The idea is cute, but if you're going to rely even partly on a hash, you should at least use a reasonably strong hash. Base it on HMAC(SHA-256), where the secret code is stored as a 256-bit hash and used as the key for the HMAC, hashing the minutes.
Re:Boost epitomizes everything that is wrong with
on
Boost 1.36 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Boost targets implementations which actually implement the C++ standard, not subsets of the standard for embedded purposes. The whole point of Boost's advanced functionality is that templates are the only way to express it in C++, short of implementing an actual metalanguage on top of C++, which would be even more heavyweight and incompatible.
The first that came to mind for me was Zelda, where you also get regular free hearts so you virtually never need to bring a potion. And this feature has been in EVERY Zelda since the very beginning, so it's hilarious watching these developers act so clueless when hyping up their "innovation".
That whole area has been a military hotspot for a long time, so it's entirely reasonable that Russia would have armies within spitting distance. Russia has the world's largest border to defend, so do you really think that all of the armies are chilling in camps far away from the actual threats?
Why was this marked troll? Systems which prefer to distribute under a BSD license cannot include GPL code, just like how the GPL'd Linux cannot include the extra restrictions of CDDL code.
Virtual machines have their own [very fast] BIOS and bootloader. The only exception is when you run a Linux kernel from an intelligent tool like QEMU/KVM or Xen which can load a kernel from the host and inject it into the virtual machine to boot the guest.
The fact remains that real devices have warmup sequences which cannot be altogether avoided. The closest the world has come to VM-like booting is LinuxBIOS, which cuts down the device initialisation to the point that Linux can boot on top almost instantly, just like in a virtual machine.
Re:2008 - The Desktop Linux Dream Is Dead
on
OSCON 2008 Roundup
·
· Score: 1
WTF? "update" only retrieves the package lists, which cannot ruin anything even theoretically. "dist-upgrade" is a bit of a risk but if you're using official repositories and the stable branch, you'd have to try really hard to break something. Either way, it's hardly Debian's fault.
If you knew anything about Unix nomenclature, you'd know the number in a man is just the section. And if you'd read "man man" as all good geeks should, you'd have all the sections spelled out.
1 Executable programs or shell commands
2 System calls (functions provided by the kernel)
3 Library calls (functions within program libraries)
4 Special files (usually found in/dev)
5 File formats and conventions eg/etc/passwd
6 Games
7 Miscellaneous (including macro packages and conventions), e.g. man(7), groff(7)
8 System administration commands (usually only for root)
9 Kernel routines [Non standard]
You're right, my example about diagnostic messages was a bad one. Nevertheless I've had dodgy hardware that produced regular messages on Linux and even BSDs, and while I didn't file a bug for it, I can see how somebody else would. Diagnostic messages are there for a reason, and it's usually your hardware's fault if they're flowing too thick.
There's a big difference between a release-critical bug (one that would basically ruin a whole release for everyone) and an annoyance (such as spewing diagnostic messages under certain circumstances on certain hardware).
Ubuntu has stuck to its schedules by releasing with plenty of release-critical bugs still in the air, and fixing most of them in post-release updates. That's cool for getting a release out there, but it basically makes every official release feel like an RC1.
Way to clutch at straws. Having fragmentation-reducing features that don't work doesn't achieve anything. NTFS still fragments much much much more than even ext3, or even Berkeley FFS, a file system older than most Slashdotters.
Linux distributions choosing a conservative (but still good) file system by default is a good thing. If you want to optimize for a specific device or workload, you CAN. In Windows, you're absolutely stuck if NTFS doesn't suit your needs, and this whole article is a wonderful example. I really don't understand why you're even bothering to argue this point.
Yes, in ideal conditions NTFS performs close enough. In real-world use it fragments like a dropped wine glass. Performance goes right out the window when as simple a thing as a 20GB VM image is split all over the disk.
Sure, Mandriva, but Mandrake doesn't exist except for the versions released prior to the name change. I highly doubt those effectively use modern hardware, if they even boot to graphical login.
I don't know if you're blatantly lying or just very misinformed.
Let's take age and revisions first. Ext2 was introduced to Linux in January 1993. NTFS was introduced to Windows in July 1993 (in NT 3.1). So your implication that NTFS is much older than ext is nonsense.
I made no such implication. ext is the "tried and true" general purpose Linux file system, while Linux has MANY other filesystems in-tree and out-of-tree which are optimized to other workloads, including flash and SSD storage. And all of that is built on workload-optimized disk schedulers and what is overall the fastest block device layer to date.
You say that there have been "only minor" revisions to NTFS in comparison to ext2. Ext2 has in fact had only one (stable) revision, ext3, and it introduced only one new feature, journalling (something NTFS has had from the start). Various new revisions of NTFS, on the other hand, have added: transparent compression, named streams, disk quotas, filesystem-level encryption, sparse files, reparse points, update sequence number journaling, $Extend, distributed link tracking, and atomic transactioning, among others.
Virtually none of which have improved its performance or reduced its fragmentation. Practice reading.
You say "Vista still uses the same basic NTFS layout and associated algorithms that were finalised around 10 years ago" -- conventiently not mentioning that that that 'ten-year-old layout policy' uses a number of modern layout features, such as extents, that have also still not yet found their way into mainstream Linux (ext4 and Reiser4 both support them, but neither are yet out of beta; neither ext3 nor ReiserFS 3 do). Directory contents in NTFS, incidentally, is stored as a B+ tree, which is the same structure that ReiserFS uses due to its scalability.
And it still performs like ass. Nothing you've said has disproven that.
It's more like Vista's disk scheduler and disk usage patterns are complete incompetent on modern hardware.
While Linux has modern filesystems and gets optimized and fixed almost constantly, Windows Vista still uses the same basic NTFS layout and associated algorithms that were finalised around 10 years ago, and weren't even very good back then. There have been only very minor revisions to NTFS and virtually none of them have improved its performance or reduced its fragmentation.
If that even worked, you'd inherit all the debts as well. If they were willing to give you a billion or so to relieve them of the debts, it means the debts are much more than the billion.
FreeBSD changes its APIs in every major version, so you're supporting my argument by naming it as a fast operating system. Even then, the developers regularly admit that the USB stack still sucks, for instance. Not enough gets fixed.
What do you mean, which benchmarks does Linux top? Which ones doesn't it top? SMP scalability has been leading since 2.6, and the closest free software contender is FreeBSD 7, released years later. Most of the leading Internet2 LSR records are Linux, maxing out network hardware. http://www.internet2.edu/lsr/history.html
Linux DOMINATES the high-end SMP space. Windows barely makes an appearance at all. Windows doesn't even/boot/ on advanced processors like the Cell. BSD does, but has no support for any of the coprocessors.
"Other OSes" don't achieve these feats, and those that come close have this API flexibility requirement as well. All of the evidence supports my argument, and the Linux developers at large agree.
Yes, and it's the only remotely mainstream OS that's absurdly fast on almost everything it does. It regularly tops benchmarks, micro and macro. It releases new working features faster than every other operating system combined, while still remaining very stable in vendor enterprise releases. A large part of that is because the developers have the freedom to improve APIs and in-kernel libraries whenever required.
Ubuntu releases are numbered by their date too, including very specifically the year and month. Point releases like 8.04.1 don't refer to days or weeks though, but increments on top of the year.month system.
The nicknames are just for non-geeks. I think they really messed up with Intrepid Ibex, the first time I've preferred to call it $noun instead of $adjective, usually saying Gutsy or Hardy or whatever.
Summary: Being able to improve the API regularly keeps Linux largely free of legacy cruft that slows down the development and runtime performance of other systems like Windows. That's why Linux maxes out hardware that runs like a dog under Windows.
The fact remains that Twilight Princess, no shorter or simpler than any modern Final Fantasy, sold millions of copies on the Wii after already selling millions of copies on Gamecube. If Twilight Princess can do it, certainly a Final Fantasy can.
But I agree that the technical limitations of the Wii itself guarantee that any Final Fantasy at this point would look like a step back from the PS3 offering. That's good enough for a remake (FF6 anyone?) but it'd hardly be the right fit for FF13.
I noticed the same thing on Windows 2000, and I found out it was because that color, which is copied exactly into the Paint instance during a screenshot, becomes transparent on the video card.
Actually, a lot of legacy image formats did that too, before widespread ARGB use became viable. Instead of having arbitrary levels of transparency, a specific color would be chosen and saved in the image file, and this color is excluded from the bitblt that draws the image.
Yes, and XVideo is still much better than Windows' overlay. I'd be the last to defend X itself. I've looked in the source. Global event arrays and select() are used as the core of the entire XFree/XOrg implementation. Enough said.
Slashdot Mirror
The idea is cute, but if you're going to rely even partly on a hash, you should at least use a reasonably strong hash. Base it on HMAC(SHA-256), where the secret code is stored as a 256-bit hash and used as the key for the HMAC, hashing the minutes.
Boost targets implementations which actually implement the C++ standard, not subsets of the standard for embedded purposes. The whole point of Boost's advanced functionality is that templates are the only way to express it in C++, short of implementing an actual metalanguage on top of C++, which would be even more heavyweight and incompatible.
The first that came to mind for me was Zelda, where you also get regular free hearts so you virtually never need to bring a potion. And this feature has been in EVERY Zelda since the very beginning, so it's hilarious watching these developers act so clueless when hyping up their "innovation".
That whole area has been a military hotspot for a long time, so it's entirely reasonable that Russia would have armies within spitting distance. Russia has the world's largest border to defend, so do you really think that all of the armies are chilling in camps far away from the actual threats?
...By being an OpenGL wrapper...
Why was this marked troll? Systems which prefer to distribute under a BSD license cannot include GPL code, just like how the GPL'd Linux cannot include the extra restrictions of CDDL code.
Virtual machines have their own [very fast] BIOS and bootloader. The only exception is when you run a Linux kernel from an intelligent tool like QEMU/KVM or Xen which can load a kernel from the host and inject it into the virtual machine to boot the guest.
The fact remains that real devices have warmup sequences which cannot be altogether avoided. The closest the world has come to VM-like booting is LinuxBIOS, which cuts down the device initialisation to the point that Linux can boot on top almost instantly, just like in a virtual machine.
WTF? "update" only retrieves the package lists, which cannot ruin anything even theoretically. "dist-upgrade" is a bit of a risk but if you're using official repositories and the stable branch, you'd have to try really hard to break something. Either way, it's hardly Debian's fault.
If you knew anything about Unix nomenclature, you'd know the number in a man is just the section. And if you'd read "man man" as all good geeks should, you'd have all the sections spelled out.
1 Executable programs or shell commands /dev) /etc/passwd
2 System calls (functions provided by the kernel)
3 Library calls (functions within program libraries)
4 Special files (usually found in
5 File formats and conventions eg
6 Games
7 Miscellaneous (including macro packages and conventions), e.g. man(7), groff(7)
8 System administration commands (usually only for root)
9 Kernel routines [Non standard]
You're right, my example about diagnostic messages was a bad one. Nevertheless I've had dodgy hardware that produced regular messages on Linux and even BSDs, and while I didn't file a bug for it, I can see how somebody else would. Diagnostic messages are there for a reason, and it's usually your hardware's fault if they're flowing too thick.
There's a big difference between a release-critical bug (one that would basically ruin a whole release for everyone) and an annoyance (such as spewing diagnostic messages under certain circumstances on certain hardware).
Ubuntu has stuck to its schedules by releasing with plenty of release-critical bugs still in the air, and fixing most of them in post-release updates. That's cool for getting a release out there, but it basically makes every official release feel like an RC1.
Way to clutch at straws. Having fragmentation-reducing features that don't work doesn't achieve anything. NTFS still fragments much much much more than even ext3, or even Berkeley FFS, a file system older than most Slashdotters.
Linux distributions choosing a conservative (but still good) file system by default is a good thing. If you want to optimize for a specific device or workload, you CAN. In Windows, you're absolutely stuck if NTFS doesn't suit your needs, and this whole article is a wonderful example. I really don't understand why you're even bothering to argue this point.
Yes, in ideal conditions NTFS performs close enough. In real-world use it fragments like a dropped wine glass. Performance goes right out the window when as simple a thing as a 20GB VM image is split all over the disk.
Sure, Mandriva, but Mandrake doesn't exist except for the versions released prior to the name change. I highly doubt those effectively use modern hardware, if they even boot to graphical login.
I don't know if you're blatantly lying or just very misinformed.
Let's take age and revisions first. Ext2 was introduced to Linux in January 1993. NTFS was introduced to Windows in July 1993 (in NT 3.1). So your implication that NTFS is much older than ext is nonsense.
I made no such implication. ext is the "tried and true" general purpose Linux file system, while Linux has MANY other filesystems in-tree and out-of-tree which are optimized to other workloads, including flash and SSD storage. And all of that is built on workload-optimized disk schedulers and what is overall the fastest block device layer to date.
You say that there have been "only minor" revisions to NTFS in comparison to ext2. Ext2 has in fact had only one (stable) revision, ext3, and it introduced only one new feature, journalling (something NTFS has had from the start). Various new revisions of NTFS, on the other hand, have added: transparent compression, named streams, disk quotas, filesystem-level encryption, sparse files, reparse points, update sequence number journaling, $Extend, distributed link tracking, and atomic transactioning, among others.
Virtually none of which have improved its performance or reduced its fragmentation. Practice reading.
You say "Vista still uses the same basic NTFS layout and associated algorithms that were finalised around 10 years ago" -- conventiently not mentioning that that that 'ten-year-old layout policy' uses a number of modern layout features, such as extents, that have also still not yet found their way into mainstream Linux (ext4 and Reiser4 both support them, but neither are yet out of beta; neither ext3 nor ReiserFS 3 do). Directory contents in NTFS, incidentally, is stored as a B+ tree, which is the same structure that ReiserFS uses due to its scalability.
And it still performs like ass. Nothing you've said has disproven that.
It's more like Vista's disk scheduler and disk usage patterns are complete incompetent on modern hardware.
While Linux has modern filesystems and gets optimized and fixed almost constantly, Windows Vista still uses the same basic NTFS layout and associated algorithms that were finalised around 10 years ago, and weren't even very good back then. There have been only very minor revisions to NTFS and virtually none of them have improved its performance or reduced its fragmentation.
Mandrake? Using RPM directly? 1998 called, they want their distribution back.
If that even worked, you'd inherit all the debts as well. If they were willing to give you a billion or so to relieve them of the debts, it means the debts are much more than the billion.
Good luck with that :)
FreeBSD changes its APIs in every major version, so you're supporting my argument by naming it as a fast operating system. Even then, the developers regularly admit that the USB stack still sucks, for instance. Not enough gets fixed.
What do you mean, which benchmarks does Linux top? Which ones doesn't it top? SMP scalability has been leading since 2.6, and the closest free software contender is FreeBSD 7, released years later. Most of the leading Internet2 LSR records are Linux, maxing out network hardware. http://www.internet2.edu/lsr/history.html
Linux DOMINATES the high-end SMP space. Windows barely makes an appearance at all. Windows doesn't even /boot/ on advanced processors like the Cell. BSD does, but has no support for any of the coprocessors.
"Other OSes" don't achieve these feats, and those that come close have this API flexibility requirement as well. All of the evidence supports my argument, and the Linux developers at large agree.
Yes, and it's the only remotely mainstream OS that's absurdly fast on almost everything it does. It regularly tops benchmarks, micro and macro. It releases new working features faster than every other operating system combined, while still remaining very stable in vendor enterprise releases. A large part of that is because the developers have the freedom to improve APIs and in-kernel libraries whenever required.
Ubuntu releases are numbered by their date too, including very specifically the year and month. Point releases like 8.04.1 don't refer to days or weeks though, but increments on top of the year.month system.
The nicknames are just for non-geeks. I think they really messed up with Intrepid Ibex, the first time I've preferred to call it $noun instead of $adjective, usually saying Gutsy or Hardy or whatever.
http://lxr.linux.no/linux/Documentation/stable_api_nonsense.txt
Summary: Being able to improve the API regularly keeps Linux largely free of legacy cruft that slows down the development and runtime performance of other systems like Windows. That's why Linux maxes out hardware that runs like a dog under Windows.
The fact remains that Twilight Princess, no shorter or simpler than any modern Final Fantasy, sold millions of copies on the Wii after already selling millions of copies on Gamecube. If Twilight Princess can do it, certainly a Final Fantasy can.
But I agree that the technical limitations of the Wii itself guarantee that any Final Fantasy at this point would look like a step back from the PS3 offering. That's good enough for a remake (FF6 anyone?) but it'd hardly be the right fit for FF13.
I noticed the same thing on Windows 2000, and I found out it was because that color, which is copied exactly into the Paint instance during a screenshot, becomes transparent on the video card.
Actually, a lot of legacy image formats did that too, before widespread ARGB use became viable. Instead of having arbitrary levels of transparency, a specific color would be chosen and saved in the image file, and this color is excluded from the bitblt that draws the image.
Yes, and XVideo is still much better than Windows' overlay. I'd be the last to defend X itself. I've looked in the source. Global event arrays and select() are used as the core of the entire XFree/XOrg implementation. Enough said.