Sorry, I wasn't thinking of you personally, but of posts in general. Also, it would be difficult to release closed-source binary drivers for each kernel version, but on the other hand, kernel developers can write drivers if given the specs.
If by average you mean mean, then just the total time by 25 (the number of websites, but you seem more concerned with the spread of times, or standard deviation.
No, you are asking police to identify facts as they pertain to law. They seek, for example, to discover if a suspect committed a certain act or acts. Once the facts are established, the legal status of those acts is to be identified by the courts, although the courts also deal with matters of fact.
How about/,/home,/boot,/usr,/var,/usr/local,/tmp,...? Also,/dev/hda3 is more informative than c: from a hardware perspective.
If you need the hardware names, go look in/etc/fstab. By the way, how do different drive letters match hda1, hda2, etc, assuming that one has partitioned the disk in such a way?
As for why one would want to do that, imagine having/home as a separate partition. No need to make backups of your/home partition when upgrading, just don't reformat/home.
Firstly it's pretty common that X (or rather common login programs for X) will refuse root.
Not on OpenSuSe 11.0. It let me log in as root, but gave a warning (in GNOME, not KDE4). I do miss the days when the X background as root was an array of bombs.
That's not likely to be much of an issue in Powershell. Since the whole thing runs on.NET, the shell and the commandlets share the same idea about how data is represented anyway...
The point is, though, that there are always ways in which an add-on module can be mismatched to the environment in which it's supposed to run. At the shell you could have a binary compiled for the wrong platform, or linked to the wrong standard library.
I assume that Microsoft could get this right for its own software, and put pressure on other software vendors to conform (although many failed to deal with user data properly in their WinXP releases).
These binary modules would all follow an API defined by the shell governing how they take data in and write data out
And what of programs that don't follow this?
The data objects being read and written would similarly follow a few basic rules - a common mechanism for memory management and method invocation, some mandatory methods (like the one used to display the object on-screen as text), and so on.
So Eric Raymond's warning about having programs know too much of each others internal workings means nothing to you? How would one get the data objects? From the shell? Or from programs written in a zillion languages? You expect some common mandatory methods, even from data objects in languages without OO?
It seems to me that you require a great deal of coordination between your shell and executables. How would you achieve this? Would the shell be able to deal with any executable? Or would programmers in other languages be expected to conform to the shell? The former seems difficult enough, but achieving the latter would be as easy as herding molecules.
The problem you face is political rather than technical. Microsoft might be able to exert enough pressure to achieve such a shell. For one thing, it can make.NET the official platform of Microsoft Windows. But even if the Mono project could clone.NET perfectly, it could not thereby make Mono the official platform of Linux.
You could as easily ask "what if Python's assumptions about the format of classes doesn't match the assumptions made in this compiled Python module?" It represents a failure to build the module properly for the environment in which it'll run.
Of course, in Python I might have access to the source from which it was compiled. Hoe much of the source to Powershell is available?
You say that you want programs to communicate better with each other, better in what way? It may be that Powershell can do what you want in Windows, but this may be because Windows supports such a shell. The problem in writing such a shell for Unix is that the OS itself may lack features to support it. Indeed, if Eric Raymond is correct, Unix was designed not to support such features.
Powershell provides a powerful set of baseline assumptions for the format of data over the pipe - and so both the shell itself and commandlets running in the shell can take advantage of these assumptions.
But what if the assumptions are wrong?
And does Powershell have assumptions about every file type? Does it grok TeX/LaTeX dvi files?
Also, Unix users don't want the shell to be one huge all-encompassing language.
Slashdot Mirror
You are correct. Using gcc on ARM involves more than flipping a switch, as there are some 40 options with -marm.
Also, Linux runs on architecture that are unsupported by Windows and MacOS. If it is equally easily to port stuff, why haven;t they done so?
So does 3.0.4-3.1.
Sorry, I wasn't thinking of you personally, but of posts in general. Also, it would be difficult to release closed-source binary drivers for each kernel version, but on the other hand, kernel developers can write drivers if given the specs.
What is a nonconsole text editor, and what makes it so?
If by average you mean mean, then just the total time by 25 (the number of websites, but you seem more concerned with the spread of times, or standard deviation.
No, you are asking police to identify facts as they pertain to law. They seek, for example, to discover if a suspect committed a certain act or acts. Once the facts are established, the legal status of those acts is to be identified by the courts, although the courts also deal with matters of fact.
Police may have to interpret events, but this different from interpreting law.
Welcome to slashdot, Your Holiness! :-)
But it is Linux's fault if a piece of hardware isn't supported in Linux.
If you go with hda3 or somesuch,
How about /, /home, /boot, /usr, /var, /usr/local, /tmp, ...? Also, /dev/hda3 is more informative than c: from a hardware perspective.
If you need the hardware names, go look in /etc/fstab. By the way, how do different drive letters match hda1, hda2, etc, assuming that one has partitioned the disk in such a way?
As for why one would want to do that, imagine having /home as a separate partition. No need to make backups of your /home partition when upgrading, just don't reformat /home.
Logo has rather simple syntax. Why would you spend more time teaching it than the implementation?
What about taking minutes of the meeting on a laptop? I did that for a while, and nobody complained.
They might as well declare war on the Nyquist-Shannon theorem.
Is it a weapon of mass reproduction?
Firstly it's pretty common that X (or rather common login programs for X) will refuse root.
Not on OpenSuSe 11.0. It let me log in as root, but gave a warning (in GNOME, not KDE4). I do miss the days when the X background as root was an array of bombs.
Then why are you condoning their hypocrisy by calling them (fetal-rights activists) "pro-life"?
In hindsight I should have modded as redundant the mandatory:
Install Linux
which is inexplicably modded +5 something.
Inexplicable? Pro-Linux claim gets modded +5 on Slashdot, what is there to explain? Or are you saying that the moderation is unjustified?
He's just pining for the fjords of Norway!
By that standard, using \psplot in PSTricks would also count. Oops.
That's not likely to be much of an issue in Powershell. Since the whole thing runs on .NET, the shell and the commandlets share the same idea about how data is represented anyway...
The point is, though, that there are always ways in which an add-on module can be mismatched to the environment in which it's supposed to run. At the shell you could have a binary compiled for the wrong platform, or linked to the wrong standard library.
I assume that Microsoft could get this right for its own software, and put pressure on other software vendors to conform (although many failed to deal with user data properly in their WinXP releases).
These binary modules would all follow an API defined by the shell governing how they take data in and write data out
And what of programs that don't follow this?
The data objects being read and written would similarly follow a few basic rules - a common mechanism for memory management and method invocation, some mandatory methods (like the one used to display the object on-screen as text), and so on.
So Eric Raymond's warning about having programs know too much of each others internal workings means nothing to you? How would one get the data objects? From the shell? Or from programs written in a zillion languages? You expect some common mandatory methods, even from data objects in languages without OO?
It seems to me that you require a great deal of coordination between your shell and executables. How would you achieve this? Would the shell be able to deal with any executable? Or would programmers in other languages be expected to conform to the shell? The former seems difficult enough, but achieving the latter would be as easy as herding molecules.
The problem you face is political rather than technical. Microsoft might be able to exert enough pressure to achieve such a shell. For one thing, it can make .NET the official platform of Microsoft Windows. But even if the Mono project could clone .NET perfectly, it could not thereby make Mono the official platform of Linux.
You could as easily ask "what if Python's assumptions about the format of classes doesn't match the assumptions made in this compiled Python module?" It represents a failure to build the module properly for the environment in which it'll run.
Of course, in Python I might have access to the source from which it was compiled. Hoe much of the source to Powershell is available?
You say that you want programs to communicate better with each other, better in what way? It may be that Powershell can do what you want in Windows, but this may be because Windows supports such a shell. The problem in writing such a shell for Unix is that the OS itself may lack features to support it. Indeed, if Eric Raymond is correct, Unix was designed not to support such features.
What? Just a CD, not a DVD?
Is he counting DC?
That would depend on where you are in Colorado. I don't believe that too many would drive from Durango (SW part of the state) just to slap people.
Powershell provides a powerful set of baseline assumptions for the format of data over the pipe - and so both the shell itself and commandlets running in the shell can take advantage of these assumptions.
But what if the assumptions are wrong?
And does Powershell have assumptions about every file type? Does it grok TeX/LaTeX dvi files?
Also, Unix users don't want the shell to be one huge all-encompassing language.
What executable code is in
\documentclass{book}
\begin{document}
Hello, World!
\end{document}
?
I've used LaTeX for quite some time, and I don't recall ever embedding executable code in it.