After I read "AIX is irrelavant," I read a little further, hoping to find the necessary justification for such a statement. When I didn't find it, I stopped reading. I appreciate the point he's trying to make, but randomly firing shots across IBM's bow doesn't so much aid his argument as reveal a gross personal bias.
That said, perhaps GCC doesn't need to support AIX, when much better alternatives (VAC/XLC) exist. Anyone who can pony up the dough for a nice POWER box can probably ought to pitch for a good compiler too.:) Even in Linux, XLC will run circles around GCC. But then, that all goes back to the question of GCC's purpose in life . . . broad support, or good performance. I'm not convinced you can have both, and I don't think there's any real middleground between them.
Re:loud clickety click...
on
Blank Keyboard
·
· Score: 0
"I looked at the first one and realized it's sophisticated enough to need to look at the source first."
Exactly the point of the test, I should think. Given that the average user isn't likely to look at source, or perhaps may not even know how to look at source, asking to judge what is a phish and what isn't purely by visual inspection helps to highlight why it is these things so often work against the unsophisticated computer user.
Slashdot Mirror
After I read "AIX is irrelavant," I read a little further, hoping to find the necessary justification for such a statement. When I didn't find it, I stopped reading. I appreciate the point he's trying to make, but randomly firing shots across IBM's bow doesn't so much aid his argument as reveal a gross personal bias. That said, perhaps GCC doesn't need to support AIX, when much better alternatives (VAC/XLC) exist. Anyone who can pony up the dough for a nice POWER box can probably ought to pitch for a good compiler too. :) Even in Linux, XLC will run circles around GCC. But then, that all goes back to the question of GCC's purpose in life . . . broad support, or good performance. I'm not convinced you can have both, and I don't think there's any real middleground between them.
Best. Keyboard. Ever.
"I looked at the first one and realized it's sophisticated enough to need to look at the source first."
Exactly the point of the test, I should think. Given that the average user isn't likely to look at source, or perhaps may not even know how to look at source, asking to judge what is a phish and what isn't purely by visual inspection helps to highlight why it is these things so often work against the unsophisticated computer user.