My mean beaf with GC is that it makes handling all other resources a pain.
Well... No. Java makes handling anything that isn't memory pain, but that's a Java problem, not GC problem. Having GC doesn't prevent you from having a keyword - let's call it "scoped" - which causes the "finalize()" function of an object to be called when you exit the scope it was created in. Java desn't have that, and so you end up writing try-finally -blocks, but it could be added any time Oracle feels like it.
Assuming you mean a keyword used for references (variables), that would require the user to remember every time, likely leading to lots & lots of leaks. If you move it to be part of the class, you need to figure out how to handle classes that contains references to (superclasses of) this type of object.
Solvable? Perhaps, but not so easily as that.
My second-largest beaf is that memory problems often are an indicator of poor design (you are not clear which class has what responsibility), which you loose with GC.
I don't think having subpar programs not crashing, leaking memory, or overloading buffers all the time is exactly a strike against GC.
I prefer an honest crash to data corruption. So yes, I see it as a point against GC.
Actually, I believe Facebook offer the conversation via. XMPP, so you might be able to use a common chat-client as well. (I know this is true for personal chats, dunno about whatever they use).
Cyclic memory references are quite rare anyways... I can't remember the last time I had one of those (not counting linked lists, usually handled by a library). Admittedly, I very use shared_ptr's anyway.. I prefer aggregation to association whenever I can. Which means scoped_ptr/auto_ptr/... or better yet plain stack allocations most of the time.
My mean beaf with GC is that it makes handling all other resources a pain. My second-largest beaf is that memory problems often are an indicator of poor design (you are not clear which class has what responsibility), which you loose with GC.
Re Wireless routers: They would be treated as any other routers. I.e, either they are brigding, in the which case they just forward to/from some other router, or they are a router unto itself and broadcast a proper (probably/64) network.
Access points: There is no change here, except that they have real, globally routable addresses
Assignment of IPs. I'm not sure I understand the question. Perhaps the answer is that you can have several IP addresses on one network device.
Re rollover: You don't get to keep your address. Just change your DNS entries already -- this will be the big pain. You don't have to remap your internal network, as they will just pick up the new network prefix from the router advertisments.
Phones: That is outside what I know about. Perhaps there is a mobile IPv6 answer somewhere.
There is, I believe, no broadcast address in IPv6, and I never did figure out what the network addresses were about in IPv4. So I guess I am not helping.
Calm yourself.Router advertisements will be used for those purposes. They have worked fine for several years (that I know of), but of course they haven't been hammered the way DHCP servers would. They are, on the other hand, by design somewhat more robust. Anecdotally, our new printer in the office picked up the router advertisement from our router without any problems, as have all our computers except for the one where the user explicitly disabled IPv6. I have no knowledge about carrier grade (heh) equipment, but I'm guessing they are a few years ahead of printers in the routing department.
Currently with IPv4, "good case scenario" - home user plugs laptop to device from the ISP (or selects the device's SSID), and stuff works - DNS, gateways, netmasks, addresses all get set up automatically. Ask yourself what happens with an IPv6-only "good case" scenario?
That would be the same. User plugs in equipment, and all machines get a globally routeable IP address, routing and DNS. And above IPv4, there will be no need for setting up port forwarding.
Is all the tech there already?
For several years, yes, except the stuff that can only be shaken out in actual large-scale deployment.
If it isn't, then all the talk about "the world had 10 years to move" is bullshit.
Heh. As I said, calm yourself, this stuff has been ready for years and years.
That's like saying you had 10 years to move in to a house when they were still discussing part of the foundation's design in Nov 2010. Just because they successfully tested the mock up rooms and doors at their own test sites doesn't mean much.
Getting people to move from nothing to a shack is easy. But when they have a house that mostly works and is just a bit short of space, it is stupid to expect them to move to a building with lots of space but not ready.
Yes, fear of change is always a problem in such migrations. It is, however, a necessary thing to do, and the net will be a better place for it.
I use IPv6 (alas via a tunnel here). IPv6 gets rid of DHCP, which is nice, but also lets me ssh directly to any of my machines here. So I can ssh to my wife's machine to fix her machine (often that the old box has too much flash running), and git pull those changes I forgot to push from my home computer. Very convenient.
Honest question: Inside the firewall, what benefit is IPv6?
There are a number of benefits, mostly related to having a globally routeable IP address. E.g, if your company merges with another, there will be no need to reassign hosts or create bridges in the new, joined network. You also save the administration of internal IP addresses, the DHCP server, perhaps a print server.
For me, it means that when I work from home I can directly ssh to my work computer (started with wake-on-lan) if I need something from it. That makes it much easier to git pull/push changes, but I admit that is a bit of a cornercase).
I'd say that if your company runs openwrt or the like, switching to dualstack using a tunnel if necessary makes a lot of sense. Even if you set up the firewall to block non-related traffic (like NAT would do), but even more so if you don't.
Regarding the IPv6 "bugs"...Unless he's referring to the general issue of lack of anonymity built into IPv6 (due to unique IP addresses),
That would be wrong. Any IPv6 client I know of can generate addresses either from something static (the MAC-address of the network card, a fixed configuration or whatever) or an automatically and randomly generated string, giving you the same anonymity if you so desire. I believe win* defaults to the latter and linux to the former, but switching is easy.
Anyway, even with a statically configured computer you can always claim that someone else must have used that IP address/someone else used the computer.
No, you are just seeing the effect of the "fear of change". Qt development will be slower paced without those payed developers, but it will still happen. Especially given that Qt is probably the best GUI x-platform toolkit presently available, and the best available in the linux world, with GTK as the closest runner-up to the best of my knowledge.
What I fear most is that the win32/64 and OSX paths suffers, given that so few OS-developers use and intimately know those platforms.
And yet, when those uses are pointed out to you, you protest. There are really a lot of reasons for a car to be without a driver at all, and even more for an inattentive driver. Drive at night, get some sleep! Do the crossword, catch up on mail.
Re:Organic vs processed (toxic) sugar.
on
Is Sugar Toxic?
·
· Score: 1
How is processed sugar chemically different from the sugar in the plant it's extracted from?
It's not. In crystallized form, it is usually (at least in Europe) one of the disaccharids, usually sucrose, but as dissolving breaks it back down to fructose and glucose, I fail to see how it could impact anything.
Do you know? Or do you not even consider that?
I used to dabble in chemistry, and I have considered it.
There is a precedent. Saturated fat from natural sources contains no trans-fats, but saturated fat made by hydrogenating vegetable oils has significant trans-fats (trans-fats are deformed fat molecules that a cellular system, whether vegetable or animal, wouldn't produce, but bubbling hydrogen through a vat of fat doesn't have molecular-level geometric control of the production process). Saturated fat is not bad for you but trans-fats are.
Trans-fat are not deformed, it's just different. And unhealthy, I agree. Though now that there is focus on it, I believe that particular problem has been fixed.
So is there something about the production of sugar in concentrated form that chemically alters it so that it has poison in it? What is the altered chemical? Has it been detected in the concentrated sugar?
Around here, sugar is mostly extracted from sugar canes or sugar roes (sorry if I mistranslated that). And that is a simple extraction process, which doesn't alter anything except concentration. It's just cooked, and the sugar concentrated.
Now you are being silly. All humans put together use about 15TW (2004 number, I admit). The input from the sun is about 164 PW. That would be more than 10000 times more power than we currently use. I doubt many people manage to use up their allotted power by your books.
NOT-INVENTED-HERE is a global phenomenon. Take diesel cars in the US. It is just human nature to resist anything new if it means giving up an existing skill-set.
Hm. Here in Denmark, railroad traffic is highly subsidized, and road users pay a lot to buy the car and diesel/petrol. Yet, train is still more expensive and slower, at least for a group of 2 or more. On the up side, until they get the cars to drive themselves, you can hack on a train. I mean, you can do programming while sitting in a train.
Note that biggest the railroad company (DSB) couldn't get out of a wet paperbag of questionable quality with a pair of scissors and a sharp katana, but still.
Slashdot Mirror
Well... No. Java makes handling anything that isn't memory pain, but that's a Java problem, not GC problem. Having GC doesn't prevent you from having a keyword - let's call it "scoped" - which causes the "finalize()" function of an object to be called when you exit the scope it was created in. Java desn't have that, and so you end up writing try-finally -blocks, but it could be added any time Oracle feels like it.
Assuming you mean a keyword used for references (variables), that would require the user to remember every time, likely leading to lots & lots of leaks. If you move it to be part of the class, you need to figure out how to handle classes that contains references to (superclasses of) this type of object.
Solvable? Perhaps, but not so easily as that.
I don't think having subpar programs not crashing, leaking memory, or overloading buffers all the time is exactly a strike against GC.
I prefer an honest crash to data corruption. So yes, I see it as a point against GC.
Actually, I believe Facebook offer the conversation via. XMPP, so you might be able to use a common chat-client as well. (I know this is true for personal chats, dunno about whatever they use).
You know, there are gotchas in GC, too.
Cyclic memory references are quite rare anyways... I can't remember the last time I had one of those (not counting linked lists, usually handled by a library). Admittedly, I very use shared_ptr's anyway.. I prefer aggregation to association whenever I can. Which means scoped_ptr/auto_ptr/... or better yet plain stack allocations most of the time.
My mean beaf with GC is that it makes handling all other resources a pain. My second-largest beaf is that memory problems often are an indicator of poor design (you are not clear which class has what responsibility), which you loose with GC.
Valgrind takes a lot longer to run any decent-sized program. But otherwise, yes... it's a pretty amazing tool.
I'd guess public ones, probably one per VM.
You seem to be very fond of private IP addresses. Really, with IPv6, there is little need for such.
Note, I am no expert, but..
Re Wireless routers: They would be treated as any other routers. I.e, either they are brigding, in the which case they just forward to/from some other router, or they are a router unto itself and broadcast a proper (probably /64) network.
Access points: There is no change here, except that they have real, globally routable addresses
Assignment of IPs. I'm not sure I understand the question. Perhaps the answer is that you can have several IP addresses on one network device.
Re rollover: You don't get to keep your address. Just change your DNS entries already -- this will be the big pain. You don't have to remap your internal network, as they will just pick up the new network prefix from the router advertisments.
Phones: That is outside what I know about. Perhaps there is a mobile IPv6 answer somewhere.
There is, I believe, no broadcast address in IPv6, and I never did figure out what the network addresses were about in IPv4. So I guess I am not helping.
Calm yourself.Router advertisements will be used for those purposes. They have worked fine for several years (that I know of), but of course they haven't been hammered the way DHCP servers would. They are, on the other hand, by design somewhat more robust. Anecdotally, our new printer in the office picked up the router advertisement from our router without any problems, as have all our computers except for the one where the user explicitly disabled IPv6. I have no knowledge about carrier grade (heh) equipment, but I'm guessing they are a few years ahead of printers in the routing department.
Currently with IPv4, "good case scenario" - home user plugs laptop to device from the ISP (or selects the device's SSID), and stuff works - DNS, gateways, netmasks, addresses all get set up automatically. Ask yourself what happens with an IPv6-only "good case" scenario?
That would be the same. User plugs in equipment, and all machines get a globally routeable IP address, routing and DNS. And above IPv4, there will be no need for setting up port forwarding.
Is all the tech there already?
For several years, yes, except the stuff that can only be shaken out in actual large-scale deployment.
If it isn't, then all the talk about "the world had 10 years to move" is bullshit.
Heh. As I said, calm yourself, this stuff has been ready for years and years.
That's like saying you had 10 years to move in to a house when they were still discussing part of the foundation's design in Nov 2010. Just because they successfully tested the mock up rooms and doors at their own test sites doesn't mean much.
Getting people to move from nothing to a shack is easy. But when they have a house that mostly works and is just a bit short of space, it is stupid to expect them to move to a building with lots of space but not ready.
Yes, fear of change is always a problem in such migrations. It is, however, a necessary thing to do, and the net will be a better place for it.
Sure, but it is now a corner case, for a few configurations, not the neigh-obligatory server it used to be.
IPv6 won't have DHCP servers for most people. DHCP6 is a for odd cornercases.
I use IPv6 (alas via a tunnel here). IPv6 gets rid of DHCP, which is nice, but also lets me ssh directly to any of my machines here. So I can ssh to my wife's machine to fix her machine (often that the old box has too much flash running), and git pull those changes I forgot to push from my home computer. Very convenient.
Honest question: Inside the firewall, what benefit is IPv6?
There are a number of benefits, mostly related to having a globally routeable IP address. E.g, if your company merges with another, there will be no need to reassign hosts or create bridges in the new, joined network. You also save the administration of internal IP addresses, the DHCP server, perhaps a print server.
For me, it means that when I work from home I can directly ssh to my work computer (started with wake-on-lan) if I need something from it. That makes it much easier to git pull/push changes, but I admit that is a bit of a cornercase).
I'd say that if your company runs openwrt or the like, switching to dualstack using a tunnel if necessary makes a lot of sense. Even if you set up the firewall to block non-related traffic (like NAT would do), but even more so if you don't.
Regarding the IPv6 "bugs"...Unless he's referring to the general issue of lack of anonymity built into IPv6 (due to unique IP addresses),
That would be wrong. Any IPv6 client I know of can generate addresses either from something static (the MAC-address of the network card, a fixed configuration or whatever) or an automatically and randomly generated string, giving you the same anonymity if you so desire. I believe win* defaults to the latter and linux to the former, but switching is easy.
Anyway, even with a statically configured computer you can always claim that someone else must have used that IP address/someone else used the computer.
While that method is effective on a few individuals, it doesn't scale well to 1000's of accounts.
Well, that's one solution. Not the prettiest, but it will likely work. (not the war, but famine)
That's why other people's children were invented. So you can try out how you like dealing with children.
You are right, sorry. Too early in the morning for correct English from me, it seems.
No, you are just seeing the effect of the "fear of change". Qt development will be slower paced without those payed developers, but it will still happen. Especially given that Qt is probably the best GUI x-platform toolkit presently available, and the best available in the linux world, with GTK as the closest runner-up to the best of my knowledge. What I fear most is that the win32/64 and OSX paths suffers, given that so few OS-developers use and intimately know those platforms.
It's LGPL. It can be forked at any time.
And yet, when those uses are pointed out to you, you protest. There are really a lot of reasons for a car to be without a driver at all, and even more for an inattentive driver. Drive at night, get some sleep! Do the crossword, catch up on mail.
How is processed sugar chemically different from the sugar in the plant it's extracted from?
It's not. In crystallized form, it is usually (at least in Europe) one of the disaccharids, usually sucrose, but as dissolving breaks it back down to fructose and glucose, I fail to see how it could impact anything.
Do you know? Or do you not even consider that?
I used to dabble in chemistry, and I have considered it.
There is a precedent. Saturated fat from natural sources contains no trans-fats, but saturated fat made by hydrogenating vegetable oils has significant trans-fats (trans-fats are deformed fat molecules that a cellular system, whether vegetable or animal, wouldn't produce, but bubbling hydrogen through a vat of fat doesn't have molecular-level geometric control of the production process). Saturated fat is not bad for you but trans-fats are.
Trans-fat are not deformed, it's just different. And unhealthy, I agree. Though now that there is focus on it, I believe that particular problem has been fixed.
So is there something about the production of sugar in concentrated form that chemically alters it so that it has poison in it? What is the altered chemical? Has it been detected in the concentrated sugar?
Around here, sugar is mostly extracted from sugar canes or sugar roes (sorry if I mistranslated that). And that is a simple extraction process, which doesn't alter anything except concentration. It's just cooked, and the sugar concentrated.
Now you are being silly. All humans put together use about 15TW (2004 number, I admit). The input from the sun is about 164 PW. That would be more than 10000 times more power than we currently use. I doubt many people manage to use up their allotted power by your books.
But in many airports you can actually pay to clear security fast. So maybe there would be a point.
Nah, that isn't patriotism, that's just envy.
NOT-INVENTED-HERE is a global phenomenon. Take diesel cars in the US. It is just human nature to resist anything new if it means giving up an existing skill-set.
Again, that will not work in Europe. Patriotism died with the second world war, I think, or maybe the 60's.
Kiddie porn, on the other hand, will work just dandidly :/
Hm. Here in Denmark, railroad traffic is highly subsidized, and road users pay a lot to buy the car and diesel/petrol. Yet, train is still more expensive and slower, at least for a group of 2 or more. On the up side, until they get the cars to drive themselves, you can hack on a train. I mean, you can do programming while sitting in a train.
Note that biggest the railroad company (DSB) couldn't get out of a wet paperbag of questionable quality with a pair of scissors and a sharp katana, but still.