Do you know what bug that patch fixes? If not, then you remark is meaningless. You need to know which drawings the anti-aliasing is being turned off on, and why.
You also want to use the patch to help keep things in sync. That's the whole point of patches. Instead of some konq guy spending an hour duplicating some apple guy's search for the proper drawings to alias, you can apply the patch and be done with it. Heaven save us from people who want us to reinvent the wheel each and every time, even for stuff as trivial as this.
Where the hell do you live that you have no alternatives? Even in my tiny rural hometown I've got J.C. Penny's, Ace Hardware, Rite-Aid, and a whole mainstreet of specialty stores. And it has both a KMart and a Walmart. Not a half hour away are Gottschalk's, Walgreen, Mervyn's, Sears and Montgomery Wards.
Or to put it another way, we still haven't progressed far enough to realize that we don't need a king to tell us what to teach in schools or who we can or cannot marry. The problem isn't the religious right seeking the king's favors, but rather that the king is selling favors to begin with. You're just pissed because they're ahead of you in line.
If we were advanced enough we wouldn't need to the king to direct every aspect of our lives. If we didn't want our kids going to a school that taught creationism (or evolution), we could send them to a school that taught evolution (or creationism) instead. And if the one church won't marry two guys, there's always another church (or notary public) that will.
In other news, the US Congress passes law targeting P2P pirates.
Before you start dressing in sackcloth and ashes over Bush's signing of this bill, first ask yourself if your own representatives or senators voted for it. The reason we're in this mess is because people like you find it easier to blame the big guy on national television instead of little guy who only makes your state and local newspapers.
Is this language normal for Linux-related discourse?
Apparently so. Most non-kernel projects are quite polite, but I've seen some kernel (and GNU) discussions that would make even Theo blush. It's what happens when immovable egos collide in Linuxland. The casual vulgarities and insults may have kept the kernel from forking, but it hasn't done much to enhance the maturity level of the participants.
Sounds like you haven't written many unit/functional tests.
Actually I have. And heretic that I am, I COMMENT the tests I write!
You seem to be operating under two wrong assumptions. The first error is assuming that tests document the code. They do not, they only test the code. The fact that f(x) succeeds with all possible values of x doesn't help me a damned bit if I'm trying to figure out what the heck f(x) does.
Your second error is assuming that tests prevent bugs. They do not, they only find a few potential bugs. Thus, when someone five or ten years down the line has to fix a real live genuine bug, he'll need comments to understand the code. Your existing tests won't help him, because your existing tests didn't find the bug. He's going to have to write a new test to cover this case.
I really don't understand why you don't want people to comment. It isn't an either-or proposition. Comment AND test. Sheesh. If you're having problems writing comments, may I suggest you take a writing class?
I'm proud to say I've NEVER taken a Java class! But I do use JavaDoc style comments where appropriate (usually using Doxygen). But that's not documenting the internals of the code, I still use normal comments for that. Nobody reading the API documentation cares if I/* check to see if the bus has settled down */, but that's very important to know in the code itself.
The only people here arguing against commenting are those living in their parents basement wondering why Linus won't accept their code into the kernel.
Until you end up trying to fix a bug five or ten years down the line. Those tests don't do you jack if all they do is tell you there's a bug. Duh! Of course there's a bug! That's why I'm knee deep in this uncommented shitfest trying to figure out what the heck Joe Schmoe was smoking when he originally wrote it!
What's worse than commented code without tests? Gaggles of tests and not a comment in sight!
I've taken five introductory programming courses over the past twenty five years (Fortran, Pascal, assembly, C, C++), and not once have I ever been marked down for not writing a trivial comment. I once took a survey class on languages where I had to write code in everything from Lisp to Snobol, and never been marked down for a lack of hyper-obviousness.
Firstly, not one BSD distro I've ever put to a machine has worked with the ethernet and dhcp right off the bat.
Unless you're using a proprietary wifi card, getting your network setup under FreeBSD is nearly effortless. I don't know what you're doing wrong, but doing it wrong you certainly are.
There are certainly areas where FreeBSD is unsuited to the casual newbie exploring his alternatives, but setting up a network is not one of them. Unless of course you have a proprietary Windows-only uncontaminated-by-specifications wifi card...
If the component is necessary and under the GPL, then it will be included in the base. This is why you'll find gcc in the base distributions. Getting non essential GPL code into the base is much more difficult.
The BSDs will use GPL code, but they won't write it. In some cases they'll even reinvent the wheel to get around it. This is because part of the BSD philosophy is "when the software leaves your hands, it leaves your control." This may be a foreign concept to some GPL advocates, but to a BSD author, the idea that you should attach regulations to the software you give away is silly.
It probably won't be backported. The PC-BSD folks were rude and used the GPL. Getting GPL code into the core of Free/Net/OpenBSD is a political impossibility.
Using the GPL isn't the problem. It's using the GPL for stuff that's traditionally under a BSD licnese that's rude. It's like licensing a Linux device driver under the CPL. Nothing's stopping you from doing it, but just don't expect its acceptance by Torvalds, Morton or Cox.
The FSF could, and probably will, relicense a lot of their code under the GPLv3. That probably won't make much of a difference, but if there's stuff in the v3 that contributors don't like, they're screwed.
This isn't that farfetched. Imagine you assigned over some documentation under the assumption that the FSF would keep it Free(tm), and then the FSF slapped the not-free-unless-you-squint GFDL on top of it. I'm sure somewhere some guy got shafted that that one.
Instead of focusing on the negative, environmentalists need to start telling us about the positives. For thirty years it's been one doom and gloom scenario after another. But this earthday PRI released their annual Earthday statistics paper. This year the US had the lowest recorded level of pollution ever. Why isn't this being hailed as a environmental victory? Our birthrate keeps going down year after year. Why isn't this lauded by Malthusian environmentalists? The US has more timber acreage than in any time in history, but no one knows about it. Why?
It's one thing to claim that there isn't a problem, but it's just as pigheaded to pretend the opposite that there has been no progress.
Did some research and you are correct. My apologies. I had assumed until now that NTFS was a fork off of HPFS from when IBM and MS split, and was basing my information on what I know about HPFS. I was also basing it on my personal experience of corrupting or losing files after a crash, but I was mistaken in thinking journaling was supposed to prevent that.
NTFS wasn't/isn't a journalled file system in the sense that the people who care about journalled file systems mean. It's not journaling in the sense of JFS, XFS, or ReiserFS.
I'm sure to get flamed for this, but one reason I left Linux for FreeBSD was that I was being treated as an upaid software test monkey. Heck, it almost seemed as if the more I *paid* for a distro, the more QA work I was expected to do volunteer.
The number one response when complaining about an issue was "did you file a bug?" I'm not paying you for the privilege of filing bugs! Redhat and Novel have the money and resources to do proper QA work on the kernel and their distros as a whole. And I'm sure they do. So why does it seem like they don't?
Don't get me wrong, I *DO* file bugs. But I file bugs on my own initiative, and on projects that interest me. It is the labeling of untested, unverified and unvalidated software as "stable" that irks me.
Apples and oranges. You put stuff in the kernel because you need direct hardware access, not because you want speed. The only place where you're worried about speed in the kernel is when you're handling interrupts. And GUI interrupts are so seldom and so non-urgent that it makes no sense to handle them in the kernel.
If you don't need direct hardware access, the only speed hit you're going to have in userland is context switching, but even that is so insignificant it's not worth worrying about unless you're running a 33MHz 30386.
You'll get more performance improvements if Nvidia and ATI released complete specs than if you dropped network transparency shoved the X11 into the kernel.
Slashdot Mirror
Forked code bases are hard to keep in sync. Duh. It should come as no surprise to anyone that there are problems keeping Safari and KHTML synced up.
Do you know what bug that patch fixes? If not, then you remark is meaningless. You need to know which drawings the anti-aliasing is being turned off on, and why.
You also want to use the patch to help keep things in sync. That's the whole point of patches. Instead of some konq guy spending an hour duplicating some apple guy's search for the proper drawings to alias, you can apply the patch and be done with it. Heaven save us from people who want us to reinvent the wheel each and every time, even for stuff as trivial as this.
Correction: "What has been tested is known to work correctly under the assumptions of the test."
Where the hell do you live that you have no alternatives? Even in my tiny rural hometown I've got J.C. Penny's, Ace Hardware, Rite-Aid, and a whole mainstreet of specialty stores. And it has both a KMart and a Walmart. Not a half hour away are Gottschalk's, Walgreen, Mervyn's, Sears and Montgomery Wards.
Or to put it another way, we still haven't progressed far enough to realize that we don't need a king to tell us what to teach in schools or who we can or cannot marry. The problem isn't the religious right seeking the king's favors, but rather that the king is selling favors to begin with. You're just pissed because they're ahead of you in line.
If we were advanced enough we wouldn't need to the king to direct every aspect of our lives. If we didn't want our kids going to a school that taught creationism (or evolution), we could send them to a school that taught evolution (or creationism) instead. And if the one church won't marry two guys, there's always another church (or notary public) that will.
In other news, the US Congress passes law targeting P2P pirates.
Before you start dressing in sackcloth and ashes over Bush's signing of this bill, first ask yourself if your own representatives or senators voted for it. The reason we're in this mess is because people like you find it easier to blame the big guy on national television instead of little guy who only makes your state and local newspapers.
Is this language normal for Linux-related discourse?
Apparently so. Most non-kernel projects are quite polite, but I've seen some kernel (and GNU) discussions that would make even Theo blush. It's what happens when immovable egos collide in Linuxland. The casual vulgarities and insults may have kept the kernel from forking, but it hasn't done much to enhance the maturity level of the participants.
Sounds like you haven't written many unit/functional tests.
Actually I have. And heretic that I am, I COMMENT the tests I write!
You seem to be operating under two wrong assumptions. The first error is assuming that tests document the code. They do not, they only test the code. The fact that f(x) succeeds with all possible values of x doesn't help me a damned bit if I'm trying to figure out what the heck f(x) does.
Your second error is assuming that tests prevent bugs. They do not, they only find a few potential bugs. Thus, when someone five or ten years down the line has to fix a real live genuine bug, he'll need comments to understand the code. Your existing tests won't help him, because your existing tests didn't find the bug. He's going to have to write a new test to cover this case.
I really don't understand why you don't want people to comment. It isn't an either-or proposition. Comment AND test. Sheesh. If you're having problems writing comments, may I suggest you take a writing class?
I'm proud to say I've NEVER taken a Java class! But I do use JavaDoc style comments where appropriate (usually using Doxygen). But that's not documenting the internals of the code, I still use normal comments for that. Nobody reading the API documentation cares if I /* check to see if the bus has settled down */, but that's very important to know in the code itself.
The only people here arguing against commenting are those living in their parents basement wondering why Linus won't accept their code into the kernel.
Comments can be good, but a lack of comments is ALWAYS bad.
Until you end up trying to fix a bug five or ten years down the line. Those tests don't do you jack if all they do is tell you there's a bug. Duh! Of course there's a bug! That's why I'm knee deep in this uncommented shitfest trying to figure out what the heck Joe Schmoe was smoking when he originally wrote it!
What's worse than commented code without tests? Gaggles of tests and not a comment in sight!
I've taken five introductory programming courses over the past twenty five years (Fortran, Pascal, assembly, C, C++), and not once have I ever been marked down for not writing a trivial comment. I once took a survey class on languages where I had to write code in everything from Lisp to Snobol, and never been marked down for a lack of hyper-obviousness.
Firstly, not one BSD distro I've ever put to a machine has worked with the ethernet and dhcp right off the bat.
Unless you're using a proprietary wifi card, getting your network setup under FreeBSD is nearly effortless. I don't know what you're doing wrong, but doing it wrong you certainly are.
There are certainly areas where FreeBSD is unsuited to the casual newbie exploring his alternatives, but setting up a network is not one of them. Unless of course you have a proprietary Windows-only uncontaminated-by-specifications wifi card...
If the component is necessary and under the GPL, then it will be included in the base. This is why you'll find gcc in the base distributions. Getting non essential GPL code into the base is much more difficult.
The BSDs will use GPL code, but they won't write it. In some cases they'll even reinvent the wheel to get around it. This is because part of the BSD philosophy is "when the software leaves your hands, it leaves your control." This may be a foreign concept to some GPL advocates, but to a BSD author, the idea that you should attach regulations to the software you give away is silly.
Assuming running FreeBSD as a desktop doesn't already make me quite the madman.
I must be a madman, because I'm using KDE/FreeBSD as my desktop. Complete with all the trimmings.
It probably won't be backported. The PC-BSD folks were rude and used the GPL. Getting GPL code into the core of Free/Net/OpenBSD is a political impossibility.
Using the GPL isn't the problem. It's using the GPL for stuff that's traditionally under a BSD licnese that's rude. It's like licensing a Linux device driver under the CPL. Nothing's stopping you from doing it, but just don't expect its acceptance by Torvalds, Morton or Cox.
The FSF could, and probably will, relicense a lot of their code under the GPLv3. That probably won't make much of a difference, but if there's stuff in the v3 that contributors don't like, they're screwed.
This isn't that farfetched. Imagine you assigned over some documentation under the assumption that the FSF would keep it Free(tm), and then the FSF slapped the not-free-unless-you-squint GFDL on top of it. I'm sure somewhere some guy got shafted that that one.
Instead of focusing on the negative, environmentalists need to start telling us about the positives. For thirty years it's been one doom and gloom scenario after another. But this earthday PRI released their annual Earthday statistics paper. This year the US had the lowest recorded level of pollution ever. Why isn't this being hailed as a environmental victory? Our birthrate keeps going down year after year. Why isn't this lauded by Malthusian environmentalists? The US has more timber acreage than in any time in history, but no one knows about it. Why?
It's one thing to claim that there isn't a problem, but it's just as pigheaded to pretend the opposite that there has been no progress.
Did some research and you are correct. My apologies. I had assumed until now that NTFS was a fork off of HPFS from when IBM and MS split, and was basing my information on what I know about HPFS. I was also basing it on my personal experience of corrupting or losing files after a crash, but I was mistaken in thinking journaling was supposed to prevent that.
NTFS wasn't/isn't a journalled file system in the sense that the people who care about journalled file systems mean. It's not journaling in the sense of JFS, XFS, or ReiserFS.
I'm sure to get flamed for this, but one reason I left Linux for FreeBSD was that I was being treated as an upaid software test monkey. Heck, it almost seemed as if the more I *paid* for a distro, the more QA work I was expected to do volunteer.
The number one response when complaining about an issue was "did you file a bug?" I'm not paying you for the privilege of filing bugs! Redhat and Novel have the money and resources to do proper QA work on the kernel and their distros as a whole. And I'm sure they do. So why does it seem like they don't?
Don't get me wrong, I *DO* file bugs. But I file bugs on my own initiative, and on projects that interest me. It is the labeling of untested, unverified and unvalidated software as "stable" that irks me.
I take it you're a regular OSnews reader...
it's just like networking, file systems, et al.
Apples and oranges. You put stuff in the kernel because you need direct hardware access, not because you want speed. The only place where you're worried about speed in the kernel is when you're handling interrupts. And GUI interrupts are so seldom and so non-urgent that it makes no sense to handle them in the kernel.
If you don't need direct hardware access, the only speed hit you're going to have in userland is context switching, but even that is so insignificant it's not worth worrying about unless you're running a 33MHz 30386.
You'll get more performance improvements if Nvidia and ATI released complete specs than if you dropped network transparency shoved the X11 into the kernel.
When you're using DirectX, you *ARE* dealing direct with the hardware.