quite movingly, that it may well be that the protections of the Wiretap Act have been eviscerated as technology advances and go on to say, We observe, as most courts have, that the language may be out of step with the technological realities of computer crimes. This is a clear call for Congress to do something about the problem.
They are interpreting the law as they should, and the ancient wiretap act clearly was made at a time when people didnt care much about electronic communication and it is our duty to convince Congress to change the law so that the courts will have the power to hand out justice to these privacy violators.
MODERATOR ABUSE: parent is not "off topic"
on
Mozilla 1.7 Released
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Good lord. Mods, have you missed his joke or forgotten history?
The parent post is making a reference to the history of Mozilla and Netscape. Netscape got bought by AOL, who fired a bunch of Netscape developers, and then the Moz got an injection of development effort as former Netscape developers helped out on Moz.
It's not such a bad joke. I think it's funny and insightful -- he's pointing out the irony of what AOL did and is doing (now that AOL is using Moz code to help with Netscape).
If you don't know the history and thus didn't get the joke, please don't assume that someone is "off topic" or "inflammatory." He may just be too subtle for you and you could learn something from him.
Who the hell modded this flamebait? Is that particular moderator unable to read? Christ, the parent comment goes out of its way to NOT imply that other people are stupid, that only his interpretation of events is right, that other people's opinions are worthless, etc. -- the hallmarks of true flamebait posts. Read it again. It just expresses his view of the situation, with a specific disclaimer that he does not claim to "understand the frustration of the bloggers."
I can only hope this gets fixed in metamoderation
I guess you belong to that group that would like to "follow the money" and find out just what people like Stallman and Torvalds are doing what they are doing, and cast doubt on their motives. After all, they are programmers, so they must be after money, right?
You, sir, are inspired. I applaud this wonderful transformation of the Mac troll into a Java troll. I'm sitting over here laughing so hard my nose hurts.
Your first example would be meaningless. Compilers are IO-bound, not CPU-bound.
Re:He used g++ to compare C++ with Java...
on
Java Faster Than C++?
·
· Score: 5, Informative
g++'s goal is modularity for ease of porting in cross-platform cross-compiling. aggressive optimization is not one of its strengths. the point of such benchmarks is really not a language comparison, but a comparison between the code generated by the most optimized compilers for that language on a specific platform. Using g++ for this simply causes the study to lose credibility
Ha, you are so right. This guy is making "not doing well in high school" into a badge of intelligence on the theory that many intelligent people don't do well in high school. That's a basic logic fallacy there. How "uniquely bright" can he be?
I'm with you there. The grandparent does not seem to understand what "file format" means..doc and.ppt are file formats, just proprietary. Attacking them as closed and therefore undesirable is fine, but that does not make them non-file formats.
I agree with you. There are way too many people here who simply worship Linus the way the sheeple worship their celebrities. Why do we need to know his every move? Oh, right, just like how the tabloids must inform us of J-Lo's every move.
So ridiculous.
I'm curious as to how you got this figure. It isn't as if the Barbie accessories are really made to scale (if they were she'd be more like 10 feet tall or even taller). Thoughts?
I'm at a loss as to explain why my machines aren't affected.
Since you've already disabled the "disk:" protocol, the image isn't mounted and thus the sample exploit is not working for you. This does not mean that you are safe against "ftp:" and "afp:" exploits unless you've disabled those protocols as well. You can hunt and disable every such protocol and still not be sure you've gotten them all, or you can just use PA to get yourself a little warning for every URL scheme save those that are "trusted."
Slashdot Mirror
Right, and the Nightly Business Report really has the research and the data to back up their claims. What research? What data? Oh, right, forgot that none exists.
Politics is a complicated thing, and the media pretends that they understand it, but they don't. The conclusions by these people are no more valid than yours or mine. (Actually, they are probably more worthless)
I'm beginning to get very frustrated by these usability studies because they all tend to make the same false assumption that "familiarity for new users" == "usability for all users."
This is simply NOT true. Usability is a complex quality, and it is the result of compromises among often conflicting goals such as discoverability of options, reduction of keystrokes/clicks for common tasks, customizability where common base cannot be established, compatibility with competing interfaces, humaneness of interface after long-usage, accessibility, internationalization, etc. etc. How quickly New Users can discover and perform tasks is only one dimension of the usability scale, and one that's not even all that important except in a setting like public access kiosks or Internet cafes.
Different OSes approach this problem differently, and where as Mac OS X has chosen to compromise all the goals with an emphasis on discoverability and tolerance after long usage, Windows has chosen to place a different emphasis on sacrificing flexibility for complex tasks in favor of making simple, repetitive tasks easy to accomplish. Both approaches have their advantages and disadvantages.
The traditional strength of the various Linux desktop systems has been flexibility and customizability, with less emphasis on the other issues. I'm not suggesting that the needs of new users whose primary OS is not Linux in settings like Kiosks and labs should not be taken into consideration, but it should not be the ONLY consideration.
Usability studies like this one emphasize the needs of new users with Linux as a secondary OS over everything else. Take this as an example:
These extra areas (the desktop-reveal button, the workspace switcher, the file manger icon, the terminal icon, and the running application button in the top right) could be removed by default...
This is the sort of recommendation that makes sense for kiosk machines (simplify the UI as much as possible and go for task-orientation), but it doesn't make sense for long-term usability. Removal of these features means that users will have to discover them and add them back in, and that plays into one of the weaknesses of the current Linux desktops: discoverability is relatively poor. This is a very shortsighted and pointless recommendation for a desktop system that is also meant to be used as a primary desktop system for many home users.
I wish usability studies would really think about what usability is, over all and long-term, rather than just "can new users in a hurry get an email written?"
Dell CEO: So what? Did customers benefit? Did employees benefit? Did shareholders benefit?
Funny he should ask that question of HP/Compaq. I could ask the same question of him and Dell's activities over the last two years. Quality has plunged across the line. The Inspiron series is now a joke. I've yet to meet a single customer of those laptops who did not have a problem within the first year (failed hard drive, fried motherboard, you name it). Outsourcing of support has made it impossible to get problems resolved in an efficient/competent manner. Who's benefitting? Not the customers, not the employees, and if they keep this up, people will stop buying Dells and the shareholders don't benefit either.
Obsolescence and just wearing out. You have to upgrade your PCs. You have to do that at some point in time because they just fall apart. They don't last forever.
Glad that he's so honest. Sorry, the ThinkPads I own do NOT just "wear out" within a year -- six years now and my ThinkPad still works great. I wish I can just shake all the companies that are buying Dells and tell them to wake up. This is a company that is deliberately building crappy products that fall apart in six months because their business model is to automatically "wear out" their machines so you can buy again. God, Dell makes my blood boil.
Yeah. They're selling very well. Absolutely. Because you all want them.
Please don't use "you all" as if you really are born around here. You are no more entitled to say this than Kerry's wife is entitled to say she's an "African American."
(Chief information officers) were holding some of these things with duct tape because they have been around for so long.
No. It's because you built them so poorly. Again, my company's Compaqs and IBMs are NOT wearing out. Only Dells. Guess who we are NOT buying from again?
o, I can't comment on that. But I can tell you, categorically, we're not going to buy Sun. There's just no strategic reason to be doing that.
Thank God. I never want Dell anywhere near a company with some real integrity and solid products.
That is not the fault of the universities, you know? It's the students who are demanding these things and acting as if they were "customers" of their education experience. The universities, in order to compete, will have to cave in and provide "entertainment." That's what happens when you make everybody go to college, they turn into daycare.
Looks like you won't need to read any of your own emails either. You are apparently illiterate yourself.
yes, you are a party pooper. why do people do anything? 'cause it's fun. you are not a slave to corporations unless you think you are. if this guy finds doing what he does fun and a good way to use his energy, then good for him. that's what hobbies and geeky interests are all about. your criticism of his efforts to enjoy himself is more "pathetic" by far.
They would have picked someone more telegenic if that's the case. Put away the tinfoil hat and enjoy the show.
How did this get modded insightful? The poster is apparently in a bad mood and wanted to slash out at people who are in a good humor. Geez, calm down. These are funny to the rest of us. If you are not in the mood to laugh at jokes, just go do something else. No need to yell at the rest of us and claim to define what "humor" is for us. You are getting to be like a Malvolio.
How can this guy keep on trolling like this for more than 10 years? Does the joke not get old for him?
Sorry, first time through all my quotation marks and apostrophes were swallowed.
There are many comments here about how the judges must be stupid and don't understand the technology, and that's why they ruled this way, etc. etc.
I find it obnoxious that many of the commenting /.ers apparently never bothered to read the opinion or try to understand what the court is really deciding and the grounds for their decision. The article submitter is himself one of the greatest sinners in this respect.
Listen to me. Unless you try to understand what the law is and how judges are supposed to apply the law and read this decision carefully, you are not giving them the level of respect that you expect them to give to you, the technical community. The judges work with a technically complex and intricate art, much like us programmers. Moreover, the judges' actions have profound consequences: they send people to jail and make people pay millions of dollars to each other with their pronouncements. That's an awesome responsibility. Do you really think they are "stupid" just because you may not understand their decision at first glance?
Let me try to explain what is going on in this case.
First, this is a criminal case. The government is charging the defendant ISp with violating the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA") or commonly called the "wiretap act." In a criminal case, the courts try to construe the statute as narrowly as possible so that they make sure the government is only sending people to jail when it's clear that's what Congress intended. That the courts are careful in this manner is a good thing , if you value our freedom.
Next, the court looked at the statute carefully and found that it defines two types of communication: "wire communication" and "electronic communication." It then noted that the statute clearly gave different levels of protections for the two. Wire communication is given a lot more protection than electronic communication. Whereas "interception" of wire communications while in transmission and while in "electronic storage" is clearly illegal, only "interception" of electronic communication is made illegal. The statute made it clear that obtaining an electronic communication while it's in electronic storage is not covered as a punishable crime. Congress quite clearly meant for different treatment to be given to wire communication versus electronic communication. Electronic communication in electronic storage are just not covered by the statute.
Thus, the court ruled that the government couldn't prosecute the defendant under the ECPA.
THAT'S IT! Okay? That's all the court held. Just that the government can't prosecute the defendants under this particular law. They are not saying "ISPs Can Read Your Email" -- as the headline sensationally claims. They are not saying privacy is not important. They are not saying emails are equal to postcards. They are just saying that this particular law did not cover what the defendants did. That's all.
And quite honestly, the court is doing its job correctly. For the court to rule the way most of you would like here, the judges would be making law, and what's worse, making a criminal law. Most of us would be appalled by that idea. Congress should do so, not the courts.
Let me be clear, the judges here understood what was going on technologically very well. They recognize the force of your arguments and concerns about privacy, but their hands are tied. They lament, quite movingly, that "it may well be that the protections of the Wiretap Act have been eviscerated as technology advances" and go on to say, "We observe, as most courts have, that the language may be out of step with the technological realities of computer crimes." This is a clear call for Congress to do something about the problem.
They are interpreting the law as they should, and the ancient wiretap act clearly was made at a time when people didn't care much about "electronic communication" and it is our duty to convince Congress to change the law so that the courts will have the power to hand out justice to these privacy violators.
There are many comments here about how the judges must be stupid and dont understand the technology, and thats why they ruled this way, etc. etc.
I find it obnoxious that many of the commenting /.ers apparently never bothered to read the opinion or try to understand what the court is really deciding and the grounds for their decision. The article submitter is himself one of the greatest sinners in this respect.
Listen to me. Unless you try to understand what the law is and how judges are supposed to apply the law and read this decision carefully, you are not giving them the level of respect that you expect them to give to you, the technical community. The judges work with a technically complex and intricate art, much like us programmers. Moreover, the judges actions have profound consequences: they send people to jail and make people pay millions of dollars to each other with their pronouncements. Thats an awesome responsibility. Do you really think they are stupid just because you may not understand their decision at first glance?
Here's what's going on in this case.
First, this is a criminal case. The government is charging the defendant ISp with violating the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) or commonly called the wiretap act. In a criminal case, the courts try to construe the statute as narrowly as possible so that they make sure the government is only sending people to jail when its clear thats what Congress intended. That the courts are careful in this manner is a good thing if you value our freedom.
Next, the court looked at the statute carefully and found that it defines two types of communication: wire communication and electronic communication. It then noted that the statute clearly gave different levels of protections for the two. Wire communication is given a lot more protection than electronic communication. Whereas interception of wire communications while in transmission and while in electronic storage is clearly illegal, only interception of electronic communication is made illegal. The statute made it clear that obtaining an electronic communication while its in electronic storage is not covered as a punishable crime. Congress quite clearly meant for different treatment to be given to wire communication versus electronic communication. Electronic communication in electronic storage are just not covered by the statute.
Thus, the court ruled that the government couldnt prosecute the defendant under the ECPA.
THAT'S IT! Okay? That's all the court held. Just that the government can't prosecute the defendants under this particular law. They are not saying "ISPs Can Read Your Email" -- as the headline sensationally claims. They are not saying privacy is not important. They are not saying emails are equal to postcards. They are just saying that this particular law did not cover what the defendants did. That's all
And quite honestly, the court is doing its job correctly. For the court to rule the way most of you would like here, the judges would be making law, and whats worse, making a criminal law. Most of us would be appalled by that idea. Congress should do so, not the courts.
Let me be clear, the judges here understood what was going on technologically very well. They recognize the force of your arguments and concerns about privacy, but their hands are tied. They lament, quite movingly, that it may well be that the protections of the Wiretap Act have been eviscerated as technology advances and go on to say, We observe, as most courts have, that the language may be out of step with the technological realities of computer crimes. This is a clear call for Congress to do something about the problem.
They are interpreting the law as they should, and the ancient wiretap act clearly was made at a time when people didnt care much about electronic communication and it is our duty to convince Congress to change the law so that the courts will have the power to hand out justice to these privacy violators.
Good lord. Mods, have you missed his joke or forgotten history?
The parent post is making a reference to the history of Mozilla and Netscape. Netscape got bought by AOL, who fired a bunch of Netscape developers, and then the Moz got an injection of development effort as former Netscape developers helped out on Moz.
It's not such a bad joke. I think it's funny and insightful -- he's pointing out the irony of what AOL did and is doing (now that AOL is using Moz code to help with Netscape).
If you don't know the history and thus didn't get the joke, please don't assume that someone is "off topic" or "inflammatory." He may just be too subtle for you and you could learn something from him.
Who the hell modded this flamebait? Is that particular moderator unable to read? Christ, the parent comment goes out of its way to NOT imply that other people are stupid, that only his interpretation of events is right, that other people's opinions are worthless, etc. -- the hallmarks of true flamebait posts. Read it again. It just expresses his view of the situation, with a specific disclaimer that he does not claim to "understand the frustration of the bloggers." I can only hope this gets fixed in metamoderation
I guess you belong to that group that would like to "follow the money" and find out just what people like Stallman and Torvalds are doing what they are doing, and cast doubt on their motives. After all, they are programmers, so they must be after money, right?
You, sir, are inspired. I applaud this wonderful transformation of the Mac troll into a Java troll. I'm sitting over here laughing so hard my nose hurts.
Your first example would be meaningless. Compilers are IO-bound, not CPU-bound.
g++'s goal is modularity for ease of porting in cross-platform cross-compiling. aggressive optimization is not one of its strengths. the point of such benchmarks is really not a language comparison, but a comparison between the code generated by the most optimized compilers for that language on a specific platform. Using g++ for this simply causes the study to lose credibility
Ha, you are so right. This guy is making "not doing well in high school" into a badge of intelligence on the theory that many intelligent people don't do well in high school. That's a basic logic fallacy there. How "uniquely bright" can he be?
I'm with you there. The grandparent does not seem to understand what "file format" means. .doc and .ppt are file formats, just proprietary. Attacking them as closed and therefore undesirable is fine, but that does not make them non-file formats.
I agree with you. There are way too many people here who simply worship Linus the way the sheeple worship their celebrities. Why do we need to know his every move? Oh, right, just like how the tabloids must inform us of J-Lo's every move. So ridiculous.
If Barbie was real she would be over 6 feet tall
I'm curious as to how you got this figure. It isn't as if the Barbie accessories are really made to scale (if they were she'd be more like 10 feet tall or even taller). Thoughts?
I'm at a loss as to explain why my machines aren't affected.
Since you've already disabled the "disk:" protocol, the image isn't mounted and thus the sample exploit is not working for you. This does not mean that you are safe against "ftp:" and "afp:" exploits unless you've disabled those protocols as well. You can hunt and disable every such protocol and still not be sure you've gotten them all, or you can just use PA to get yourself a little warning for every URL scheme save those that are "trusted."