Wow, so you missed the part where I pointed out that the debug log wasn't showing the problem?
Thank you for proving my exact point.
I tried MythTV due to being tired of dealing with the problems with the WMC machine and having to fix it, but when you've spent a week working with something and it still doesn't function properly, spending a day every 6 months to a year to just reinstall is far more attractive.
Yep, Windows fucks up, often, but in this case, its still easier to deal with than MythTV.
When are people going to realize that unpopular music is unpopular for a reason. Sure the music execs try to push their own artists more than others, and they try to target the largest cross section of the population as possible, but why wouldn't they?
Trying to bring 'unpopular' must to the masses because that will suddenly make it popular is stupid. Music becomes popular because someone hears it and likes it, not just because they hear it.
Throwing Timmy's garage band onto every radio station in the world during prime time isn't going to change the fact that Timmy's garage band sucks and very few people want to hear it.
Yes, there are people who don't have the same tastes as the general public, that is a small portion of the public, nothing you do is going to change that. There will always be a bell curve. Stop with this crap of think just because you like some indie band that no one has heard of that everyone else will.
If the general public likes them they will become popular. If they play a local show and people like to hear them, they'll get requested and more people will hear them. Then more places will request them, and rinse, repeat, until they will become popular.
Unknown bands are unknown because they are interesting or 'good' to a small number of people, not because of some silly idea that they got shafted by a playlist generator. The playlist generator is simply following trends that it learns from people. It doesn't actually analyze the music to find the algorithm that makes it 'good music'. It says 'People that listen to this song also like this song, add it to the list', rinse, repeat, playlist generated. It doesn't say 'hey, no one listens to this song, lets throw it in and then everyone will like it!!!
You would need phones with *some* kind of open client interface. Of which, there are exactly zero.
Really? I have a Trixbox running with 10 or so Cisco 7940s connected to it that do everything over SIP and HTTP+XML.
Directories, call logs, daily lunch menu specials for the local restaurent pulled from an RSS feed, flavor of the day at Goodberry's, even a game of Zork. You can download Java apps to the phone if you'd like, but theres no need.
I'm not sure what you want that is more open than SIP, HTTP and XML. Its even reasonable well documented if you can use Google. Not every phone is like this, but the number is certainly well above the zero that you claim.
Please, dear Lord. No. This is another binary jail.
OMG BINARY ONLY EVIL OMG
Seriously, get the fuck over it. Its trivial to find outlook plugins to sync with XML files on a server. WebDAV to the rescue. There have been utilities to get data in and out of Outlook for 10 freaking years at least. Hell, even it will do CSV export for pretty much everything on its own.
Asterisk and Freeswitch can do this too. But, there are numerous details that drive people away. Do the hard/soft phones you end up using have ways to implement call forwarding? How about controlling call forwarding at the server only? Is there a GUI available to meet your standards of usable? I haven't worked with Asterisk in a long time though maybe there are prettier ways of doing things now.
Yes, the SIP standard has a way to signal forward and transferrin, multiple lines, all sorts of things far more advanced than anything you have in your home right now, including your cell phone. Yes, a generic ISO install of Trixbox has a user portal UI just as good as anything I've seen on a commercial provider short of Google Voice. I too have not kept up with Asterisk, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't better now than it was a couple years ago.
Dog forbid you want to integrate your mobile phone into the fray.
BTW, there's a whole forest of patents on voicemail notification alone. Even *if* something was made, it probably violates patents.
Really... not hard... out of the box configuration of Trixbox will let you forward calls under different conditions to another phone (your mobile, office, whatever, setup as many rules as you'd like), or call your mobile when you get a voice mail, or SMS you or email you. You aren't going to get a little voicemail icon on your cell phone because thats tied to the provider. If you want, have the call forwarded to your cell and let that voicemail handle it. Otherwise just have it SMS you when you get a message in. I don't think anyone is really concerned with getting patent trolled for this stuff, people have been doing it for years, and digium supports it.
Seriously, have you even installed any of the complete free PBX solutions? Asterisk is a tiny part of the equation. Sure it does the call routing, but thats a small part of the process.
I've setup more than one Trixbox and the hardest part is getting used to the warped world of teleco thinking to me. The only real problems I hard were working out the proper SIP or IAX config. I had multiple providers so I could get unlimited calls in both directions for a few bucks a month so it was a non-trivial setup, but I was paying like $15 every three months for unlimited US calling AND Fax to Email (not through my own PBX, the provider offered a deal for $2/month for a 1800 fax to email service that I snapped up)
The main problem you have with Trixbox is it makes it so that anyone think they know what they are doing. A bit like Windows 'admins' think because they can point and click that they are sysadmins. You'll run into a lot of knowledgeable people who know Asterisk, FreePBX and all the other components of the system who shun Trixbox users because
As a dev, autoupdates are evil. It's great if the updates don't change the behavior of whatever is being updated, but it sucks ass when those updates break or as MS is so fond of, remove functionality.
I've spent the last two months straight dealing work arounds for MS patches that have done this and are rolled out across 15k machines overnight.
Autoupdates are dangerous things. You get unexpected changes with no apparent reason. You have become the beta tester for software companies, and it's become accepted since they will patch it later. Hell, video game consoles are now rolling out buggy games sooner than they should because they can 'patch them later'
how about we up our standards a luittle instead and start requiring better engineering instead of treating updates as acceptable and normal
The problem isn't that its not possible, its that its hard. Your argument is that since its hard now, since the tools aren't ready for it, it shouldn't be done...
Sounds pretty silly to me.
It would be hard to start from scratch and write a modern OS... but that is indeed what Linux is.
If you never take the effort to make the hard easier it will remain hard. Changing from single threaded to multithreaded is hard, do you think we should not do that either, because the tools to do it don't make it a cake walk RIGHT NOW?
Seems a silly way to look at things to me. Fortunately other people made multithreading work on other platforms long before x86 could really do it properly, which made it easier to do on x86. Imagine if Linus said 'multithreading in an OS is hard on x86, you have to use timer interrupts and blah blah blah, I'm not doing it' back in the 90s...
For you, it might not be any different, but you won't know until you give it a try.
For grandma who has a netbook running an ARM processor, and a desktop or laptop running a x86 processor, its probably a little different, don't you think? Do you want to remain in this hole forever, or do you want to get out and catch up to the rest of the world?
Things get rejected from the kernel all the time -- because not all things are good, useful, well coded, or solve a problem that needs solving. It's not new in any way.
Except this seems to be the only place that doesn't acknowledge the usefulness of fat binaries.
Windows has had them since DOS, although no one uses them. OS X has them, FBSD has talk about them and isn't flatly rejecting the idea.
I've seen many features in my career that seemed pointless, tabbed browsing for instance, my OS already supports tabs of sorts on task bar. Then... once you have them and use them for a while you come back and say 'hey, thats a really good idea'.
People who are anti-closed source need to just go hide in a cave somewhere and talk about when the revolution is going to come. There will be a place for closed source and open source, side by side for the foreseeable feature. Trying to deny that is only hurting yourself.
Not really, he can just go peddle his warez to someone who is more open to ideas.
Why should anyone subject themselves to dealing with a bunch of assholes to help them make their stuff better?
Reminds me of my recent MythTV experience...
I join the IRC channel for it, ask a question, lay out whats wrong, and then was told repeatedly that I had configured the server wrong and it wasn't accepting connections, even though I said repeatedly that I was able to connect to it from one client but not another so it was unlikely to be a server problem.
After trying to explain that I had read the wiki, the mailing lists and done a fair amount of googling and already seen the 3 suggestions I kept getting over and over again, I got to the point where I told them to go fuck themselves basically. At which one guy, who hadn't been there earlier listened long enough to ask for the debug output.
Turns out, low and behold, it was a combination of client configuration error and a bug in the mysql libs that caused it to hang and never report an error.
A day later, I've dumped MythTV and went back to WMC under Win7. I've lost a few features in the process, but it works on all my hardware and has yet to require me to deal with a bunch of jackasses who are too arrogant to be useful. (With WMC you deal with to ignorant to be useful instead)
Does anyone care what I run? Of course not, but they've lost potential developer support. Instead of porting my custom extensions to WMC over to work in a MythTV setup and sharing them, I'll just continue to make them work in WMC. I filed the bug on the way out the door so someone else can fix it, but overall the total loss will be on the MythTV end.
You don't get help by being a jackass to people, regardless of how much better than them you think you are. You see a lot of this in OSS software (not just Linux, as anyone who has dealt with Theo knows). I partially understand, they aren't getting paid, they don't have any motivation to hide their true colors. Well, at least any instant motivation. Turning people away is never a good thing. I would have been happy to donate to the project instead of buying more XBox 360s to use as extenders. Now I'll just get a couple more rather than re-using my existing PCs and donating to the project.
He doesn't need thicker skin, they need an attitude adjustment. Its a safe bet that he doesn't really care that much. He's obviously not a cluebie, he has some knowledge, and now they won't benefit. The problem isn't his.
You assume it has a password, and the concept of user accounts for that matter.
If its sitting in some secure control room somewhere it may not require one. Password protection is far less important when you aren't on a network that unauthorized people have access to.
Of course, just because its been sitting there since the 70s doesn't mean it hasn't been modified, the area's traffic is in constant flux and it would need constant adjustment to remain efficient. Its most certainly been modified hundreds of times, I'm sure several times this year alone.
I'd use flash rather than a dvd, but I agree otherwise KISS. Flash simply because you have more options as to what you can do with interactivity. Sure, there have been some pretty complex DVD 'games', but theres a limit and you waste a lot of space and time duplicating effort reencoding the same thing.
A dual layer DVD is probably enough for a very long highly interactive full video presentation.
Open source voting software isn't really going to help.
You can see the open source software is safe.
You can't see what the binaries or even hardware on the system is doing. You can't verify that its running the code you see. You can't even copy it off the system and be sure you're looking at what was running rather than a copy put there just in case you try to copy it off.
Of course with a little help from your local ISP, they can see who is viewing what ballots, tie that to an IP and an IP to a home or in some cases a specific user.
They haven't really done what others said was impossible, but the process requires enough different organizations to be involved in the fraud to be an improvement over the existing methods since they added another layer to the process.
You want to have it so no one holds all the data so correlations can't be made without everyone being in on it, while at the same time allowing verification to be possible. It is a non-trivial task and I don't think a magic bullet will pop up.
Much like computing however, there is rarely a major breakthrough, its almost always incremental based on previous experience and innovations.
In reality, since the the data is available and public information, someone could create an entirely seperate website, with the tallies based on the information in svn. People could check their votes there.
Then if the secondary website notices discrepancies reported by users checking their own votes or in the totals, the fraud is reveled.
Its much harder to commit fraud in the view of the public. It can be done I'm sure, just harder.
I know better on the X11 client/server side, and in my haste made sure to reverse what how I wrote them, which of course is wrong on my part. My dyslexia broke my dyslexia.
Yet Windows developers often find the core Win32 API doesn't fit their needs, and waffle between toolkits like GTK, wxWidgets, Qt, and the usual cross-platform suspects. They also turn to.NET, Java (technically a whole language), MFC and others.
Yes, windows has many many shitty developers. The barrier to entry is low for Windows programming. X11 development while not overly difficult is none trivial for a newbie, there are far less wizards for generating an X11 app than there are for Windows apps. Almost every Windows IDE (built for windows, not ported from somewhere else) has a wizard for generating apps. You won't find the same true for UNIX IDEs, and what most consider as IDE's for UNIX take a fair amount of work just to get them working. Most (not all) UNIX devs can use emacs or vim as an IDE. Most (not all) Windows developers would run and hide if they had to do that, which I wish was the case. Cocoa's quirks slow down some of the potential OS X devs than god, but not by much.
Developing audio on Windows is not necessarily standard, not easy. That is why apps might ship with their own separate audio library like OpenAL, tie into QuickTime, etc.
People using OpenAL for basic audio are subjecting themselves to more pain than its worth. A better example would be something like BASS, which does make Windows audio easier, but thats mostly because of its ability to play multiple audio formats other than the native formats. I would argue that using OpenAL is harder in certain instances than native audio support. OpenAL is the way to go if you intend to target something other than Windows, but not because its easier, because its more consistent across platforms.
Sadly, there were many Windows 95 era apps that were still 16 bit, which don't work in x64 versions of Windows 7
I didn't say Win95 era apps, I said Win95 apps, big difference. I never implied that a Win3.1 app would work in XP, Vista or Win7.
Now, I'm not a fan of GTK by any means. However, the GTK 2.x API has been around since 2002. Anything written for that API should still work fine today.
Sure, for the most part thats true, if you recompile it. GCC changes alone since then require recompilation on Linux. Windows apps don't need the recompile.
That is basically what I said, except you apparently didn't get that. I suggested they use Qt (like wxWidgets is a cross-platform toolkit). Qt makes more sense for a variety of reasons, such as native bindings to Webkit (the heart of Chrome), and very easy audio development where you write code once, and then the audio works on Windows, Mac, Linux, etc.
And you missed the point of mentioning wxWidgets. It wasn't that there is a port, theres a port of GTK to OS X and Windows as well. Neither GTK nor Qt feel native, wxWidgets does, on Windows and Mac OS X (and if you were going to do so, older builds were native to Mac OS but we'll exclude those since they aren't supported anywhere anymore). wxWidgets also has a widget for WebKit, and audio classes. The main difference is how it feels to the user, which is more important than how it feels to the developer for anyone writing software intended to be used by others. Ignoring the native feel is a big sign of a ignorant developer. Most people don't use PCs to learn how some particular software works, they use it to get something done. By not following the common UI elements you break the feeling and require people to learn something different for your app, making it harder to use. Sometimes you can't help but to use custom UI elements as it doesnt' fall into what already exists, but thats not what Qt does as those custom elements are not part of Qt. It (and GTK) break the feeling of Windows and Mac OS X. Thats fine if you're a UNIX person who has to use Windows and wants things to feel like UNIX anyway, but its horrible for porting an app to Windows for Windows users to use.
For RDP that makes sense- compositing doesn't happen over Terminal Services.
Just for reference, this is no longer true. The latest version of the RDP protocol does support compositing. You'll find this to be the case with RDP sessions to Win7 with the latest client.
Now if they'd update the freaking Mac client to use the new protocol.
30% this time is less than 30% the last time they showed a speed increase.
Start off with 100%, 30% faster gives you 70% of the original time. Take off another 30% and now you're doing it at 49% of the original time. Now remember, we're on the 5th iteration of XX% faster, since the original chrome was XX% faster than (whatever they were compare it to).
Its not likely most people will notice a 30% increase on most pages, especially Googles own pages.
When you're talking about taking 30% off of something that already loaded in 1 or 2 seconds, no one notices, you get more delay from your overloaded cable modem than from the browser.
Just for reference, I have two in-laws that have been more than capable of infecting their machines with Chrome. They run as normal users, not admins. Doesn't matter if the machine doesn't get infected, their accounts are, which when theres only one user on the machine, thats effectively the same thing. The only difference is that I can cleanup user infections by deleting their profile. They still get infected with malware.
The one saving grace is that its much less common, and doesn't support crap like toolbar addins like FireFox and IE. Its not a target and doesn't support things that are used by the malware authors.
Chrome does not prevent you from clicking and downloading infected applications.
All the major browsers have URL blacklists now, but none of them are perfect, and users will always find a way to download it. I've seen them get the warning that a page is unsafe and click right on through.
IE isn't really the problem and really hasn't been for a while. You just can't fix stupid.
We're not talking about WebKit, we're talking about Chrome. Chrome is faster than Safari, they both use WebKit. Safari has more features and it costs.
FireFox uses Gecko rather than WebKit. I'm not talking about the differences in the rendering engines alone as that is not all their is to a browser. The stripped down browsers that use Gecko are faster than FireFox as well. Same rendering engine, different wrapper, different speeds.
Gecko is FAR more feature rich than WebKit, but Gecko also supports XUL, whick WebKit does not and I doubt it ever will since WebKit isn't trying to be an application development platform for all sorts of apps. WebKit just renders HTML pages and the requirements that go with supporting those standards.
WebKit can support more HTML standards and still not have as many features as Gecko.
When you can load an XULRunner app in WebKit and everything work, then get back to me, until then, I stand by my statement.
GIMP is C/C++ code loaded in a compiled state. The majority of Firefox's functionality is in the form of JavaScript that has to be compiled at some point.
GIMP is compiled and then run, Firefox is run (and of course the core is compiled) but then it has to unzip a bunch of files and read a bunch of XML, JavaScript and other resource files, turn them into something usable in memory and then do its thing.
FireFox is FAR more flexible than GIMP, but that comes at a cost of speed.
You can actually speed FireFox up with a custom build (an option to configure for FF actually) or by uncompressing all the chrome for firefox before hand. In theory it shouldn't matter as FF caches it, but it does make a difference.
The main thing is that they aren't shooting for the same targets. Chrome is trying to be as fast as possible so Google's webapps run fast and feel more like native apps. FireFox on the other hand is trying to be far more flexible.
Heh, considering I develop software for a living, one of our products is embeds on XULRunner 1.9.1 (which is what Firefox 3 is built on top of) and several of our products use WebKit for rendering HTML.
So yes, my knowledge of them and profiling them tells me this.
You can find my name in the Gecko commit logs and all over the developers mailing lists, wheres yours? I don't think I've seen Anonymous Coward committing anything.
Firefox is bloated now. Too many features, those features cost RAM and CPU time. Start adding all the 'must have' extensions that geeks use and Firefox REALLY starts to suck ass performance wise.
Couple in that Mozilla has seriously lost its focus and is too busy inventing more crap rather than making Firefox run properly. Mozilla building something like Breakpad/Socorro makes sense, adding crap like new font formats when they already support ones that are more than capable and MORE open is.
Chrome doesn't have a bunch of crap to tweak, doesn't support everything and the kitchen sink. You get far less features from Chrome and more speed.
You decide which one is more important for you. Me, I take Chrome for web browsing, Firefox for a mutli-OS development platform where speed isn't as noticeable.
You'd be amazed at how well buying these lowers the level of drugs in a school for a short period of time.
Of course, it doesn't last long enough for a full cycle of students to go through all the grades, so very quickly things go back to normal as soon as some particularly ballsy kid gets by them, or someone brings something in their backpack and doesn't realize it till afterwords. They get home, realize they had it and that they didn't get caught and then corner the market for a little while. Shortly after, everyone resumes normal operations.
It was metal detectors at our school. Of course they weren't metal detectors, just some fixtures that we were told were metal detectors.
All they do is keep out the light weights, the ones that weren't doing much business anyway. Which is fine, the weak aren't going to survive in that business anyway, the faux detectors may just serve to keep them from getting in too deep.
Real criminals, even in high school are better equipped than those trying to catch them. Students may not have been in the school as long, but they have a far better network to utilize than the police or students. They spend as much time as anyone else there and there are far more of them. Its much like prisoners in prison, they know far more about the prison then any of the staff, inside and outside of the cells.
While dowsing rods are complete BS, there is some truth to people being able to use them.
Some truth...
Typically its the fact these are very observent people who are capable of reading the signs of the environment. Contours of the terrain are a good indicator.
I certainly couldn't do it, but many 'dowsers' are actually useful, not because of the rod, but because they just happen to be good detectives who understand their environment. The rod just happens to help keep their secret safe from others who might realize what they are doing.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, so you missed the part where I pointed out that the debug log wasn't showing the problem?
Thank you for proving my exact point.
I tried MythTV due to being tired of dealing with the problems with the WMC machine and having to fix it, but when you've spent a week working with something and it still doesn't function properly, spending a day every 6 months to a year to just reinstall is far more attractive.
Yep, Windows fucks up, often, but in this case, its still easier to deal with than MythTV.
When are people going to realize that unpopular music is unpopular for a reason. Sure the music execs try to push their own artists more than others, and they try to target the largest cross section of the population as possible, but why wouldn't they?
Trying to bring 'unpopular' must to the masses because that will suddenly make it popular is stupid. Music becomes popular because someone hears it and likes it, not just because they hear it.
Throwing Timmy's garage band onto every radio station in the world during prime time isn't going to change the fact that Timmy's garage band sucks and very few people want to hear it.
Yes, there are people who don't have the same tastes as the general public, that is a small portion of the public, nothing you do is going to change that. There will always be a bell curve. Stop with this crap of think just because you like some indie band that no one has heard of that everyone else will.
If the general public likes them they will become popular. If they play a local show and people like to hear them, they'll get requested and more people will hear them. Then more places will request them, and rinse, repeat, until they will become popular.
Unknown bands are unknown because they are interesting or 'good' to a small number of people, not because of some silly idea that they got shafted by a playlist generator. The playlist generator is simply following trends that it learns from people. It doesn't actually analyze the music to find the algorithm that makes it 'good music'. It says 'People that listen to this song also like this song, add it to the list', rinse, repeat, playlist generated. It doesn't say 'hey, no one listens to this song, lets throw it in and then everyone will like it!!!
Really? I have a Trixbox running with 10 or so Cisco 7940s connected to it that do everything over SIP and HTTP+XML.
Directories, call logs, daily lunch menu specials for the local restaurent pulled from an RSS feed, flavor of the day at Goodberry's, even a game of Zork. You can download Java apps to the phone if you'd like, but theres no need.
I'm not sure what you want that is more open than SIP, HTTP and XML. Its even reasonable well documented if you can use Google. Not every phone is like this, but the number is certainly well above the zero that you claim.
OMG BINARY ONLY EVIL OMG
Seriously, get the fuck over it. Its trivial to find outlook plugins to sync with XML files on a server. WebDAV to the rescue. There have been utilities to get data in and out of Outlook for 10 freaking years at least. Hell, even it will do CSV export for pretty much everything on its own.
Yes, the SIP standard has a way to signal forward and transferrin, multiple lines, all sorts of things far more advanced than anything you have in your home right now, including your cell phone. Yes, a generic ISO install of Trixbox has a user portal UI just as good as anything I've seen on a commercial provider short of Google Voice. I too have not kept up with Asterisk, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't better now than it was a couple years ago.
Really ... not hard ... out of the box configuration of Trixbox will let you forward calls under different conditions to another phone (your mobile, office, whatever, setup as many rules as you'd like), or call your mobile when you get a voice mail, or SMS you or email you. You aren't going to get a little voicemail icon on your cell phone because thats tied to the provider. If you want, have the call forwarded to your cell and let that voicemail handle it. Otherwise just have it SMS you when you get a message in. I don't think anyone is really concerned with getting patent trolled for this stuff, people have been doing it for years, and digium supports it.
Seriously, have you even installed any of the complete free PBX solutions? Asterisk is a tiny part of the equation. Sure it does the call routing, but thats a small part of the process.
I've setup more than one Trixbox and the hardest part is getting used to the warped world of teleco thinking to me. The only real problems I hard were working out the proper SIP or IAX config. I had multiple providers so I could get unlimited calls in both directions for a few bucks a month so it was a non-trivial setup, but I was paying like $15 every three months for unlimited US calling AND Fax to Email (not through my own PBX, the provider offered a deal for $2/month for a 1800 fax to email service that I snapped up)
The main problem you have with Trixbox is it makes it so that anyone think they know what they are doing. A bit like Windows 'admins' think because they can point and click that they are sysadmins. You'll run into a lot of knowledgeable people who know Asterisk, FreePBX and all the other components of the system who shun Trixbox users because
As a dev, autoupdates are evil. It's great if the updates don't change the behavior of whatever is being updated, but it sucks ass when those updates break or as MS is so fond of, remove functionality.
I've spent the last two months straight dealing work arounds for MS patches that have done this and are rolled out across 15k machines overnight.
Autoupdates are dangerous things. You get unexpected changes with no apparent reason. You have become the beta tester for software companies, and it's become accepted since they will patch it later. Hell, video game consoles are now rolling out buggy games sooner than they should because they can 'patch them later'
how about we up our standards a luittle instead and start requiring better engineering instead of treating updates as acceptable and normal
The problem isn't that its not possible, its that its hard. Your argument is that since its hard now, since the tools aren't ready for it, it shouldn't be done ...
Sounds pretty silly to me.
It would be hard to start from scratch and write a modern OS ... but that is indeed what Linux is.
If you never take the effort to make the hard easier it will remain hard. Changing from single threaded to multithreaded is hard, do you think we should not do that either, because the tools to do it don't make it a cake walk RIGHT NOW?
Seems a silly way to look at things to me. Fortunately other people made multithreading work on other platforms long before x86 could really do it properly, which made it easier to do on x86. Imagine if Linus said 'multithreading in an OS is hard on x86, you have to use timer interrupts and blah blah blah, I'm not doing it' back in the 90s ...
For you, it might not be any different, but you won't know until you give it a try.
For grandma who has a netbook running an ARM processor, and a desktop or laptop running a x86 processor, its probably a little different, don't you think? Do you want to remain in this hole forever, or do you want to get out and catch up to the rest of the world?
Except this seems to be the only place that doesn't acknowledge the usefulness of fat binaries.
Windows has had them since DOS, although no one uses them. OS X has them, FBSD has talk about them and isn't flatly rejecting the idea.
I've seen many features in my career that seemed pointless, tabbed browsing for instance, my OS already supports tabs of sorts on task bar. Then ... once you have them and use them for a while you come back and say 'hey, thats a really good idea'.
People who are anti-closed source need to just go hide in a cave somewhere and talk about when the revolution is going to come. There will be a place for closed source and open source, side by side for the foreseeable feature. Trying to deny that is only hurting yourself.
Not really, he can just go peddle his warez to someone who is more open to ideas.
Why should anyone subject themselves to dealing with a bunch of assholes to help them make their stuff better?
Reminds me of my recent MythTV experience ...
I join the IRC channel for it, ask a question, lay out whats wrong, and then was told repeatedly that I had configured the server wrong and it wasn't accepting connections, even though I said repeatedly that I was able to connect to it from one client but not another so it was unlikely to be a server problem.
After trying to explain that I had read the wiki, the mailing lists and done a fair amount of googling and already seen the 3 suggestions I kept getting over and over again, I got to the point where I told them to go fuck themselves basically. At which one guy, who hadn't been there earlier listened long enough to ask for the debug output.
Turns out, low and behold, it was a combination of client configuration error and a bug in the mysql libs that caused it to hang and never report an error.
A day later, I've dumped MythTV and went back to WMC under Win7. I've lost a few features in the process, but it works on all my hardware and has yet to require me to deal with a bunch of jackasses who are too arrogant to be useful. (With WMC you deal with to ignorant to be useful instead)
Does anyone care what I run? Of course not, but they've lost potential developer support. Instead of porting my custom extensions to WMC over to work in a MythTV setup and sharing them, I'll just continue to make them work in WMC. I filed the bug on the way out the door so someone else can fix it, but overall the total loss will be on the MythTV end.
You don't get help by being a jackass to people, regardless of how much better than them you think you are. You see a lot of this in OSS software (not just Linux, as anyone who has dealt with Theo knows). I partially understand, they aren't getting paid, they don't have any motivation to hide their true colors. Well, at least any instant motivation. Turning people away is never a good thing. I would have been happy to donate to the project instead of buying more XBox 360s to use as extenders. Now I'll just get a couple more rather than re-using my existing PCs and donating to the project.
He doesn't need thicker skin, they need an attitude adjustment. Its a safe bet that he doesn't really care that much. He's obviously not a cluebie, he has some knowledge, and now they won't benefit. The problem isn't his.
You assume it has a password, and the concept of user accounts for that matter.
If its sitting in some secure control room somewhere it may not require one. Password protection is far less important when you aren't on a network that unauthorized people have access to.
Of course, just because its been sitting there since the 70s doesn't mean it hasn't been modified, the area's traffic is in constant flux and it would need constant adjustment to remain efficient. Its most certainly been modified hundreds of times, I'm sure several times this year alone.
I'd use flash rather than a dvd, but I agree otherwise KISS. Flash simply because you have more options as to what you can do with interactivity. Sure, there have been some pretty complex DVD 'games', but theres a limit and you waste a lot of space and time duplicating effort reencoding the same thing.
A dual layer DVD is probably enough for a very long highly interactive full video presentation.
Uhm, nothing prevents vote buying now, its just hard to verify.
Open source voting software isn't really going to help.
You can see the open source software is safe.
You can't see what the binaries or even hardware on the system is doing. You can't verify that its running the code you see. You can't even copy it off the system and be sure you're looking at what was running rather than a copy put there just in case you try to copy it off.
Of course with a little help from your local ISP, they can see who is viewing what ballots, tie that to an IP and an IP to a home or in some cases a specific user.
They haven't really done what others said was impossible, but the process requires enough different organizations to be involved in the fraud to be an improvement over the existing methods since they added another layer to the process.
You want to have it so no one holds all the data so correlations can't be made without everyone being in on it, while at the same time allowing verification to be possible. It is a non-trivial task and I don't think a magic bullet will pop up.
Much like computing however, there is rarely a major breakthrough, its almost always incremental based on previous experience and innovations.
And this is different from existing methods how?
In reality, since the the data is available and public information, someone could create an entirely seperate website, with the tallies based on the information in svn. People could check their votes there.
Then if the secondary website notices discrepancies reported by users checking their own votes or in the totals, the fraud is reveled.
Its much harder to commit fraud in the view of the public. It can be done I'm sure, just harder.
Both of your points are 100% correct.
I know better on the X11 client/server side, and in my haste made sure to reverse what how I wrote them, which of course is wrong on my part. My dyslexia broke my dyslexia.
Yes, windows has many many shitty developers. The barrier to entry is low for Windows programming. X11 development while not overly difficult is none trivial for a newbie, there are far less wizards for generating an X11 app than there are for Windows apps. Almost every Windows IDE (built for windows, not ported from somewhere else) has a wizard for generating apps. You won't find the same true for UNIX IDEs, and what most consider as IDE's for UNIX take a fair amount of work just to get them working. Most (not all) UNIX devs can use emacs or vim as an IDE. Most (not all) Windows developers would run and hide if they had to do that, which I wish was the case. Cocoa's quirks slow down some of the potential OS X devs than god, but not by much.
People using OpenAL for basic audio are subjecting themselves to more pain than its worth. A better example would be something like BASS, which does make Windows audio easier, but thats mostly because of its ability to play multiple audio formats other than the native formats. I would argue that using OpenAL is harder in certain instances than native audio support. OpenAL is the way to go if you intend to target something other than Windows, but not because its easier, because its more consistent across platforms.
I didn't say Win95 era apps, I said Win95 apps, big difference. I never implied that a Win3.1 app would work in XP, Vista or Win7.
Sure, for the most part thats true, if you recompile it. GCC changes alone since then require recompilation on Linux. Windows apps don't need the recompile.
And you missed the point of mentioning wxWidgets. It wasn't that there is a port, theres a port of GTK to OS X and Windows as well. Neither GTK nor Qt feel native, wxWidgets does, on Windows and Mac OS X (and if you were going to do so, older builds were native to Mac OS but we'll exclude those since they aren't supported anywhere anymore). wxWidgets also has a widget for WebKit, and audio classes. The main difference is how it feels to the user, which is more important than how it feels to the developer for anyone writing software intended to be used by others. Ignoring the native feel is a big sign of a ignorant developer. Most people don't use PCs to learn how some particular software works, they use it to get something done. By not following the common UI elements you break the feeling and require people to learn something different for your app, making it harder to use. Sometimes you can't help but to use custom UI elements as it doesnt' fall into what already exists, but thats not what Qt does as those custom elements are not part of Qt. It (and GTK) break the feeling of Windows and Mac OS X. Thats fine if you're a UNIX person who has to use Windows and wants things to feel like UNIX anyway, but its horrible for porting an app to Windows for Windows users to use.
Just for reference, this is no longer true. The latest version of the RDP protocol does support compositing. You'll find this to be the case with RDP sessions to Win7 with the latest client.
Now if they'd update the freaking Mac client to use the new protocol.
30% this time is less than 30% the last time they showed a speed increase.
Start off with 100%, 30% faster gives you 70% of the original time. Take off another 30% and now you're doing it at 49% of the original time. Now remember, we're on the 5th iteration of XX% faster, since the original chrome was XX% faster than (whatever they were compare it to).
Its not likely most people will notice a 30% increase on most pages, especially Googles own pages.
When you're talking about taking 30% off of something that already loaded in 1 or 2 seconds, no one notices, you get more delay from your overloaded cable modem than from the browser.
Just for reference, I have two in-laws that have been more than capable of infecting their machines with Chrome. They run as normal users, not admins. Doesn't matter if the machine doesn't get infected, their accounts are, which when theres only one user on the machine, thats effectively the same thing. The only difference is that I can cleanup user infections by deleting their profile. They still get infected with malware.
The one saving grace is that its much less common, and doesn't support crap like toolbar addins like FireFox and IE. Its not a target and doesn't support things that are used by the malware authors.
Chrome does not prevent you from clicking and downloading infected applications.
All the major browsers have URL blacklists now, but none of them are perfect, and users will always find a way to download it. I've seen them get the warning that a page is unsafe and click right on through.
IE isn't really the problem and really hasn't been for a while. You just can't fix stupid.
We're not talking about WebKit, we're talking about Chrome. Chrome is faster than Safari, they both use WebKit. Safari has more features and it costs.
FireFox uses Gecko rather than WebKit. I'm not talking about the differences in the rendering engines alone as that is not all their is to a browser. The stripped down browsers that use Gecko are faster than FireFox as well. Same rendering engine, different wrapper, different speeds.
Gecko is FAR more feature rich than WebKit, but Gecko also supports XUL, whick WebKit does not and I doubt it ever will since WebKit isn't trying to be an application development platform for all sorts of apps. WebKit just renders HTML pages and the requirements that go with supporting those standards.
WebKit can support more HTML standards and still not have as many features as Gecko.
When you can load an XULRunner app in WebKit and everything work, then get back to me, until then, I stand by my statement.
GIMP is C/C++ code loaded in a compiled state. The majority of Firefox's functionality is in the form of JavaScript that has to be compiled at some point.
GIMP is compiled and then run, Firefox is run (and of course the core is compiled) but then it has to unzip a bunch of files and read a bunch of XML, JavaScript and other resource files, turn them into something usable in memory and then do its thing.
FireFox is FAR more flexible than GIMP, but that comes at a cost of speed.
You can actually speed FireFox up with a custom build (an option to configure for FF actually) or by uncompressing all the chrome for firefox before hand. In theory it shouldn't matter as FF caches it, but it does make a difference.
The main thing is that they aren't shooting for the same targets. Chrome is trying to be as fast as possible so Google's webapps run fast and feel more like native apps. FireFox on the other hand is trying to be far more flexible.
Heh, considering I develop software for a living, one of our products is embeds on XULRunner 1.9.1 (which is what Firefox 3 is built on top of) and several of our products use WebKit for rendering HTML.
So yes, my knowledge of them and profiling them tells me this.
You can find my name in the Gecko commit logs and all over the developers mailing lists, wheres yours? I don't think I've seen Anonymous Coward committing anything.
http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/snapshots/
Which can be found by visiting:
http://www.google.com/search?q=chromium+mac+download
Imagine that.
I stopped bothering with Chromium, Safari isn't different enough to justify the instability of Chromium for me.
Yes, less features.
Firefox is bloated now. Too many features, those features cost RAM and CPU time. Start adding all the 'must have' extensions that geeks use and Firefox REALLY starts to suck ass performance wise.
Couple in that Mozilla has seriously lost its focus and is too busy inventing more crap rather than making Firefox run properly. Mozilla building something like Breakpad/Socorro makes sense, adding crap like new font formats when they already support ones that are more than capable and MORE open is.
Chrome doesn't have a bunch of crap to tweak, doesn't support everything and the kitchen sink. You get far less features from Chrome and more speed.
You decide which one is more important for you. Me, I take Chrome for web browsing, Firefox for a mutli-OS development platform where speed isn't as noticeable.
You'd be amazed at how well buying these lowers the level of drugs in a school for a short period of time.
Of course, it doesn't last long enough for a full cycle of students to go through all the grades, so very quickly things go back to normal as soon as some particularly ballsy kid gets by them, or someone brings something in their backpack and doesn't realize it till afterwords. They get home, realize they had it and that they didn't get caught and then corner the market for a little while. Shortly after, everyone resumes normal operations.
It was metal detectors at our school. Of course they weren't metal detectors, just some fixtures that we were told were metal detectors.
All they do is keep out the light weights, the ones that weren't doing much business anyway. Which is fine, the weak aren't going to survive in that business anyway, the faux detectors may just serve to keep them from getting in too deep.
Real criminals, even in high school are better equipped than those trying to catch them. Students may not have been in the school as long, but they have a far better network to utilize than the police or students. They spend as much time as anyone else there and there are far more of them. Its much like prisoners in prison, they know far more about the prison then any of the staff, inside and outside of the cells.
While dowsing rods are complete BS, there is some truth to people being able to use them.
Some truth ...
Typically its the fact these are very observent people who are capable of reading the signs of the environment. Contours of the terrain are a good indicator.
I certainly couldn't do it, but many 'dowsers' are actually useful, not because of the rod, but because they just happen to be good detectives who understand their environment. The rod just happens to help keep their secret safe from others who might realize what they are doing.