It is much more stupid to throw developers (money) at a problem. Premature optimization is a problem many developers face. Write the code first, then optimize areas your profiling tools say are hotspots if you need more performance. Assembly is often overkill, even though it quite '1337.
I know, I mean, replace "GPL" code with "Proprietary" code and see if people start looking at this in a different way. Just because people are trying to foster a community around some code or share it in some way does not give them any less rights than any other type of software, except for the rights the voluntarily give up.
shame that it was released when it was - real opengl support on linux was just becoming a reality when q3a was released; I remembered messing for four hours trying to get my system to play it. Hard to sell a product when you have to go through those types of nightmares for setup.
I'd like to see hard numbers, but I agree. 90% of Office sales for windows are probably bundles or enterprise deployments (substantially reducing the profit from those sales). I'd be willing to bet that the Mac development team is also able to produce under a much smaller budget.
The 'feature' of.Net which annoys me the most is that Exceptions are no longer required to be caught (it's as if every exception type is a RuntimeException). They also therefore aren't required to be declared, either. Microsoft's own documentation does not tell you what exceptions are thrown, so you wind up finding when you deploy.
for example, System.Xml.XmlNamespaceManager sometimes gives you: a valid string string.Empty null or throws an (undocumented) exception. The valid string is the only result that is actually documented.
Its a bit more interesting to have end-to-end encryption - encrypting the client to server connection doesn't guarantee that messages are protected at any other hop in the path to the other client. You also have to trust the server installation(s) and administrator(s).
Finally, if you don't have a registered ($) SSL certificate for the server, it becomes (AFAIK) impossible to protect yourself against man-in-the-middle attacks.
You won't have the same ruler for everyone, but at least you are counting work done rather than effort put forth. I don't care if someone writes 10k lines of code vs. someone writing 800 lines - if both pieces of code meet the requirements for the system, and are maintainable. I'd probably prefer the 800 lines of code anyways, since that would usually be _more_ maintainable.
Blizzard really should have known this was coming. All of their games have huge buzz (as opposed to hype) surrounding them, and always with good reason. They knew there was a server out there that emulated their existing server, and they knew people would try to crack the wc3 beta to distribute it.
so.. why the hell did they not do anything about this technically? They could have easily changed part of the protocol, had wc3 use a version two of battle.net. Work _with_ bnetd to make sure it is not emulated within days. Perhaps use public key cryptography to distribute the key to unlock code present on the disk (or even perhaps code itself - they could have sent a single floppy per user as an unlock key if this is not feasable for size restrictions).
Even if they do not use such copy protections in the release, its still the old rule - if you do not allow consumers a way to get something they desire, they will find a way anyways. Being that they don't want this to happen (as it is a beta and not a release, they are testing instead of selling) - they should have taken extra precautions.
In the case where a judge decides that software must be public domain or on some contract basis, GPL'd software does not become open, but instead becomes non-distributable. Not really an issue, unless Microsoft decides this is a good way to stop this damn GPL virus from spreading:-)
Reference counting does not count as true garbage collection, because
1) it does not deal with cyclic references (such as you would get with a doubly-linked list, or with an Observer pattern)
2) most implementations require explicit programmer actions to keep track of the reference or mark something as freeable.
It also usually ranks equivalent in overall performance to mark & sweep, and significantly worse than some of the newer generational garbage collectors. The worst case for 'true' garbage collectors is usually worse though - garbage collection spreads its inefficiency across every reference operation, rather than operating at peak speed until memory runs out, then pausing for a bit to clean up.
You know, I sometimes wonder if copying is really immoral, or if we have been brought up to think so.
Limited protections against copying in a western, capitalistic society makes sense; you want to protect new ventures by providing them with protections against their work being taken and sold by a competitor without regards to the development costs.
However, I wonder if other cultures somewhere do not have this sort of mentality. I just wonder if in some societies and cultures, if one person would be considered immoral for wanting more rights to something they took part in making than everyone else?
I don't know the answer, I'm just curious of other's insights.
dude, the disk checker is called 'fsck', not 'fdisk'. The issue was that it did not save recent filesystem changes to disk before shutting down - no way possible to destroy a whole drive with that, only corrupt the recent files.
yes, but Java also has very few things which can execute asyncronously (looking forward to java.nio); which means that you need to make threads for *everything*. Its not uncommon to have two threads per socket to handle reading and writing blocks.
When you count all the synchronization which is happening between all these threads, as well as the sheer amount of context switching, memory usage and the number of processes which have to be scanned to find one capable of being accessed, you see one of many reasons people still use 'unsafe' languages.
Re:If you REALLY want gtk, check this.
on
GNU Emacs 21
·
· Score: 1
Actually, I think his changes are now merged into XEmacs proper.
What seems strange to me is that the Crusoe is x86 ISA compatible. THis must mean it's doing all the VLIW instruction packing on the fly. My guess is that's not gonna fly, ehhe. What's VLIW buying you in this case?
A bunch of things. Primarily, the heat and power loss associated with the hardware decoding logic implementation does not happen since this is implemented in software. Second, ignoring optimizations, the decoding only really needs to happen once.
Finally, being in software allows for really complex decoding logic (such as trying execution based on radical assumptions, failing, and retrying immediately without those assumptions) to be implemented much easier, and also allows for that logic to be updated easily in the case of a mistake.
The GPL does not take intellectual property into account at all - so what they are basically saying is that code is completely GPL, but that the technology underneath the code is patented and is only usable under a different set of terms.
I think that some people are going to wind up being upset here - these are two very different legal topics, and having a patent does not affect the use and protections by copyright.
Slashdot Mirror
It is much more stupid to throw developers (money) at a problem. Premature optimization is a problem many developers face. Write the code first, then optimize areas your profiling tools say are hotspots if you need more performance. Assembly is often overkill, even though it quite '1337.
The only real difference is that connecting CVS via SSH means that users require shell accounts.
When I hear 'new computer' I think 'new computer'. When I hear 'Dell' now, though, I think 'sawed-off shotgun'.
:-)
Great advertising campaign, there
I know, I mean, replace "GPL" code with "Proprietary" code and see if people start looking at this in a different way. Just because people are trying to foster a community around some code or share it in some way does not give them any less rights than any other type of software, except for the rights the voluntarily give up.
shame that it was released when it was - real opengl support on linux was just becoming a reality when q3a was released; I remembered messing for four hours trying to get my system to play it. Hard to sell a product when you have to go through those types of nightmares for setup.
Actually no - they changed it with Office XP (I know because everyone but my department upgraded, and it drives me totally mad)
I'd like to see hard numbers, but I agree. 90% of Office sales for windows are probably bundles or enterprise deployments (substantially reducing the profit from those sales). I'd be willing to bet that the Mac development team is also able to produce under a much smaller budget.
The 'feature' of .Net which annoys me the most is that Exceptions are no longer required to be caught (it's as if every exception type is a RuntimeException). They also therefore aren't required to be declared, either. Microsoft's own documentation does not tell you what exceptions are thrown, so you wind up finding when you deploy.
for example, System.Xml.XmlNamespaceManager sometimes gives you:
a valid string
string.Empty
null
or throws an (undocumented) exception. The valid string is the only result that is actually documented.
Its a bit more interesting to have end-to-end encryption - encrypting the client to server connection doesn't guarantee that messages are protected at any other hop in the path to the other client. You also have to trust the server installation(s) and administrator(s).
Finally, if you don't have a registered ($) SSL certificate for the server, it becomes (AFAIK) impossible to protect yourself against man-in-the-middle attacks.
You won't have the same ruler for everyone, but at least you are counting work done rather than effort put forth. I don't care if someone writes 10k lines of code vs. someone writing 800 lines - if both pieces of code meet the requirements for the system, and are maintainable. I'd probably prefer the 800 lines of code anyways, since that would usually be _more_ maintainable.
absolutely - for instance, every site which uses these things called 'hyperlinks' performs user actions with a single click.
Blizzard really should have known this was coming. All of their games have huge buzz (as opposed to hype) surrounding them, and always with good reason. They knew there was a server out there that emulated their existing server, and they knew people would try to crack the wc3 beta to distribute it.
so.. why the hell did they not do anything about this technically? They could have easily changed part of the protocol, had wc3 use a version two of battle.net. Work _with_ bnetd to make sure it is not emulated within days. Perhaps use public key cryptography to distribute the key to unlock code present on the disk (or even perhaps code itself - they could have sent a single floppy per user as an unlock key if this is not feasable for size restrictions).
Even if they do not use such copy protections in the release, its still the old rule - if you do not allow consumers a way to get something they desire, they will find a way anyways. Being that they don't want this to happen (as it is a beta and not a release, they are testing instead of selling) - they should have taken extra precautions.
There is an old saying, "Don't contribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence."
Sure, but what I (and probably several others) have slowly learned is that Microsoft is maliciously incompetent...
see http://www.w3.org/Signature/ for implementation
In the case where a judge decides that software must be public domain or on some contract basis, GPL'd software does not become open, but instead becomes non-distributable. Not really an issue, unless Microsoft decides this is a good way to stop this damn GPL virus from spreading :-)
Reference counting does not count as true garbage collection, because
1) it does not deal with cyclic references (such as you would get with a doubly-linked list, or with an Observer pattern)
2) most implementations require explicit programmer actions to keep track of the reference or mark something as freeable.
It also usually ranks equivalent in overall performance to mark & sweep, and significantly worse than some of the newer generational garbage collectors. The worst case for 'true' garbage collectors is usually worse though - garbage collection spreads its inefficiency across every reference operation, rather than operating at peak speed until memory runs out, then pausing for a bit to clean up.
You know, I sometimes wonder if copying is really immoral, or if we have been brought up to think so.
Limited protections against copying in a western, capitalistic society makes sense; you want to protect new ventures by providing them with protections against their work being taken and sold by a competitor without regards to the development costs.
However, I wonder if other cultures somewhere do not have this sort of mentality. I just wonder if in some societies and cultures, if one person would be considered immoral for wanting more rights to something they took part in making than everyone else?
I don't know the answer, I'm just curious of other's insights.
IE doesn't use native widgets, why should Mozilla?
(the native widgets don't provide all of the options needed for full CSS support)
dude, the disk checker is called 'fsck', not 'fdisk'. The issue was that it did not save recent filesystem changes to disk before shutting down - no way possible to destroy a whole drive with that, only corrupt the recent files.
yes, but Java also has very few things which can execute asyncronously (looking forward to java.nio); which means that you need to make threads for *everything*. Its not uncommon to have two threads per socket to handle reading and writing blocks.
When you count all the synchronization which is happening between all these threads, as well as the sheer amount of context switching, memory usage and the number of processes which have to be scanned to find one capable of being accessed, you see one of many reasons people still use 'unsafe' languages.
Actually, I think his changes are now merged into XEmacs proper.
What seems strange to me is that the Crusoe is x86 ISA compatible. THis must mean it's doing all the VLIW instruction packing on the fly. My guess is that's not gonna fly, ehhe. What's VLIW buying you in this case?
A bunch of things. Primarily, the heat and power loss associated with the hardware decoding logic implementation does not happen since this is implemented in software. Second, ignoring optimizations, the decoding only really needs to happen once.
Finally, being in software allows for really complex decoding logic (such as trying execution based on radical assumptions, failing, and retrying immediately without those assumptions) to be implemented much easier, and also allows for that logic to be updated easily in the case of a mistake.
this sounds more like X windows freezing when netscape crashes.
Its a slave USB device anyways, though. What would you connect it to besides your PC?
The GPL does not take intellectual property into account at all - so what they are basically saying is that code is completely GPL, but that the technology underneath the code is patented and is only usable under a different set of terms.
I think that some people are going to wind up being upset here - these are two very different legal topics, and having a patent does not affect the use and protections by copyright.
Solution? Don't allow algorithms to be patented!