Perhaps I need to give you an analogy, as you clearly don't have much real world experience besides being jealous of some person who plays games.
That man is like a man who goes to the surplus computer store to buy computers. Sure, he may get a lot of 386s (they are only 5$ each!), but they are cheap and slow compared to what you get if you put out the effort. Do you just want to play some quick Doom before deciding to buy another cheap computer, or do you want to work hard to get that nice K7 fully loaded which will last you for years to come and do everything for you?
He'll tell you that this is the #1 mistake in the top-ten list of mistakes done by webpages. And I agree. Linking to the outside world, and letting other people back out of your site shouldn't affect it. How else could Yahoo!(tm)(r)(c) become so popular, eh? They certainly don't have a lack of people browsing their site.
The back button is the most often used widget in the browser. If a user hits a site they don't want to see, or make a mistake -- boom, off they go. Locking them in to a site once they get in agrivates them (it sure pisses me off).
My suggestion: turn off Javascript in any browser which allows you to (except Netscape, because that kills CSS [why?]).
So what happens to sites which still do disable the back button, or otherwise lock you in? Well, I tend to just kill my browser process. It's simply easier than dealing with BS websites. Plus, I know to never go to that site again (it'd be nice if Mozilla had a dynamic blocklist which would mark down sites which do this, and block them). ---
"3D Accelarator and RAM manufacturers should be working on methods to bring down production costs...so these things can become more affordable."
Seems reasonable..
"BUS speeds needs to be enhanced. USB is getting there, but it's not enough...and IDE sucks - and we really need faster hard-disks."
Hmm.. 1) USB is designed for slow speed peripherals, and is meant to replace serial connections.. No speed problem there. 2) IDE sucks, not because of the bandwidth (no way 2 devices will ever fill PIO4 -- 16.6mbs, let alone 100!), but because of the various contention issues (only one IDE device may speak at a time, etc). Think SCSI. Even at the "slow" 20mbps SCSI1, it outperforms ATA100. 3) Yes, SCSI HDs are faster...
"Cache sizes and Access speeds needs to become a lot higher. "
Not size, but efficiency. Your PII could have 512kb of cache, but my Athlon with 256kb of cache will kick its ass because I'm not duplicating the L1 cache in the L2 cache (exclusive vs. inclusive), and the associativity of my L2 cache is higher (4-way vs. 2-way). ---
Really, this complexity is not needed in browsers. I'd be happy if people would just use HTML 4 + XML 1.0 + CSS.. Browsers should only render marked text, not be used to play 1980s games written in scripting languages. Do one thing, and do it well! ---
"with 56k modems (modems on both ends utilizing either Flex or x2)."
You answered your own question. End to end analog modems will never connect above ~33kbps (less overhead), because that is the maximum your phone system can handle. For the real ~50kbps (less overhead), one of the ends must be a digital connection. This is why your ISP needs ISDN or a T1 endpoint to feed the 56k modems. Please read the documentation that comes with your modem if this concept eludes you.
[analog] === ~33kbps === [analog]
[digital] === ~50kbps === [analog]
Of course, digital to digital is best. So what you should do is petition your local cable/telco monopoly to get some real broadband access. That way the Internet will come to you in a nice, high-capacity pipe, instead of like a bowling ball through a garden hose. ---
The 7 step guide to getting a lasting relationship.
Note: if you just want to get laid, you're better off masturbating or going to a party where the <ahem> women go to get drunk and laid (bring extra-strength condoms).
Common myths you should forget: * Women love to hear about other conquests * Women will get turned on watching women have sex with women * Women love muscles and/or bodily perfection
Step 1: be presentable. This means you should shower regularly (i.e.: daily or better), wear deoderant (old spice is nice), and try to have your clothes aranged in a suitable fashion (i.e.: shirt untucked if normal shirt, tucked if dress shirt, and never ever partially tucked!).
Step 2: be yourself. Women are attracted to "together" guys (i.e.: confident and assured), not guys who attempt to be all things to all people (if you're not confident, well, that's really another whole essay in itself). Follow the Unix philosophy, and show that you can do one (or a few things) well. Don't make it a pissing contest between you and every other guy on earth, and don't lie about what you know.
Step 3: understand her motivations. By now you've selected a girl, talked to her, and generally had pleasant small talk with her. Use this to find out more about her, and what makes her tick. Knowing a woman's motivations is like having the source code!
Step 4: gently ease into it. Don't just call her up one day and say, "hey, wanna fuck?" Doing so will not get you anywhere (or if it does, you probably don't want that woman anyway). Assume that step 3 will take a month or more. As you know her better, signal that you appreciate her by offering subtle flirtations (i.e.: you seem stiff, would you like me to rub your shoulders?).
Step 5: learn even more! Now that you have a small relationship started, you can take the opprotunity to learn more about her motivations. This is beyond having the source -- this is "understanding to the point of being able to implement new features" having the source. You should be able to help her with any personal problems she might share with you
Step 6: enjoy the relationship. A relationship is not about sex. It's about having a partner of your perfered gender with whom you have a deep, mutual understanding. Sex (and sexual play) is a fringe benefit (a very nice fringe benefit). If you get to step 5, and feel nothing for her, you're probably going to hurt her a lot if you continue.
Step 7: lead into other things. Now is when you get to consider sexual relations. It'll come as a natural extension of everything you've done so far. Enjoy it.
Addendum to step 2: where to find women you'll like, and how to chat them up. First off, don't assume you'll get the hotest woman with the curves of a goddess, and the cleavage of the Indian subcontinent. Assume instead that you will find a woman whose intelligence is to the levels of Mensa. Those are the kinds of women whom geeks appreciate the most, and geeks are the kind of men those women tend to appreciate the most. Obviously, the best place would be your local library, or other place of learning. Find a local woman you know through mutual friends, and talk to her via a neutral medium. Shared parties, shared activities, etc. After a while, you'll get to the point where your conversations are private, one to one afairs. The woman will likely not be interested in computers. Get used to it. You probably don't want your sweetie to be intensly interested in the thing you find dearest to your heart, because having her point out your code flaws can be somewhat emasculating. Get a local Unix buddy for that kinda stuff. Be attentive. You certainly can appreciate it when people's eyes don't glaze over at the mention of "Unix" or "compilers," so try not to do the same when she mentions things important to her. This will make your conversations flow more smoothly, and allow you two to grow closer. ---
Ah! iexplore.exe is simple! Simple com app placeholder! Not IE. IE itself is a web of COM objects which handle HTML display, JScript (r) and VBScript (r), image rendering, user interface widgets, ActiveeXploit, etc.... This is what I thought you were basing your "Bloated NS! Bloated Mozilla!" views on -- because iexplore.exe is a few hundred K, whereas Mozilla/Netscape main binaries are many meg. IE just hides those in \windows\system as the various COM objects that IE uses to function (go ahead and compare the space used by a clean install of Win95 vs. Win95 + IE.. or Win98Lite and Win98 'normal'). Considering the amount of CPU time and RAM they use, I'd consider the DHTML widget components (and others) that IE uses to be worse than Mozilla's components (and far worse than the equivalent Gnome and KDE widgets which do the same thing).
The reason I said you judgement seemed tainted is because you gave a very "BeOS" slant to everything. It'd be nice if you gave more of an indication of having used other OSes (thus giving us a better view of where your opinions come from).
While I haven't used SDL, I hear it's quite good.. it is also portable across Linux, BeOS, and Windows. Given some proper code, it could be a nice performer on all OSes. SDL would make a nice portability wrapper on top of the various OS APIs, such as DRI and OpenGL on Linux, DirectX for Win32, and whatever BeOS uses (I have no idea:).. I just remember DART and DIVE from OS/2 days). ---
"Yes you need IE. Why would you use netscape? It is a bloated, buggy piece of shit. (Even Mozilla isn't looking good.) Sure you can use Opera, but can you live without CSS and DHTML? "
This is the funniest troll I've seen in a long time, and most loved by moderators! I'm thinking our poor friend must've used either Opera 2.11, or an extreme Alpha for BeOS which didn't support CSS.
Considering that Net+ doesn't support HTML 4.0 fully, let alone CSS *, I find it downright hillarious that this fellow would claim that somewhich which doesn't run fully yet on the BeOS doesn't have these features. Given an incomplete version of any software, you could claim anything and probably be correct!
Opera! (3.6 at least, probably other 3.x series too) supports CSS 1, ECMAscript, and Java via a plugin (ye olde surfin' joe Java plugin from Sun). Although I personally disable ECMAscript (for obvious reasons). I'd love to turn it off in NS, but it somehow breaks CSS parsing (what a tanlged web of dependancies!)
As for the comment about IE. Clearly you haven't subscribed to Bugtraq. iexplore.exe is a simple COM program which displays ye olde DHTML widget + a few other bits and bobs. The problem? MS Active*.* gets a new report on average every 2.5 days on Bugtraq. There's a thing to be said for keeping your code modular, with security partitioning between components enforced. Unfortunately, you can only say it about Unix systems -- because MS products don't enforce them (or break if you try.. ever run NT with *proper* permissions on the %systemroot% dir?)
And being a BeOS user, our friend is obviously well suited to commenting about software for other operating systems.
Thank you for making my day more entertaining! ---
Now, we all know that some of the beta testers were supposed to get "CmdrTaco," "CmdrTac0," and all other variations on the spelling so that our good friend, Rob Malda, would have to register as George Washington an yet another online service.
Yes, finally, a measure of how fast your processor does the IDLE loop!
"Dude, my K6-III does 800 Bogomips! It idles faster than your stinky Celeron!"
And to ensure that people know where the processor is from, they'd name it by the company name. Thus: The AMD 800B, the Intel 400B, etc. Better than PR ratings, because you know something about the process that has even less bearing on its real world performance.
Hey, it makes more sense than the Pentium 4 (Nonatium?)
(Btw: Kudos to Intel's marketting dept. for selling the same PPro core in 5+(!) different proc revisions with little/no difference.. except in price!) ---
PHP error indicates a server-side error. I have used (and do use) Lynx on the Slackware site (ditto for/., and K5, etc). I just tried it now, and I could read things fine. Maybe it was just some cosmic rays:) ---
"I'd say most slackware users' systems arent too similar to the base install."
Aside from the odd manually compiled Apache, or other hotfix upgrade to deal with a security issues, most Slackware systems (IMO) are just the base + whatever the person downloaded from freshmeat.
My workstation setup is Slackware 7 + Gnome 1.2 packages + a few things from freshmeat (gnapster, xmms, etc). I'm also not running a "stock" kernel (testing 2.2.17pre6 here). The two servers powering my personal domain are fairly "stock" Slackware systens, aside from configuration tweaks, some replaced or upgraded daemons, and the odd kernel upgrade to deal with an issue (such as the TCP locking problem recently squashed in the 2.2.17 pres).
If you consider the "base" system to be only what comes with it package wise (a reasonable view consider Debian seems to have millions of packages in deb format), then you're correct. But if you consider that most people don't replace anything beyond the kernel, and that they probably just add some userland software, I'd say you're wrong. ---
The Linux PAM implementation code waffles in quality between horrible to ungodly.
Patrick has stated this is the reason for not including it. Go read the Slackware devel forums and post if you want new packages. A fellow posted asking for sgml tools, I seconded, and a package appeard in contrib within 24 hours. Ditto for when I found that the ypnis tools were missing a binary, the upgraded tcpip2.tgz came within a few hours.
Slackware is about quality, tested code, not features (that's Red Hat).
Feel free to write a *clean* version of PAM for Linux. I'd love to see one, and I'm sure Pat would toss it into Slackware:) ---
"why on earth you would go back to slack is beyond me.. "
The benefits of Slackware Linux are many:
Stable out of the box.
Easy to configure (for the average Unix guy).
Rarely has software which contains security holes.
BSD style init scripts
No RPM locking dependancy. If there's an issue, you can upgrade from source quickly.
You might also want to read about why Kuro5hin.org runs Slackware (article written by me, so this is a bit of self-promotion:)).
If you'd grown up on it, or come from another Unix-alike (such as OpenBSD, etc), you'd find Slackware as comfortable and well fitting as a very nice pair of boxer shorts. Whereas I find something like Red Hat restrictive and holey (like very old briefs which haven't been taken care of). Why anyone would run Red Hat (or derivatives), or even Debian, is "beyond me"...
"considering the circumstances behind the split of NetBSD and FreeBSD"
I think you mean OpenBSD and NetBSD. FreeBSD developed out of 386BSD, and NetBSD developed out of Net/2. Fundamentally different projects.
OpenBSD and NetBSD split because Theo de Raadt wanted to change some of the way NetBSD did some of the things. He also made some rather unfortunate remarks because he is hot headed. Everyone threw around insults. People became afraid of Theo, and they revoked his CVS commit access to the NetBSD CVS servers. Theo got a complete copy of the NetBSD tree and spent a year and some with a few other developers auditing everything, and posting regular reports to Bugtraq. NetBSD did not merge any of the code changes because of political reasons. FreeBSD merged some of the pathes.
It's very easy for tempers to run out of control, especially people who haven't learned proper people skills (which, unfortunately, is a larger than average percentage of heavy computer users). These kernel developers need to talk out their problems instead of threaten or otherwise bandy about their particular "we're being discriminated against!" flags or accusations. Sometimes they do sit down and talk agreeably, and sometimes they don't. This is a complex situation, made more difficult by Hans wanting to get into Frozen code. Linus has not made it easier by making the freeze somewhat slushy at will for important changes, because Hans sees this as a further excuse to crow about his own code not being integrated.
I think this will we resolved when 2.5.x starts out. By then, Hans and Stephen (of ext[23] fame) will hopefully have discussed how to add generic journalling functionality to the VFS (where the Linux Kernel can better access it to ensure cleanlyness of journally metadata between the buffer cache, journally area, and other places), instead of keeping it separate (and thus bloating the kernel by lack of code resuse). We shall see. ---
Management has this horrible association that paying lots of $$ for software means the software is useful. I know of one guy locally who wanted an NT print server for his company (running lpd under NT, because his printers were lpr compatible ethernet printers) because, "we have all this software laying around which we paid lots of money for."
Why not use Linux? Not expensive. Eventually people will learn, but so far, it's mostly a hard-way only kinda thing:-/ ---
"No corporation will be willing to put itself in the position of being held hostage to Redmond."
Have you see the number of places that will fork out thousands for this very pleasure, running MS Exchange and not using backups or any kind of RAID setup? A lot of managers honestly don't have a clue, which is why the marketters from MS can manipulate them so easily. ---
Once you use Intellisense its hard to remember how you worked without it.
I've used VC before and I know how useful Intellisense can be, but all my recent development has been under Linux. My solution to remembering structure members, etc, is to just open another gnome terminal, and have less showing the file. It's easy to search around in, and I can copy/paste easily between the two terminals. And unless you're working with a structure that is larger than 10 lines, it's not hard to remember it any. Btw: if you are using a structure > 10 lines, you probably need to rethink your structure.
If that's not your cup of tea, I'm sure KDevelop or some other development product under Linux will recreate this feature for you.
Regarding your arg #1: Another thing that Windows can't match is Glade. MFC requires C++, which I don't know very well. However, with Glade I can design a dialog or other resource quickly and easily, and load it and work with it via the libglade interface functions. No need to use its generated code (which, IMO, is the most horribly formatted code I've seen), and I save many lines of manually creating widgets for each dialog or view. ---
I suggest you get an archived copy of ICQ98 from their ICQ FTP site. It's the best Win32 ICQ client available -- instant loading, an no known security holes (unlike the more recent "all things to all people" versions). icq98nm.exe is the "No MFC" version, which is probably what you want. Unfortunately, ICQ 98 can't use your existing ICQ [99[ab], 2000] lists, but it is well worth recreating it:)
Interface warts aside, I find it as pleasent to use in Win32 as Licq is in Linux. Although floaty support in ICQ 98 is far, far supperior to the Licq support (QT frontend at least). ---
1) Just because a company with a history of some half-baked concepts is implementing it, doesn't mean it will be bad. MSCHAPv2 is "secure enough" to foil most attacks. And their proprietary Kerberos increases the security if Win2k networks greatly, even if it's as interoperable with the original Kerberos as a dead pigeon.
2) I doubt they will do a "member of IP address" thing you mention. Likely it some proprietary network, like a NetBIOS that isn't tunneled (such a beast existed back in the 1980s). The "UPnP" specification probably contains this and other information beyond simple "handshaking."
As for the security issues, this product is targetted at private LANs which speak a probably non-TCP/IP protocol. While I personally would tend towards public key handshaking with blowfish transport encryption (as well as notification of the user of most actions), I tend towards the paranoid side WRT my encryption and privacy:-) Chances are it won't matter to the home user, as it'll "just work" and work fairly well (if you believe the UPnP claims). ---
Re:How about a nice ROM Monitor instead?
on
Linux BIOS
·
· Score: 2
"Non-PC platforms all have nice, simple ROM Monitors with simple, straightforward methods of loading the operating system kernel and then getting out of the way."
Yes and no.
"On the PC, we have this gargantuan pseudo-OS that carries all sorts of legacy crud with it to support MS-DOS "
Again, yes and no.
You can't make these sweeping generalizations because people have told you that the PC BIOS is some legacy encrufted crud puppy. Have you ever use a Sun Sparcstation or a DECStation? My MAXine supports -- get this -- ECOFF kernels only. Straight forward? Heck no, you need a manual for it (whereas PC BIOSes are friendlier) Want to use a new executable format? Too bad, you need to translate your ELF kernel to ECOFF.
The fact is, when technologies change, and you don't completely replace the old technology, you have to deal with some of the warts. So the PC BIOS has warts. That just means it's been succesful, if not properly redesigned. These same problems affect other architectures. Ever use a VAX? The ultimate in CISC. Eventually they did their best by cutting down the "real" instructions and emulating the rest in userland software.
So don't make sweeping generalizations. They tend to be wrong, or do things you don't except (but then that's also a generalization;)). ---
(Sorry for the lateness of the reply, I kept forgetting to do this:))..
Basically, you have the right idea. The "real" resolution the program sees is very low -- 1024x768. However, the hardware then can "Translate" that as it feels to 3072x2304, and draw perfectly clear (to the human eye) things.
For things like text, this makes lots of sense as it's easier to render. For images, they'd take advantage of the "native" level. This would also allow monitors (CRT ones anyway) to be simpler because they'd have less of a scan frequency/resolution range to deal with.:-) ---
Basically, you fake a 3x resolution increase to make edges smoother.
My question is, will this technology be relevant once monitors at 3072x2304 are common? The extra resolution would surely be wasted on making your browser window or text editor larger -- because your eyes can only read so much. But if you used it to enchance the readability of everything on the screen, making all your edges sharper -- it could make things much easier to read, scale, and enjoy.
1024x768 screens are fairly uncrowded. They give you lots of space to overlap windows when you need to work between a couple of applications, and provide a nice size for working in one application. But once you go past to resolutions of 1280x960 or 1600x1200, you begin to not see any useful gains. "Everything" begins to shrink, leaving more and more useless white space, while using an exponential increase in video ram and monitor bandwidth/scan time.
Perhaps the real application of a technology like this is not for using the properties of LCDs to fake more pixels, but in rendering low-resolution 1024x768 screen on a high resolution 3072x2304 screen with anti-aliasing and proper kerning, and other smoothing techniques to make it as crisp as any piece of paper. This could make 2D cards require an extra bit of logic on the silicon, but the benefits could be many.
I'm sure 3D graphics would benenfit too, considering how anti-aliasing could make the "low" resolution of 1024x768 look fine (the Voodoo5's FAA makes lower resolutions just as good looking as higher resolutions withouth FAA). Instead of worrying about larger memory usage by video cards, you could just work towards a fixed target, and let the monitor's increased resolution + the logic on the card do full screen anti-aliasing without as much special logic as the Voodoo5 employs, and it'd look crisper because you actually have those extra pixels to use (instead of just relying on the eye to average the shades of adjacent pixels).
Slashdot Mirror
Uh-huh..
Perhaps I need to give you an analogy, as you clearly don't have much real world experience besides being jealous of some person who plays games.
That man is like a man who goes to the surplus computer store to buy computers. Sure, he may get a lot of 386s (they are only 5$ each!), but they are cheap and slow compared to what you get if you put out the effort. Do you just want to play some quick Doom before deciding to buy another cheap computer, or do you want to work hard to get that nice K7 fully loaded which will last you for years to come and do everything for you?
Your decision.
---
He'll tell you that this is the #1 mistake in the top-ten list of mistakes done by webpages. And I agree. Linking to the outside world, and letting other people back out of your site shouldn't affect it. How else could Yahoo!(tm)(r)(c) become so popular, eh? They certainly don't have a lack of people browsing their site.
The back button is the most often used widget in the browser. If a user hits a site they don't want to see, or make a mistake -- boom, off they go. Locking them in to a site once they get in agrivates them (it sure pisses me off).
My suggestion: turn off Javascript in any browser which allows you to (except Netscape, because that kills CSS [why?]).
So what happens to sites which still do disable the back button, or otherwise lock you in? Well, I tend to just kill my browser process. It's simply easier than dealing with BS websites. Plus, I know to never go to that site again (it'd be nice if Mozilla had a dynamic blocklist which would mark down sites which do this, and block them).
---
"3D Accelarator and RAM manufacturers should be working on methods to bring down production costs...so these things can become more affordable."
Seems reasonable..
"BUS speeds needs to be enhanced. USB is getting there, but it's not enough...and IDE sucks - and we really need faster hard-disks."
Hmm.. 1) USB is designed for slow speed peripherals, and is meant to replace serial connections.. No speed problem there. 2) IDE sucks, not because of the bandwidth (no way 2 devices will ever fill PIO4 -- 16.6mbs, let alone 100!), but because of the various contention issues (only one IDE device may speak at a time, etc). Think SCSI. Even at the "slow" 20mbps SCSI1, it outperforms ATA100. 3) Yes, SCSI HDs are faster...
"Cache sizes and Access speeds needs to become a lot higher. "
Not size, but efficiency. Your PII could have 512kb of cache, but my Athlon with 256kb of cache will kick its ass because I'm not duplicating the L1 cache in the L2 cache (exclusive vs. inclusive), and the associativity of my L2 cache is higher (4-way vs. 2-way).
---
Neither's Internet Explorer then:
Neither's Netscape 4.x then:
Tetris done in DHTML by Rusty Foster, creator of Scoop and my fellow admin at Kuro5hin.org.
Really, this complexity is not needed in browsers. I'd be happy if people would just use HTML 4 + XML 1.0 + CSS.. Browsers should only render marked text, not be used to play 1980s games written in scripting languages. Do one thing, and do it well!
---
"with 56k modems (modems on both ends utilizing either Flex or x2)."
You answered your own question. End to end analog modems will never connect above ~33kbps (less overhead), because that is the maximum your phone system can handle. For the real ~50kbps (less overhead), one of the ends must be a digital connection. This is why your ISP needs ISDN or a T1 endpoint to feed the 56k modems. Please read the documentation that comes with your modem if this concept eludes you.
[analog] === ~33kbps === [analog]
[digital] === ~50kbps === [analog]
Of course, digital to digital is best. So what you should do is petition your local cable/telco monopoly to get some real broadband access. That way the Internet will come to you in a nice, high-capacity pipe, instead of like a bowling ball through a garden hose.
---
So you want a women
The 7 step guide to getting a lasting relationship.
Note: if you just want to get laid, you're better off masturbating or going to a party where the <ahem> women go to get drunk and laid (bring extra-strength condoms).
Common myths you should forget:
* Women love to hear about other conquests
* Women will get turned on watching women have sex with women
* Women love muscles and/or bodily perfection
Step 1: be presentable. This means you should shower regularly (i.e.: daily or better), wear deoderant (old spice is nice), and try to have your clothes aranged in a suitable fashion (i.e.: shirt untucked if normal shirt, tucked if dress shirt, and never ever partially tucked!).
Step 2: be yourself. Women are attracted to "together" guys (i.e.: confident and assured), not guys who attempt to be all things to all people (if you're not confident, well, that's really another whole essay in itself). Follow the Unix philosophy, and show that you can do one (or a few things) well. Don't make it a pissing contest between you and every other guy on earth, and don't lie about what you know.
Step 3: understand her motivations. By now you've selected a girl, talked to her, and generally had pleasant small talk with her. Use this to find out more about her, and what makes her tick. Knowing a woman's motivations is like having the source code!
Step 4: gently ease into it. Don't just call her up one day and say, "hey, wanna fuck?" Doing so will not get you anywhere (or if it does, you probably don't want that woman anyway). Assume that step 3 will take a month or more. As you know her better, signal that you appreciate her by offering subtle flirtations (i.e.: you seem stiff, would you like me to rub your shoulders?).
Step 5: learn even more! Now that you have a small relationship started, you can take the opprotunity to learn more about her motivations. This is beyond having the source -- this is "understanding to the point of being able to implement new features" having the source. You should be able to help her with any personal problems she might share with you
Step 6: enjoy the relationship. A relationship is not about sex. It's about having a partner of your perfered gender with whom you have a deep, mutual understanding. Sex (and sexual play) is a fringe benefit (a very nice fringe benefit). If you get to step 5, and feel nothing for her, you're probably going to hurt her a lot if you continue.
Step 7: lead into other things. Now is when you get to consider sexual relations. It'll come as a natural extension of everything you've done so far. Enjoy it.
Addendum to step 2: where to find women you'll like, and how to chat them up.
First off, don't assume you'll get the hotest woman with the curves of a goddess, and the cleavage of the Indian subcontinent. Assume instead that you will find a woman whose intelligence is to the levels of Mensa. Those are the kinds of women whom geeks appreciate the most, and geeks are the kind of men those women tend to appreciate the most.
Obviously, the best place would be your local library, or other place of learning. Find a local woman you know through mutual friends, and talk to her via a neutral medium. Shared parties, shared activities, etc. After a while, you'll get to the point where your conversations are private, one to one afairs. The woman will likely not be interested in computers. Get used to it. You probably don't want your sweetie to be intensly interested in the thing you find dearest to your heart, because having her point out your code flaws can be somewhat emasculating. Get a local Unix buddy for that kinda stuff.
Be attentive. You certainly can appreciate it when people's eyes don't glaze over at the mention of "Unix" or "compilers," so try not to do the same when she mentions things important to her. This will make your conversations flow more smoothly, and allow you two to grow closer.
---
Ah! iexplore.exe is simple! Simple com app placeholder! Not IE. IE itself is a web of COM objects which handle HTML display, JScript (r) and VBScript (r), image rendering, user interface widgets, ActiveeXploit, etc. ... This is what I thought you were basing your "Bloated NS! Bloated Mozilla!" views on -- because iexplore.exe is a few hundred K, whereas Mozilla/Netscape main binaries are many meg. IE just hides those in \windows\system as the various COM objects that IE uses to function (go ahead and compare the space used by a clean install of Win95 vs. Win95 + IE .. or Win98Lite and Win98 'normal'). Considering the amount of CPU time and RAM they use, I'd consider the DHTML widget components (and others) that IE uses to be worse than Mozilla's components (and far worse than the equivalent Gnome and KDE widgets which do the same thing).
:) .. I just remember DART and DIVE from OS/2 days).
The reason I said you judgement seemed tainted is because you gave a very "BeOS" slant to everything. It'd be nice if you gave more of an indication of having used other OSes (thus giving us a better view of where your opinions come from).
While I haven't used SDL, I hear it's quite good.. it is also portable across Linux, BeOS, and Windows. Given some proper code, it could be a nice performer on all OSes. SDL would make a nice portability wrapper on top of the various OS APIs, such as DRI and OpenGL on Linux, DirectX for Win32, and whatever BeOS uses (I have no idea
---
"Yes you need IE. Why would you use netscape? It is a bloated, buggy piece of shit. (Even Mozilla isn't looking good.) Sure you can use Opera, but can you live without CSS and DHTML? "
This is the funniest troll I've seen in a long time, and most loved by moderators! I'm thinking our poor friend must've used either Opera 2.11, or an extreme Alpha for BeOS which didn't support CSS.
Considering that Net+ doesn't support HTML 4.0 fully, let alone CSS *, I find it downright hillarious that this fellow would claim that somewhich which doesn't run fully yet on the BeOS doesn't have these features. Given an incomplete version of any software, you could claim anything and probably be correct!
Opera! (3.6 at least, probably other 3.x series too) supports CSS 1, ECMAscript, and Java via a plugin (ye olde surfin' joe Java plugin from Sun). Although I personally disable ECMAscript (for obvious reasons). I'd love to turn it off in NS, but it somehow breaks CSS parsing (what a tanlged web of dependancies!)
As for the comment about IE. Clearly you haven't subscribed to Bugtraq. iexplore.exe is a simple COM program which displays ye olde DHTML widget + a few other bits and bobs. The problem? MS Active*.* gets a new report on average every 2.5 days on Bugtraq. There's a thing to be said for keeping your code modular, with security partitioning between components enforced. Unfortunately, you can only say it about Unix systems -- because MS products don't enforce them (or break if you try.. ever run NT with *proper* permissions on the %systemroot% dir?)
And being a BeOS user, our friend is obviously well suited to commenting about software for other operating systems.
Thank you for making my day more entertaining!
---
" I'm a level 10 Sorceress named CmdrTaco"
Now, we all know that some of the beta testers were supposed to get "CmdrTaco," "CmdrTac0," and all other variations on the spelling so that our good friend, Rob Malda, would have to register as George Washington an yet another online service.
Tsk!
---
NolongerthePProcorium! (wow, now that's inovation!)
---
Presenting -- the BogoMip!
Yes, finally, a measure of how fast your processor does the IDLE loop!
"Dude, my K6-III does 800 Bogomips! It idles faster than your stinky Celeron!"
And to ensure that people know where the processor is from, they'd name it by the company name.
Thus: The AMD 800B, the Intel 400B, etc. Better than PR ratings, because you know something about the process that has even less bearing on its real world performance.
Hey, it makes more sense than the Pentium 4 (Nonatium?)
(Btw: Kudos to Intel's marketting dept. for selling the same PPro core in 5+(!) different proc revisions with little/no difference.. except in price!)
---
PHP error indicates a server-side error. I have used (and do use) Lynx on the Slackware site (ditto for /., and K5, etc). I just tried it now, and I could read things fine. Maybe it was just some cosmic rays :)
---
eBay uses NT
They also use Solaris (although it seems to be used less in recent times).
Different OSes of choice for different people. There's no need to rant and claim that moderators are "out to get you."
---
"I'd say most slackware users' systems arent too similar to the base install."
Aside from the odd manually compiled Apache, or other hotfix upgrade to deal with a security issues, most Slackware systems (IMO) are just the base + whatever the person downloaded from freshmeat.
My workstation setup is Slackware 7 + Gnome 1.2 packages + a few things from freshmeat (gnapster, xmms, etc). I'm also not running a "stock" kernel (testing 2.2.17pre6 here). The two servers powering my personal domain are fairly "stock" Slackware systens, aside from configuration tweaks, some replaced or upgraded daemons, and the odd kernel upgrade to deal with an issue (such as the TCP locking problem recently squashed in the 2.2.17 pres).
If you consider the "base" system to be only what comes with it package wise (a reasonable view consider Debian seems to have millions of packages in deb format), then you're correct. But if you consider that most people don't replace anything beyond the kernel, and that they probably just add some userland software, I'd say you're wrong.
---
The Linux PAM implementation code waffles in quality between horrible to ungodly.
:)
Patrick has stated this is the reason for not including it. Go read the Slackware devel forums and post if you want new packages. A fellow posted asking for sgml tools, I seconded, and a package appeard in contrib within 24 hours. Ditto for when I found that the ypnis tools were missing a binary, the upgraded tcpip2.tgz came within a few hours.
Slackware is about quality, tested code, not features (that's Red Hat).
Feel free to write a *clean* version of PAM for Linux. I'd love to see one, and I'm sure Pat would toss it into Slackware
---
The benefits of Slackware Linux are many:
You might also want to read about why Kuro5hin.org runs Slackware (article written by me, so this is a bit of self-promotion
If you'd grown up on it, or come from another Unix-alike (such as OpenBSD, etc), you'd find Slackware as comfortable and well fitting as a very nice pair of boxer shorts. Whereas I find something like Red Hat restrictive and holey (like very old briefs which haven't been taken care of). Why anyone would run Red Hat (or derivatives), or even Debian, is "beyond me"...
To each their own.
---
"considering the circumstances behind the split of NetBSD and FreeBSD"
I think you mean OpenBSD and NetBSD. FreeBSD developed out of 386BSD, and NetBSD developed out of Net/2. Fundamentally different projects.
OpenBSD and NetBSD split because Theo de Raadt wanted to change some of the way NetBSD did some of the things. He also made some rather unfortunate remarks because he is hot headed. Everyone threw around insults. People became afraid of Theo, and they revoked his CVS commit access to the NetBSD CVS servers. Theo got a complete copy of the NetBSD tree and spent a year and some with a few other developers auditing everything, and posting regular reports to Bugtraq. NetBSD did not merge any of the code changes because of political reasons. FreeBSD merged some of the pathes.
It's very easy for tempers to run out of control, especially people who haven't learned proper people skills (which, unfortunately, is a larger than average percentage of heavy computer users). These kernel developers need to talk out their problems instead of threaten or otherwise bandy about their particular "we're being discriminated against!" flags or accusations. Sometimes they do sit down and talk agreeably, and sometimes they don't. This is a complex situation, made more difficult by Hans wanting to get into Frozen code. Linus has not made it easier by making the freeze somewhat slushy at will for important changes, because Hans sees this as a further excuse to crow about his own code not being integrated.
I think this will we resolved when 2.5.x starts out. By then, Hans and Stephen (of ext[23] fame) will hopefully have discussed how to add generic journalling functionality to the VFS (where the Linux Kernel can better access it to ensure cleanlyness of journally metadata between the buffer cache, journally area, and other places), instead of keeping it separate (and thus bloating the kernel by lack of code resuse). We shall see.
---
Hehe.. sounds like fun :)
:-/
Management has this horrible association that paying lots of $$ for software means the software is useful. I know of one guy locally who wanted an NT print server for his company (running lpd under NT, because his printers were lpr compatible ethernet printers) because, "we have all this software laying around which we paid lots of money for."
Why not use Linux? Not expensive. Eventually people will learn, but so far, it's mostly a hard-way only kinda thing
---
"No corporation will be willing to put itself in the position of being held hostage to Redmond."
Have you see the number of places that will fork out thousands for this very pleasure, running MS Exchange and not using backups or any kind of RAID setup? A lot of managers honestly don't have a clue, which is why the marketters from MS can manipulate them so easily.
---
Once you use Intellisense its hard to remember how you worked without it.
I've used VC before and I know how useful Intellisense can be, but all my recent development has been under Linux. My solution to remembering structure members, etc, is to just open another gnome terminal, and have less showing the file. It's easy to search around in, and I can copy/paste easily between the two terminals. And unless you're working with a structure that is larger than 10 lines, it's not hard to remember it any.
Btw: if you are using a structure > 10 lines, you probably need to rethink your structure.
If that's not your cup of tea, I'm sure KDevelop or some other development product under Linux will recreate this feature for you.
Regarding your arg #1:
Another thing that Windows can't match is Glade. MFC requires C++, which I don't know very well. However, with Glade I can design a dialog or other resource quickly and easily, and load it and work with it via the libglade interface functions. No need to use its generated code (which, IMO, is the most horribly formatted code I've seen), and I save many lines of manually creating widgets for each dialog or view.
---
I suggest you get an archived copy of ICQ98 from their ICQ FTP site. It's the best Win32 ICQ client available -- instant loading, an no known security holes (unlike the more recent "all things to all people" versions). icq98nm.exe is the "No MFC" version, which is probably what you want. Unfortunately, ICQ 98 can't use your existing ICQ [99[ab], 2000] lists, but it is well worth recreating it :)
Interface warts aside, I find it as pleasent to use in Win32 as Licq is in Linux. Although floaty support in ICQ 98 is far, far supperior to the Licq support (QT frontend at least).
---
Interesting, if lopsided, view.
:-) Chances are it won't matter to the home user, as it'll "just work" and work fairly well (if you believe the UPnP claims).
1) Just because a company with a history of some half-baked concepts is implementing it, doesn't mean it will be bad. MSCHAPv2 is "secure enough" to foil most attacks. And their proprietary Kerberos increases the security if Win2k networks greatly, even if it's as interoperable with the original Kerberos as a dead pigeon.
2) I doubt they will do a "member of IP address" thing you mention. Likely it some proprietary network, like a NetBIOS that isn't tunneled (such a beast existed back in the 1980s). The "UPnP" specification probably contains this and other information beyond simple "handshaking."
As for the security issues, this product is targetted at private LANs which speak a probably non-TCP/IP protocol. While I personally would tend towards public key handshaking with blowfish transport encryption (as well as notification of the user of most actions), I tend towards the paranoid side WRT my encryption and privacy
---
"Non-PC platforms all have nice, simple ROM Monitors with simple, straightforward methods of loading the operating system kernel and then getting out of the way."
;)).
Yes and no.
"On the PC, we have this gargantuan pseudo-OS that carries all sorts of legacy crud with it to support MS-DOS "
Again, yes and no.
You can't make these sweeping generalizations because people have told you that the PC BIOS is some legacy encrufted crud puppy. Have you ever use a Sun Sparcstation or a DECStation? My MAXine supports -- get this -- ECOFF kernels only. Straight forward? Heck no, you need a manual for it (whereas PC BIOSes are friendlier) Want to use a new executable format? Too bad, you need to translate your ELF kernel to ECOFF.
The fact is, when technologies change, and you don't completely replace the old technology, you have to deal with some of the warts. So the PC BIOS has warts. That just means it's been succesful, if not properly redesigned. These same problems affect other architectures. Ever use a VAX? The ultimate in CISC. Eventually they did their best by cutting down the "real" instructions and emulating the rest in userland software.
So don't make sweeping generalizations. They tend to be wrong, or do things you don't except (but then that's also a generalization
---
(Sorry for the lateness of the reply, I kept forgetting to do this :))..
:-)
Basically, you have the right idea. The "real" resolution the program sees is very low -- 1024x768. However, the hardware then can "Translate" that as it feels to 3072x2304, and draw perfectly clear (to the human eye) things.
For things like text, this makes lots of sense as it's easier to render. For images, they'd take advantage of the "native" level. This would also allow monitors (CRT ones anyway) to be simpler because they'd have less of a scan frequency/resolution range to deal with.
---
Basically, you fake a 3x resolution increase to make edges smoother.
:)
My question is, will this technology be relevant once monitors at 3072x2304 are common? The extra resolution would surely be wasted on making your browser window or text editor larger -- because your eyes can only read so much. But if you used it to enchance the readability of everything on the screen, making all your edges sharper -- it could make things much easier to read, scale, and enjoy.
1024x768 screens are fairly uncrowded. They give you lots of space to overlap windows when you need to work between a couple of applications, and provide a nice size for working in one application. But once you go past to resolutions of 1280x960 or 1600x1200, you begin to not see any useful gains. "Everything" begins to shrink, leaving more and more useless white space, while using an exponential increase in video ram and monitor bandwidth/scan time.
Perhaps the real application of a technology like this is not for using the properties of LCDs to fake more pixels, but in rendering low-resolution 1024x768 screen on a high resolution 3072x2304 screen with anti-aliasing and proper kerning, and other smoothing techniques to make it as crisp as any piece of paper. This could make 2D cards require an extra bit of logic on the silicon, but the benefits could be many.
I'm sure 3D graphics would benenfit too, considering how anti-aliasing could make the "low" resolution of 1024x768 look fine (the Voodoo5's FAA makes lower resolutions just as good looking as higher resolutions withouth FAA). Instead of worrying about larger memory usage by video cards, you could just work towards a fixed target, and let the monitor's increased resolution + the logic on the card do full screen anti-aliasing without as much special logic as the Voodoo5 employs, and it'd look crisper because you actually have those extra pixels to use (instead of just relying on the eye to average the shades of adjacent pixels).
Just a thought
---