How did this get modded insightful? Its clear the poster has no fucking clue why Linux distros and OS X don't get news about being infected.
Attention douchebag: Linux and Mac OS X don't get 'infected' because they represent a tiny ass segment of the market that no one gives a shit about.
You must be new here since there have been stories on slashdot talking about proof of concept viruses for both OSX and Linux, and were followed with discussions about how OSX and Linux aren't really any safer than Windows, just less of a target and in most cases with a slightly better base security setup, although the relatively recent policy kit changes in whichever distro that was (Fedora or debian I think, can't remember) pretty much sets that Distro right on the exact same level as WinXP.
Stop talking like you have a clue, you don't, you're just a ignorant fanboy. And you really shouldn't talk about having sex either, as you've also made it clear that you don't understand that either. Hanging around with a girl is not having sex, contrary to what you and your friends think. You also don't get Chlamydia that way, it requires actual intercourse. Go ask your mommy, she'll explain.
In my experience, I trust the pirates more than I trust companies like EA.
Back in my day... PWA, DOD, Razor1911, you knew when you got stuff from them, it was safe, sometimes safer than the original since they'd nop out the retarded shit along the way.
I've got infected with a virus from a legit BBS servicing legit files.
I've never had anything I downloaded from a real warez group infect or damage my machines. Ever.
Those days are long gone and I don't follow the warez scene at all anymore, so maybe its changed, but... I'd be willing to bet that you're just ignorant of the truth about the warez scene thanks to propoganda from the various other software companies.
I've never heard of a virus or trojan from any warez group with a name for themselves.
I stopped pirating because I'm older, well paid, and... a software developer myself, but I still occasionally go track down a cracked version of a game because I've lost a disk or its been scratched beyond playability over the years, and still no issues.
A) Most Linux users are capable of compiling their own apps, its rather common since most Linux distros come with a compiler, and you've almost certainly compiled things in the past for that app that doesn't work right on your distro or in your setup or whatever it happens to be due to the millions of possible combinations of distros and base software distrubtions, you can assume nothing about the environment you'll be running in when you distributed compiled binaries 'for Linux'. Packages for a specific distro are another matter, much easier to deal with for a particular version.
B) Most windows users don't have a compiler installed, this is another indication that of A, that its expected that Linux users can compile.
C) Even between the 7 or 8 versions of Windows from 95 to now, compatibility between them is still rather high, especially if you use the proper system calls to lookup various paths. Simply not true with Linux. Linux has in several different 'system' level subsystems which can be swapped out with several completely different unrelated implementations that may or may not work anything like the original, whatever that was depending on distro. If you don't understand why thats hard to target, then you have no right making the comments you are making.
D) For every potential Linux user of FlightGear, there are 10s of thousands of Windows simulator fans. The effort to produce one compiled binary for all of the Windows user is tiny from a potential per user standpoint. Linux suffers from a much smaller user base, fragmented across several different distros with their own quirks.
E) In this particular case, the primary developer of the Windows port got his binaries made and posted first, now you're waiting on other distro package maintainers to do their job. This is how the OSS development model works when keeping up with Linux, if you don't like it, I suggest using an alternative that is more popular and likely to be higher on the list of priorities.
As has been stated by pretty much every professional development company in the world, targeting Linux for desktop apps is a freaking nightmare that just isn't worth the effort.
I don't buy games when they come out anymore, they are a rip off at the price point they sell them and full of crappy DRM and new things now to try and force everyone to buy a copy new rather than trading or buying/selling used.
I don't bitch about not getting games soon enough because I have special requirements that others don't have. I just wait till the games come down in price, have already been patched for all the major problems they rushed and ignored during the initial release, my hardware is generally more than adequate since the games are generally a year old before I buy them so I'm usually running on new enough gear.
If you choose to ignore the mainstream, and take the a ride with the little guy or the non-standard path, you kinda have to expect that its going to be a rougher ride.
Linux isn't going to change in this aspect. Developers don't give a shit about you, they care about them and what they want. They can compile. Until you motivate them to care more about you than their wishes, its not going to change. So the only devs really working on what end users want are going to be working at companies like IBM, which while it does put a fair amount of effort into Linux dev, it doesn't put in enough to 'fix' that problem by itself.
As long as Linux remains community driven, it will remain with issues like these, there is 0 motivation for anything else to happen, and there simply aren't enough educated/talented developers out there who have low enough self esteem to spend their free time making someone else happy rather working on the things they enjoy working on, and far far too few (myself included) give a shit about making it easier for YOU to install something. If it works for me, its good enough, heres the patch, someone else can fix it for themselves if they want it. Welcome to OSS, get used to it.
I can tell you plenty of things that have killed my poor abused phones though.
I was fishing under a bridge, slipped and fell in, immediately stood up and pulled my phone out of my pocket. The phone was mostly dry except a couple drops of water at first glance. Looked like my pockets kept the water out for that couple of seconds.
Hit the button, display works, yeppie!.
Turned it over to get a good look at it, a stream of water came out of the headphone jack. Looked back at the screen, it broken lines going across it. Tried to shut it down so it could at least dry out unpowered.
It looked like it powered down, however it never turned on again.
Its replacement, survived for about a week before I dropped it without the normal rubber cover I have on it. A crack formed from a little right of the top center, to about half way down on the right side in a nice little arch.
Still works perfectly however, amazingly it still accurately detects touchs even on the crack itself, which you can feel as you slide your finger over it. That surprises me a bit.
I also cracked two displays on HTC blue angles before that, and dropped one in a glass of Soda.
Actually, the bad part is, those are just the way those phones died, I can't remember all the shit they survived. I tend to treat my phones almost as roughly as I treat my hammer, they last longer than I expect in most cases only to die because of the most retarded reasons that could happen to anyone.
Every cracked screen I've had has been from dropping the phone when its the only thing in my hand, never when I've got a bunch of things or I'm in the middle of opening a door or something like that. Never scratched a screen with keys in my pocket, but I've cracked them by the phone falling off a night stand and hitting the only unpadded, hard 1/4" object within 6 feet, or fall 2 and a half inches down between my empty passenger seat in the car, hit the only piece of exposed metal down there and crack.
Its never the horrible day to day abuse that gets my phones, its always some minor fall or something stupid like falling/jumping in a lake/pool with it in my pocket.
I have a friend who had a nice Sony-Ericson (some model from just after the merger) that fell out of his car when he stopped at the mailbox, ran over it and didn't know it till a neighbor brought it too him a few days later. Put the sim card back in and it would still take calls for the most part even though it required some effort to answer as the case was destroyed and the battery contacts had to be held together by hand. Most of the button contacts couldn't be made to work, could speak and hear like a bad analog phone connection.
Except... medical studies show that 'Deja Vu' is really just brain glitches that are nothing more than thinking after the fact that you knew it was going to work that way. You're having a minor seizure, not predicting the future.
You want the sector size to be smaller than the average file size or you're going to waste a lot of space. If your average file size is large, and writes are sequential, you want the largest possible sector sizes.
It means that while its not based on pure randomness, the scope and breadth of the object in question are too large to simulate or emulate in a way that allows us to predict whats going to happen.
Its like a weather pattern.
Both are not random, and are entirely predictable. We are just unable to predict either because we don't have the processing power or the monitoring power to know enough about what we are trying to simulate to accurately predict the outcome. There are simply too many pieces to the puzzle for us to predict, but patterns are apparent and in hindsight, most of the things could have been seen if we had the right focal point and indicators to work with.
Its not 'pulling out of china' in the sense of not having an office there.
Its pulling out of china in the sense of removing all ties with the government, stopping censoring, pulling offices back out of the country, and then waiting for China to blacklist them. Possibly blacklisting china's address space themselves if the chinese government doesn't get around to it fast enough to prove the point.
No, its not, and POSIX does not define UNIX. POSIX is the portable OS interface, it was originally intended for Unix derivitatives, but it does not define what UNIX is. The Open Group defines what UNIX is, and Linux is not in the list.
Interestingly enough, the others you mentioned ARE UNIX, Linux is the only one that isn't.
The difference is simply in the name and licensing of that name, but it still bothers me that Linux fanboys can't get it through there head that you can't call yourself UNIX until you pay the piper. It may be dumb that you essentially 'buy' the right to be called UNIX, but thats just the way it is. Buy the right, or stop fucking trying to pretend you did. Go off on some tangent about how UNIX is retarded because its proprietary or its just a name that you buy or some crap like that... something thats actually true at least.
Having a driver available and having support are two different things.
First off... XP which is still effectively a production OS at this point, much against MS's wishes, is almost 10 years old. At this point, if you have hardware that won't work with XP because its too old to have XP drivers, its likely that it won't work with Linux either because the hardware has probably failed due to old age. Its also highly unlikely to be useful hardware today. I have a Gravis Ultrasound that still works, and I can't use it in Win7 cause I don't have drivers... but I don't care because the $10 onboard sound chip is about 3 times better at this point.
FreeBSD used to have a much larger set of kernel drivers available. Then they came to a realization. Yea, we make the drivers compile and not interfere with the rest of the kernel, but no one has actually tested half this crap in years. Come to find out, a lot of the drivers didn't actually work because no one had used the new versions in the newer releases in so long that no one had noticed its been broke for years. What'd they do? Marked a bunch they knew were common as keepers, marked everything else as BROKEN and waited for someone to notice, a couple versions later, they removed all the BROKEN tagged drivers cause no one was using them.
While you may find having a bunch of drivers available impressive for your e-penis, its not really that impressive or relevant in context.
To say that it supports a much greater set of hardware is just stupid. It doesn't. At best, it supports what windows has supported in the past. It may occasionally support a few custom pieces of hardware made by some very Linux specific companies, but those are so rare as to be dwarfed by the same number of windows specific hardware devices released yesterday. It may have drivers for old hardware that Windows had and no long does, but its never had support for all of the devices that Windows has, not unless you consider the state of 3D hardware acceleration in Linux to be acceptable. Just for reference, its not.
Linux may have a lot of drivers, but its STILL playing catchup with Windows, and it doesn't have all Windows drivers, so it can't possibly have a greater set of hardware support.
Nice twisted way to make it sound impressive though.
What? Just because the package is included doesn't mean it gets installed. A shared library installed by one app is still used and shared by other apps.
This is no different than Windows games including the directx installer and running it as part of their own install. After the first install, the rest of the games you install that also install directx only update it if they are newer or have special versions of the files, you don't install a new copy every time.
Have you used computers very long or are you actually new to how shared libraries actually work?
I should expand on that, really what FBSD binary emulation is... is just syscall emulation. You still use all the Linux libraries (some slightly patched to be more efficient on FBSD under the emulated syscall interface, but essentially unchanged and unchanged versions directly from a linux box will work).
The only thing the emulation layer does is tell the runtime linker to use a different syscall interface and a different library path for Linux libs, with some minor patches to the linux libs to make things smoother.
Its not withholding evidence if no one asked for it. Its not their job to prove anything. If no one asked about it specifically then they didn't do anything wrong from a legal perspective. I admit, in this case I'd likely expect that Toyota kept it under their hats intentionally, but unless a lawyer asked about those sort of complaints specifically than its likely that the office clerk who actually went looking through cases had no idea of the actual reason he/she was looking and probably didn't think to connect them, or didn't even see the old complaints.
The lawyers should have checked with the list of recalls on that car to notice that the ABS system had been listed for a recall... interestingly enough, for the exact reason described.
You really don't always want the brakes to override the gas pedal, but you do always want the gas pedal to do what you're telling it to do.
This is an example that doesn't really apply to this problem, but its the first one that comes to my mind that I have come across.
So I'm loading my boat unto the trailer at a boat ramp behind my pickup truck with nothing in the bed of the truck (no weight on the drive wheels). The boat trailer has dropped off the end of the boat ramp, and without the boat loaded if I don't put the trailer wheels over that drop off the trailer is too high in the water to load the boat. So I've got over a ton of boat that needs to be lifted over a tall curb essentially while my pickup truck is on a 20 degree sloop of slime covered damn cement, i.e. low traction.
Push on the gas at all, the big ol engine in the truck just spins the wheels on the slipper cement.
Solution? One foot on the gas, ever so lightly, and one foot on the brake. Between the two you can obtain the power needed at the rate needed to avoid spinning the tires and traction.
Its certainly not as common as driving down the road, but its certainly far far more common than the number of times you need to stop your car because the ECU is fucked up and has the accelerator stuck down.
In reality, the idea that you'll trust the ECU to prioritize the brakes over the accelerator, but you won't trust it to control the accelerator is rather amusing to me.
Cause I want my car to work without having to ask someone for a patch because my engine is off by one minor revision number and some idiot decided that changing the entire interface API as a good thing to do during a minor revision number bump.
Nor do I want every dealership in the country to have its own codebase and tweaks for each car. Nor do I want some douchebag sitting down there thinking how bad ass he is cause he installed Linux so now he can tweak away at all the parameters so everyone ends up with a car that won't start on the May 5th cause the guys a racist fuck who doesn't like Mexicans or Cinco de Mayo.
Simply put, the FOSS world is not professional enough and mature enough to be put into any critical application, i.e. one my life depends on.
On that note however, neither is anything from Microsoft, which is why you won't see a Ford with MS software anywhere around my life. I realize they are separate systems so a crash in one would not effect the other, but I've been around long enough to know that networks simply aren't as isolated as we'd like to think they are.
The NTSB seems to be able to pull it off for aircraft accidents and issues, since there are constantly more drivers on the road than people in the air, I really cant' see how they can justify not doing it.
Pretensioners are fired after the initial contact, whilst the very front of the vehicle is still crumpling away.
They don't fire, they 'engage'. They also disengage if not needed.
How the hell do you think the computer knows that it has hit something otherwise?
Accelerometers. They have nothing to do with actual impacts and will engage the pretensioners before an impact occurs, which is when they are most useful. You can trigger the pretensioners on your car in most cases by slamming the brakes at sufficient speed.
Traction control is a lot smarter than you seem to think now, and retarding timing went out of fashion about 15 years ago.
Yes, except now the common method is to simply use the ABS to control traction on individual wheels, I'm unaware of a car that actually retards power output, please show me a car that does otherwise, I'm interested in seeing more info about its performance. Retarding engine power is in general a bad idea due to the number of subsystems that it powers directly, retarding engine power in an emergency situation is just as likely to get you in an accident as it is to get you out of one. More accidents are caused by going to slow than too fast, you simply don't get into an accident if you aren't there when it happens.
My Peugoet 307 turned on the hazards and muted the music if you hit the brakes hard enough to activate its electronic brake force assist system. I did it a couple of times in the two years I had the car, but never got into a collision to find out about the windows.
If you think this is a good feature, you probably shouldn't be driving. I do not want my car making decisions for me. In an emergency situation, unexpected changes can cause more problems than they solve. They draw focus away from whats happening outside the car to inside the car, where it doesn't belong. Do you have any idea how many airline crashes have been caused simply because the aircraft did something on its own, for safety (which is fine by itself) and the pilots were unaware or didn't expect it and the result was lives lost? They run out of fuel because the computer says 'this si wrong, do this to fix it' and end up dumping their fuel in the ocean, or they end up passing out due to lack of oxygen because the alarm that started going off drug them away from their take off checklist, which would have had them fix the cabin pressure settings that the service guy forgot to put back. They run into another aircraft because a cabin alarm drowns out the radio chatter alerting them of a fouled runway and go around in bad weather.
The tiny value added by muting the radio and turning on your hazards is entirely outweighed by the fact that its likely going to cause you to change your focus at a critical moment when you need every bit of that focus.
Doing things with computers because you can, and not because you should tends to cause a lot more problems than it solves, slashdot is full of examples.
I'd just like to point out an article linked in another post which said:
The avionics system in the F-22 Raptor, the current U.S. Air Force frontline jet fighter, consists of about 1.7 million lines of software code. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, scheduled to become operational in 2010, will require about 5.7 million lines of code to operate its onboard systems. And Boeing’s new 787 Dreamliner, scheduled to be delivered to customers in 2010, requires about 6.5 million lines of software code to operate its avionics and onboard support systems.
So... regardless of how you look at it, that luxary car doesn't have a reason to have more code than any of those machines, which all do everything that the luxary car does, and more, most of the time they do everything the car does in triplicate for safety reasons, and they have to communicate and arbitrate what to do when 1 of 3 systems disagrees with the other.
Anyone who thinks any car on the road has 100 million lines of code in it knows nothing about programming at all.
First thing they'd do was call bullshit on 100 million lines of code. I highly doubt any claim that a car has twice as much code in it as Windows Vista. Hell, I'd bet my life that there is no production car on the road with more than 5 million lines of assembly code (not resources like text and images that might be in a rom dump, actual executable code).
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, scheduled to become operational in 2010, will require about 5.7 million lines of code to operate its onboard systems
yet if you bought a premium-class automobile recently, ”it probably contains close to 100 million lines of software code,” says Manfred Broy, a professor of informatics at Technical University,
I'd be willing to bet that its that the professor is an idiot and off be a couple orders of magnitude.
Perhaps he's referring to cars from Ford running MS code? (Ford/MS Sync). Maybe he's including code for every ECU on the planet rolled into one combined package?
If you look at what really goes on in a car, there simply isn't a million lines of code there, and thats if you include the 'code' for things like power window 'controllers' which really shouldn't be anything more than a couple switches and an RC circuit to provide the auto 'full up/full down in one click' functionality. The single most complex thing in a car is the GPS and mapping system in some cars, which is a self contained unit that doesn't tell anything else on the car what to do on any production vehical (i.e. I'm not counting work being actively done at MIT:). Some cars are up there with their auto-parking features and anti-collision sensors to automatically slow or stop the car, but these things should actually exist as they tend to result in less safety long term... once every one with them starts to pay less attention to the road because they car will do it for them, they immediately become more unsafe than before the augmentation was added to the car.
No matter how you look at it though, there isn't 100 million lines of code in a car if a jet aircraft that is cable of navigation in 3 diminsions instead of 2, capable of doing EVERYTHING in the flight without the pilot doing anything at all (including taking off and landing), has far more complex multi function displays, multiple by direction voice, data and video communications links, all sorts of gadgets that your car won't have for 100 years or will never use. And to top it off, it can track several other airborn objects on its own, and hundreds with the assistance of another aircraft... and does it on less than 10 million.
It was working perfectly well until the government stepped in to 'save them' because they were 'too big to fail'. Had they failed it would have worked perfectly, now instead, we pay several billion dollars and we'll do it all over again in another few years because they STILL aren't viable businesses they way they are being managed. The loss is greater long term than had we just let them fail, got rid of them and the people involved and started over. This has happened before you know.
Slashdot Mirror
How did this get modded insightful? Its clear the poster has no fucking clue why Linux distros and OS X don't get news about being infected.
Attention douchebag: Linux and Mac OS X don't get 'infected' because they represent a tiny ass segment of the market that no one gives a shit about.
You must be new here since there have been stories on slashdot talking about proof of concept viruses for both OSX and Linux, and were followed with discussions about how OSX and Linux aren't really any safer than Windows, just less of a target and in most cases with a slightly better base security setup, although the relatively recent policy kit changes in whichever distro that was (Fedora or debian I think, can't remember) pretty much sets that Distro right on the exact same level as WinXP.
Stop talking like you have a clue, you don't, you're just a ignorant fanboy. And you really shouldn't talk about having sex either, as you've also made it clear that you don't understand that either. Hanging around with a girl is not having sex, contrary to what you and your friends think. You also don't get Chlamydia that way, it requires actual intercourse. Go ask your mommy, she'll explain.
In my experience, I trust the pirates more than I trust companies like EA.
Back in my day ... PWA, DOD, Razor1911, you knew when you got stuff from them, it was safe, sometimes safer than the original since they'd nop out the retarded shit along the way.
I've got infected with a virus from a legit BBS servicing legit files.
I've never had anything I downloaded from a real warez group infect or damage my machines. Ever.
Those days are long gone and I don't follow the warez scene at all anymore, so maybe its changed, but ... I'd be willing to bet that you're just ignorant of the truth about the warez scene thanks to propoganda from the various other software companies.
I've never heard of a virus or trojan from any warez group with a name for themselves.
I stopped pirating because I'm older, well paid, and ... a software developer myself, but I still occasionally go track down a cracked version of a game because I've lost a disk or its been scratched beyond playability over the years, and still no issues.
Hellbent Couriers, kick'n it old school baby.
Lets think about it like we have a brain.
A) Most Linux users are capable of compiling their own apps, its rather common since most Linux distros come with a compiler, and you've almost certainly compiled things in the past for that app that doesn't work right on your distro or in your setup or whatever it happens to be due to the millions of possible combinations of distros and base software distrubtions, you can assume nothing about the environment you'll be running in when you distributed compiled binaries 'for Linux'. Packages for a specific distro are another matter, much easier to deal with for a particular version.
B) Most windows users don't have a compiler installed, this is another indication that of A, that its expected that Linux users can compile.
C) Even between the 7 or 8 versions of Windows from 95 to now, compatibility between them is still rather high, especially if you use the proper system calls to lookup various paths. Simply not true with Linux. Linux has in several different 'system' level subsystems which can be swapped out with several completely different unrelated implementations that may or may not work anything like the original, whatever that was depending on distro. If you don't understand why thats hard to target, then you have no right making the comments you are making.
D) For every potential Linux user of FlightGear, there are 10s of thousands of Windows simulator fans. The effort to produce one compiled binary for all of the Windows user is tiny from a potential per user standpoint. Linux suffers from a much smaller user base, fragmented across several different distros with their own quirks.
E) In this particular case, the primary developer of the Windows port got his binaries made and posted first, now you're waiting on other distro package maintainers to do their job. This is how the OSS development model works when keeping up with Linux, if you don't like it, I suggest using an alternative that is more popular and likely to be higher on the list of priorities.
As has been stated by pretty much every professional development company in the world, targeting Linux for desktop apps is a freaking nightmare that just isn't worth the effort.
I don't buy games when they come out anymore, they are a rip off at the price point they sell them and full of crappy DRM and new things now to try and force everyone to buy a copy new rather than trading or buying/selling used.
I don't bitch about not getting games soon enough because I have special requirements that others don't have. I just wait till the games come down in price, have already been patched for all the major problems they rushed and ignored during the initial release, my hardware is generally more than adequate since the games are generally a year old before I buy them so I'm usually running on new enough gear.
If you choose to ignore the mainstream, and take the a ride with the little guy or the non-standard path, you kinda have to expect that its going to be a rougher ride.
Linux isn't going to change in this aspect. Developers don't give a shit about you, they care about them and what they want. They can compile. Until you motivate them to care more about you than their wishes, its not going to change. So the only devs really working on what end users want are going to be working at companies like IBM, which while it does put a fair amount of effort into Linux dev, it doesn't put in enough to 'fix' that problem by itself.
As long as Linux remains community driven, it will remain with issues like these, there is 0 motivation for anything else to happen, and there simply aren't enough educated/talented developers out there who have low enough self esteem to spend their free time making someone else happy rather working on the things they enjoy working on, and far far too few (myself included) give a shit about making it easier for YOU to install something. If it works for me, its good enough, heres the patch, someone else can fix it for themselves if they want it. Welcome to OSS, get used to it.
Have you seen x-plane 9? It beats MSFS in every way, including graphics now.
I can tell you plenty of things that have killed my poor abused phones though.
I was fishing under a bridge, slipped and fell in, immediately stood up and pulled my phone out of my pocket. The phone was mostly dry except a couple drops of water at first glance. Looked like my pockets kept the water out for that couple of seconds.
Hit the button, display works, yeppie!.
Turned it over to get a good look at it, a stream of water came out of the headphone jack. Looked back at the screen, it broken lines going across it. Tried to shut it down so it could at least dry out unpowered.
It looked like it powered down, however it never turned on again.
Its replacement, survived for about a week before I dropped it without the normal rubber cover I have on it. A crack formed from a little right of the top center, to about half way down on the right side in a nice little arch.
Still works perfectly however, amazingly it still accurately detects touchs even on the crack itself, which you can feel as you slide your finger over it. That surprises me a bit.
I also cracked two displays on HTC blue angles before that, and dropped one in a glass of Soda.
Actually, the bad part is, those are just the way those phones died, I can't remember all the shit they survived. I tend to treat my phones almost as roughly as I treat my hammer, they last longer than I expect in most cases only to die because of the most retarded reasons that could happen to anyone.
Every cracked screen I've had has been from dropping the phone when its the only thing in my hand, never when I've got a bunch of things or I'm in the middle of opening a door or something like that. Never scratched a screen with keys in my pocket, but I've cracked them by the phone falling off a night stand and hitting the only unpadded, hard 1/4" object within 6 feet, or fall 2 and a half inches down between my empty passenger seat in the car, hit the only piece of exposed metal down there and crack.
Its never the horrible day to day abuse that gets my phones, its always some minor fall or something stupid like falling/jumping in a lake/pool with it in my pocket.
I have a friend who had a nice Sony-Ericson (some model from just after the merger) that fell out of his car when he stopped at the mailbox, ran over it and didn't know it till a neighbor brought it too him a few days later. Put the sim card back in and it would still take calls for the most part even though it required some effort to answer as the case was destroyed and the battery contacts had to be held together by hand. Most of the button contacts couldn't be made to work, could speak and hear like a bad analog phone connection.
Except ... medical studies show that 'Deja Vu' is really just brain glitches that are nothing more than thinking after the fact that you knew it was going to work that way. You're having a minor seizure, not predicting the future.
You want the sector size to be smaller than the average file size or you're going to waste a lot of space. If your average file size is large, and writes are sequential, you want the largest possible sector sizes.
They lack polished code as well, you just generally don't notice since you don't see it and you are being beaten with poor quality story/graphics.
You just don't notice the code is substandard because everything else is.
It means that while its not based on pure randomness, the scope and breadth of the object in question are too large to simulate or emulate in a way that allows us to predict whats going to happen.
Its like a weather pattern.
Both are not random, and are entirely predictable. We are just unable to predict either because we don't have the processing power or the monitoring power to know enough about what we are trying to simulate to accurately predict the outcome. There are simply too many pieces to the puzzle for us to predict, but patterns are apparent and in hindsight, most of the things could have been seen if we had the right focal point and indicators to work with.
Its not 'pulling out of china' in the sense of not having an office there.
Its pulling out of china in the sense of removing all ties with the government, stopping censoring, pulling offices back out of the country, and then waiting for China to blacklist them. Possibly blacklisting china's address space themselves if the chinese government doesn't get around to it fast enough to prove the point.
No, its not, and POSIX does not define UNIX. POSIX is the portable OS interface, it was originally intended for Unix derivitatives, but it does not define what UNIX is. The Open Group defines what UNIX is, and Linux is not in the list.
Interestingly enough, the others you mentioned ARE UNIX, Linux is the only one that isn't.
The difference is simply in the name and licensing of that name, but it still bothers me that Linux fanboys can't get it through there head that you can't call yourself UNIX until you pay the piper. It may be dumb that you essentially 'buy' the right to be called UNIX, but thats just the way it is. Buy the right, or stop fucking trying to pretend you did. Go off on some tangent about how UNIX is retarded because its proprietary or its just a name that you buy or some crap like that ... something thats actually true at least.
Having a driver available and having support are two different things.
First off ... XP which is still effectively a production OS at this point, much against MS's wishes, is almost 10 years old. At this point, if you have hardware that won't work with XP because its too old to have XP drivers, its likely that it won't work with Linux either because the hardware has probably failed due to old age. Its also highly unlikely to be useful hardware today. I have a Gravis Ultrasound that still works, and I can't use it in Win7 cause I don't have drivers ... but I don't care because the $10 onboard sound chip is about 3 times better at this point.
FreeBSD used to have a much larger set of kernel drivers available. Then they came to a realization. Yea, we make the drivers compile and not interfere with the rest of the kernel, but no one has actually tested half this crap in years. Come to find out, a lot of the drivers didn't actually work because no one had used the new versions in the newer releases in so long that no one had noticed its been broke for years. What'd they do? Marked a bunch they knew were common as keepers, marked everything else as BROKEN and waited for someone to notice, a couple versions later, they removed all the BROKEN tagged drivers cause no one was using them.
While you may find having a bunch of drivers available impressive for your e-penis, its not really that impressive or relevant in context.
To say that it supports a much greater set of hardware is just stupid. It doesn't. At best, it supports what windows has supported in the past. It may occasionally support a few custom pieces of hardware made by some very Linux specific companies, but those are so rare as to be dwarfed by the same number of windows specific hardware devices released yesterday. It may have drivers for old hardware that Windows had and no long does, but its never had support for all of the devices that Windows has, not unless you consider the state of 3D hardware acceleration in Linux to be acceptable. Just for reference, its not.
Linux may have a lot of drivers, but its STILL playing catchup with Windows, and it doesn't have all Windows drivers, so it can't possibly have a greater set of hardware support.
Nice twisted way to make it sound impressive though.
What? Just because the package is included doesn't mean it gets installed. A shared library installed by one app is still used and shared by other apps.
This is no different than Windows games including the directx installer and running it as part of their own install. After the first install, the rest of the games you install that also install directx only update it if they are newer or have special versions of the files, you don't install a new copy every time.
Have you used computers very long or are you actually new to how shared libraries actually work?
I should expand on that, really what FBSD binary emulation is ... is just syscall emulation. You still use all the Linux libraries (some slightly patched to be more efficient on FBSD under the emulated syscall interface, but essentially unchanged and unchanged versions directly from a linux box will work).
The only thing the emulation layer does is tell the runtime linker to use a different syscall interface and a different library path for Linux libs, with some minor patches to the linux libs to make things smoother.
No, binary emulation is for userland, not kernel objects.
Its not withholding evidence if no one asked for it. Its not their job to prove anything. If no one asked about it specifically then they didn't do anything wrong from a legal perspective. I admit, in this case I'd likely expect that Toyota kept it under their hats intentionally, but unless a lawyer asked about those sort of complaints specifically than its likely that the office clerk who actually went looking through cases had no idea of the actual reason he/she was looking and probably didn't think to connect them, or didn't even see the old complaints.
The lawyers should have checked with the list of recalls on that car to notice that the ABS system had been listed for a recall ... interestingly enough, for the exact reason described.
His lawyer failed at being a lawyer.
Then you don't say its written in millions of lines of code, you say its 3 or 4 lines of code or 'blocks'.
You really don't always want the brakes to override the gas pedal, but you do always want the gas pedal to do what you're telling it to do.
This is an example that doesn't really apply to this problem, but its the first one that comes to my mind that I have come across.
So I'm loading my boat unto the trailer at a boat ramp behind my pickup truck with nothing in the bed of the truck (no weight on the drive wheels). The boat trailer has dropped off the end of the boat ramp, and without the boat loaded if I don't put the trailer wheels over that drop off the trailer is too high in the water to load the boat. So I've got over a ton of boat that needs to be lifted over a tall curb essentially while my pickup truck is on a 20 degree sloop of slime covered damn cement, i.e. low traction.
Push on the gas at all, the big ol engine in the truck just spins the wheels on the slipper cement.
Solution? One foot on the gas, ever so lightly, and one foot on the brake. Between the two you can obtain the power needed at the rate needed to avoid spinning the tires and traction.
Its certainly not as common as driving down the road, but its certainly far far more common than the number of times you need to stop your car because the ECU is fucked up and has the accelerator stuck down.
In reality, the idea that you'll trust the ECU to prioritize the brakes over the accelerator, but you won't trust it to control the accelerator is rather amusing to me.
Cause I want my car to work without having to ask someone for a patch because my engine is off by one minor revision number and some idiot decided that changing the entire interface API as a good thing to do during a minor revision number bump.
Nor do I want every dealership in the country to have its own codebase and tweaks for each car. Nor do I want some douchebag sitting down there thinking how bad ass he is cause he installed Linux so now he can tweak away at all the parameters so everyone ends up with a car that won't start on the May 5th cause the guys a racist fuck who doesn't like Mexicans or Cinco de Mayo.
Simply put, the FOSS world is not professional enough and mature enough to be put into any critical application, i.e. one my life depends on.
On that note however, neither is anything from Microsoft, which is why you won't see a Ford with MS software anywhere around my life. I realize they are separate systems so a crash in one would not effect the other, but I've been around long enough to know that networks simply aren't as isolated as we'd like to think they are.
The NTSB seems to be able to pull it off for aircraft accidents and issues, since there are constantly more drivers on the road than people in the air, I really cant' see how they can justify not doing it.
They don't fire, they 'engage'. They also disengage if not needed.
Accelerometers. They have nothing to do with actual impacts and will engage the pretensioners before an impact occurs, which is when they are most useful. You can trigger the pretensioners on your car in most cases by slamming the brakes at sufficient speed.
Yes, except now the common method is to simply use the ABS to control traction on individual wheels, I'm unaware of a car that actually retards power output, please show me a car that does otherwise, I'm interested in seeing more info about its performance. Retarding engine power is in general a bad idea due to the number of subsystems that it powers directly, retarding engine power in an emergency situation is just as likely to get you in an accident as it is to get you out of one. More accidents are caused by going to slow than too fast, you simply don't get into an accident if you aren't there when it happens.
If you think this is a good feature, you probably shouldn't be driving. I do not want my car making decisions for me. In an emergency situation, unexpected changes can cause more problems than they solve. They draw focus away from whats happening outside the car to inside the car, where it doesn't belong. Do you have any idea how many airline crashes have been caused simply because the aircraft did something on its own, for safety (which is fine by itself) and the pilots were unaware or didn't expect it and the result was lives lost? They run out of fuel because the computer says 'this si wrong, do this to fix it' and end up dumping their fuel in the ocean, or they end up passing out due to lack of oxygen because the alarm that started going off drug them away from their take off checklist, which would have had them fix the cabin pressure settings that the service guy forgot to put back. They run into another aircraft because a cabin alarm drowns out the radio chatter alerting them of a fouled runway and go around in bad weather.
The tiny value added by muting the radio and turning on your hazards is entirely outweighed by the fact that its likely going to cause you to change your focus at a critical moment when you need every bit of that focus.
Doing things with computers because you can, and not because you should tends to cause a lot more problems than it solves, slashdot is full of examples.
I'd just like to point out an article linked in another post which said:
So ... regardless of how you look at it, that luxary car doesn't have a reason to have more code than any of those machines, which all do everything that the luxary car does, and more, most of the time they do everything the car does in triplicate for safety reasons, and they have to communicate and arbitrate what to do when 1 of 3 systems disagrees with the other.
Anyone who thinks any car on the road has 100 million lines of code in it knows nothing about programming at all.
First thing they'd do was call bullshit on 100 million lines of code. I highly doubt any claim that a car has twice as much code in it as Windows Vista. Hell, I'd bet my life that there is no production car on the road with more than 5 million lines of assembly code (not resources like text and images that might be in a rom dump, actual executable code).
From the GP's link:
I'd be willing to bet that its that the professor is an idiot and off be a couple orders of magnitude.
Perhaps he's referring to cars from Ford running MS code? (Ford/MS Sync). Maybe he's including code for every ECU on the planet rolled into one combined package?
If you look at what really goes on in a car, there simply isn't a million lines of code there, and thats if you include the 'code' for things like power window 'controllers' which really shouldn't be anything more than a couple switches and an RC circuit to provide the auto 'full up/full down in one click' functionality. The single most complex thing in a car is the GPS and mapping system in some cars, which is a self contained unit that doesn't tell anything else on the car what to do on any production vehical (i.e. I'm not counting work being actively done at MIT :). Some cars are up there with their auto-parking features and anti-collision sensors to automatically slow or stop the car, but these things should actually exist as they tend to result in less safety long term ... once every one with them starts to pay less attention to the road because they car will do it for them, they immediately become more unsafe than before the augmentation was added to the car.
No matter how you look at it though, there isn't 100 million lines of code in a car if a jet aircraft that is cable of navigation in 3 diminsions instead of 2, capable of doing EVERYTHING in the flight without the pilot doing anything at all (including taking off and landing), has far more complex multi function displays, multiple by direction voice, data and video communications links, all sorts of gadgets that your car won't have for 100 years or will never use. And to top it off, it can track several other airborn objects on its own, and hundreds with the assistance of another aircraft ... and does it on less than 10 million.
It was working perfectly well until the government stepped in to 'save them' because they were 'too big to fail'. Had they failed it would have worked perfectly, now instead, we pay several billion dollars and we'll do it all over again in another few years because they STILL aren't viable businesses they way they are being managed. The loss is greater long term than had we just let them fail, got rid of them and the people involved and started over. This has happened before you know.