If you have not had vista BSOD, then all that means is your hardware is exceptionally well built and defect free, and that none of your components have resource conflicts with any others. My guess is your PC is OEM manufactured, likely by Dell, and is on the lower end of the spectrum (under $800 base system, that maybe you added a nice video card and some extra RAM to)
Vista may not BSOD on you, but I bet you have frequent application crashes... I don't typically go more than a few days without an application bombing out, my desktop refreshing from an explorer crash, my printer loosing connection, or an app just hanging and needing to be killed by task manager.
Sure, memory leaks may be a thing of the past, and generally when an app bombs, the machine stays up... My Mac has had those features for 6 years!
This sort of shit is still getting +5s? I thought better of slashdot these days.
I can't remember the last time I had an application crash in Vista. I'd no fan of windows, but this is just pure FUD.
Please be kind enough and show us something that has an open protocol, works as p2p, not proprietary, has 12 million people online and is not being blocked/traffic shaped by your ISP ?
Please. Skype has to publish which ports it uses so that people can get it working with SOCKS and so forth (there are five of them, I can't remember the numbers off the top of my head but they're out there on the internet). That's all you'd need to start traffic shaping.
Putting you life out on the web will come to haunt you. The only time that it does not is if you are a ' clean cut white bread never swears drinks smokes' type of person. And really that just makes you boring as hell:D
Actually I'd rather have that kind of thing out there on the web. It saves me from the prospect of being employed by a company who doesn't want its workers to actually have lives.
I want immersion. The way WoWâ(TM)s world is just some immutable scenario ruined immersion to me.
Because having world-scale effects is a definite part of real life for you?
Re:research to application life cycle
on
LHC Success!
·
· Score: 1
The cycle will stay the same, if not get longer, because human lifespans are getting longer. It usually takes people who've grown up with the new maths being accepted fact and taught to them to apply it to physics; the nice way to see it would be to say it takes that long for us to learn how to teach it, the less nice would be to say that the old folks holding on to their discredited pet theory hold everyone back.
Countries are already starting to use WiMax and no doubt when the problems around scaling it are fixed, this will be a much more cost effective (and far less disruptive) approach than cutting more trenches just to lay fibre to the home).
Haha. "Fixed", yeah, that's a good one. By its very nature that sort of wireless networking *will* *not* *scale*, and this is a fact of life, not something you can just wait for the techs to find a solution to. People have been saying there'll be ubiquitous wireless internet that'll make traditional wiring obsolete for ten years now, and we're no closer to that now than we were then, because wireless is all one big shared medium. Besides, even for A-to-B with noone else around, the state of the art wireless is and always will be two orders of magnitude slower than the state-of-the-art wired. (And that shouldn't surprise anyone with even a basic knowledge of physics)
Re:We need to go in the other direction
on
Chrome Vs. IE 8
·
· Score: 1
*shrug*. I've come to expect all manner of instability and other problems from the Kubuntu KDE packages, but SuSE normally does a good job. Guess all I can say is, not my experience.
Any x86 CPU you can buy at retail for at least the past three years IS a RISC CPU.
That's like saying anyone you can thote for these days IS a democrat, because they all adopted the dem polocies of 50 years ago. The CPU is x86; how its internals work are up to it, and in many ways are more similar to the pre-RISC microcode machines than classical RISC.
there's not a single thing you can do with an x86 that can't be done on another architecture with similar hardware
How about run fast?
and most likely cleaner and better
That doesn't matter anymore. The internals may be a mess, but only CPU engineers have to care about that. The insturction set may have some horrendous quirks, but only compiler writers have to care about that. Face it, the architecture wars are over and x86 has won.
$50 million worth of R&D into any CPU design, architecture or instruction set will produce a roughly equivalent speedup.
Sure, but how many million would it take to make MIPS competitive with x86, at this stage? And who's ever going to spend it?
It's ALL about money. It's always about money.
Of course it is. The fact is that, regardless of the cleaner, better design, non-x86 architectures are noneconomical.
And yes I know about ARM; it's a matter of time for it too. It's just that it has a big head start from being in a market x86 didn't really compete in.
Re:We need to go in the other direction
on
Chrome Vs. IE 8
·
· Score: 1
With Konqueror, it is quite unstable, doesn't work with the bank sites I use (javascript issues, opera had a problem with less bank sites too related to javascript), my system would end up becoming less responsive after having many windows and tabs open when compared to FF3.
Hmm, that's the precise opposite of my experience. Are you using (K)ubuntu's KDE, or KDE4, or something?
Start? It seems to be on already. My copy of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles would only play at pretty low res on my computer with my legitimate software player (presumably because I was using an analogue monitor). (So of course I ripped it, so that I can play at full quality, and having gone to that effort I might as well give my friends copies...but that's for another time)
The same question was asked about electrons before them - after all, they don't behave like point particles (e.g. they diffract). Ultimately, there are no answers - QM is just too divorced from human experience.
They can't be seen or isolated, but we know the reasons why we can't do that. They can only be traced insofar as we observe the particles they make up, like this one. So it's rather like asking whether the electromagnetic field is real - we can't observe it directly, but it simplifies our theories a lot.
Whether that's good enough is up to you. You're never going to be able to separate out a quark and hold it in your hand, but it makes one's life a lot easier to treat it as if it were real, and all the measurements that we can make give the results we would expect if it was real.
Re:We need to go in the other direction
on
Chrome Vs. IE 8
·
· Score: 1
Rather than waiting for Chrome, why not try Opera or Konqueror?
I use an ASUS A730W as my portable media player - it wasn't noticably more expensive, and occasionally the ability to browse the web or IRC from it comes in handy. If these USB key movies become popular, there's no reason people couldn't use similar devices to play them portably.
It always seems like everyone I know knows limited flash writes aren't a problem any more. Except for those who've actually tried to run a system off a flash drive.
That's directly contradictory to what the md documentation says; if a read fails it will rewrite it, then attempt to read it again, and only then fail the drive if that fails.
He said 'other nix os's' not 'Linux'. The GPL may be incompatible with the CDDL, but the BSDL isn't, and bits of Solaris, such as ZFS and DTrace, have found their way into FreeBSD.
FreeBSD licensing always seems very schizophrenic, or just unreasoningly anti-GPL - they're happy to include code with many more restrictive GPL-like licenses, even binary blobs on occasion, and then they'll fight tooth and nail to remove GPLed code from the system.
Saying the CDDL is incompatible with the GPL is misleading - the CDDL doesn't say anything about code not explicitly released under it. It is the GPL which imposes constraints on third-party code.
You're being very misleading - the CDDL applies restrictions to derivative works, just like the GPL - if it didn't, you could make your added code GPL and combine them with ease, like is done with BSD-licensed code all the time. In fact the reason the CDDL and GPL are incompatible is that they both have essentially the same restrictions. Incompatible goes both ways in this case, and neither license is any more to blame than the other.
Where's the broken? No, really. I'm writing this from my lvm-over-md setup, 120mb/s read speeds (and I haven't done any settings tuning). What's the problem?
I haven't tried ZFS, because as I understand it can't do raid5-like parity (I don't quite feel I have the spare diskspace for mirroring), so I can easily believe it might have advantages, but there's not a whole lot *wrong* with the linux model that I can see.
No, they took a random sample of malware, and found that 2% of it was on blogger, and performed a perfectly valid statistical extrapolation. You're looking at it from the wrong angle; they didn't go and count up all the malware on blogger and say "ooh, this sounds like about 2% to me"
I'm sorry, but you don't understand scheduling if you think that such a factoid (even if true) would prove that one system is better designed than another.
By definition, the best design is that which works best.
A reproduction of a baroque chair is not a "modern" chair, and an imperative, single inheritance, statically typed object oriented language is not "modern".
Accepting that for the sake of argument, you can use languages which are none of those in.net, should you so wish.That's not a "great advancement". The Symbolics Lisp machine supported that in the 1980's, and there were dozens of interoperable languages on the JVM before.NET even existed.
I can't talk about the lism machine, but it occurred on the JVM more or less by accident, with no real promotion from Sun, wheras MS is actively pushing it.
How is a technology (Silverlight) that only runs on Windows better for other platforms than a technology that actually runs on other platforms (Flash)? They both suck, but at least Flash on Linux is 100% compatible with Flash on Windows. Moonlight is only compatible with a small subset of Silverlight applications,
Because my experience with Flash on linux/x86_64 has been that it is buggy as hell, wheras my experience with Moonlight has been generally positive - not perfect, no, but better. Empirical results, that's all.
considering that Moonlight is only Silverlight 1.0 compatible... whereas Silverlight is now on version 2.0. If Microsoft "officially" supported Moonlight, why is it a major version behind? Why is mono a major version behind.NET?
I never claimed that MS was officially supporting it, merely that the standard was published. If Mono isn't keeping up, that may well be just a sign of a lack of developers, it doesn't have to be anything sinister.
Not all of the.NET platform is fully published as a public specification. In fact large parts of the class library are private and proprietary.
Sure, they've got their own proprietary parts in the libraries they ship, but that's true of anything - look at the sun.* hierarchy in Java, or the myriad GNU extensions to C. They elected to use thin wrappers around the win32 API for e.g. GUI (and given the snails that AWT/Swing are, I can't blame them), so of course that's going to be windows-only, but it's all isolated off into the correct parts of the class library (mostly System.Windows.*). But if you prefer you can use your favourite cross-platform GUI library (both GTK and Qt bindings) and write a cross-platform app with it..net in itself doesn't lock you into a single platform any more than C does.
Yes, IBM used to suck, but they have learned since then. Look at Eclipse and the other numerous open source technologies IBM contributes.
My point exactly - so don't be too quick to dismiss a promising technology just because it comes from MS.
"Bollocks" to you, frankly. If you're surprised when a.NET application doesn't run on Mono, then you must not know much about.NET or Mono. As great as Wine is, if you think it's some magic panacea for running Windows apps, you are again deluding yourself.
My surprise is not based on theory, but rather on empirical experience - when downloading a random utility program for.net or win32, my experience has been that 9 times out of 10 I can run it.
A) The official Sun Java implementation is open source and has been available in source form for acedemic use for years
Is it actually open source yet? I've been tuning out the hundreds of "Sun's going to open source Java really, and real soon now" announcements on slashdot. As for academic use, I'm pretty sure that's true of the official.net implementation too.
B) There are hundreds (if not thousands) of implementations of Java from various people and companies.
As far as compatibility is concerned, it can be technically PROVEN for a given application. In the Java world, there is a technology called the "TCK." What the Java TCK's purpose is to check and report just how compatible a given Java implementation is with the official standard. If you want examples of 100% compatible Java environments, you can check out IBM's Java, Apple's Java, BEA's Java and they are many more 100% compatible implementations.
I say 100% because they can be systematically proven to be compatible.
Yeah, and you can take your systematically proven, 100% compatible implementation, and try it in the real, empirical world, and all that pretty theory doesn't mean shit. I have put quite a lot of effort into this, because Sun Java on my system has a bug (yes, it is a bug in Java, it's well known (GUIs are broken when X has been compile
Similarly, nspluginwrapper allows Flash to run in a 64-bit Firefox and is set up by default in OpenSUSE. If Flash doesn't work on another distribution, that's the distribution's problem.
Like I say, I've tried nspluginwrapper. It's buggy as hell. Yes, it works when it works, but it also crashes about one time in three.
So, what again do you think is "fine" or "advanced" about it? It's a sluggish kernel with a lot of features, most of which aren't being used.
The unified paging architecture is very elegant (disk cache and swap are just two sides of the same coin); the "kernel personalities" are nice and useful (see SFU), it has an asynchronous API which actually works, even if underused, its priority scheduling handles I/O properly so you can actually use it (on windows, you can play a video smoothly in a player set to high priority while hashing files in the background; try the same on linux and it'll stutter like anything, because the video player's getting more than enough CPUtime but not getting priority in its hard disk accesses).
C# isn't a "modern" language
It was created pretty damn recently, which is pretty much the definition. But the great thing about.net is that lots of languages are supported.
It is good that C# interoperates with C. But so did a lot of other languages. Modula-3, for example, did a pretty good job at it.
Almost all languages interoperate with C in one direction - they can call C code. But few allow interoperation in the other direction, calling them from C. Those languages which do generally do so by restricting themselves to the C ABI and hence the C types; the great advancement in.net is to allow bidirectional interoperation between all supported languages, with a rich type system that can support classes, first-class functions, etc. (And all without many time-consuming type conversions)
Slashdot Mirror
Vista may not BSOD on you, but I bet you have frequent application crashes... I don't typically go more than a few days without an application bombing out, my desktop refreshing from an explorer crash, my printer loosing connection, or an app just hanging and needing to be killed by task manager.
Sure, memory leaks may be a thing of the past, and generally when an app bombs, the machine stays up... My Mac has had those features for 6 years!
This sort of shit is still getting +5s? I thought better of slashdot these days.
I can't remember the last time I had an application crash in Vista. I'd no fan of windows, but this is just pure FUD.
A multithreaded filesystem is just a performance hack!
Please. Skype has to publish which ports it uses so that people can get it working with SOCKS and so forth (there are five of them, I can't remember the numbers off the top of my head but they're out there on the internet). That's all you'd need to start traffic shaping.
(And to answer your question, IRC)
Actually I'd rather have that kind of thing out there on the web. It saves me from the prospect of being employed by a company who doesn't want its workers to actually have lives.
I want immersion. The way WoWâ(TM)s world is just some immutable scenario ruined immersion to me.
Because having world-scale effects is a definite part of real life for you?
The cycle will stay the same, if not get longer, because human lifespans are getting longer. It usually takes people who've grown up with the new maths being accepted fact and taught to them to apply it to physics; the nice way to see it would be to say it takes that long for us to learn how to teach it, the less nice would be to say that the old folks holding on to their discredited pet theory hold everyone back.
Sure there will be, I used to stay up that late fairly often.
Why? Both of those are a lot easier to play.
Countries are already starting to use WiMax and no doubt when the problems around scaling it are fixed, this will be a much more cost effective (and far less disruptive) approach than cutting more trenches just to lay fibre to the home).
Haha. "Fixed", yeah, that's a good one. By its very nature that sort of wireless networking *will* *not* *scale*, and this is a fact of life, not something you can just wait for the techs to find a solution to. People have been saying there'll be ubiquitous wireless internet that'll make traditional wiring obsolete for ten years now, and we're no closer to that now than we were then, because wireless is all one big shared medium. Besides, even for A-to-B with noone else around, the state of the art wireless is and always will be two orders of magnitude slower than the state-of-the-art wired. (And that shouldn't surprise anyone with even a basic knowledge of physics)
*shrug*. I've come to expect all manner of instability and other problems from the Kubuntu KDE packages, but SuSE normally does a good job. Guess all I can say is, not my experience.
That's like saying anyone you can thote for these days IS a democrat, because they all adopted the dem polocies of 50 years ago. The CPU is x86; how its internals work are up to it, and in many ways are more similar to the pre-RISC microcode machines than classical RISC.
there's not a single thing you can do with an x86 that can't be done on another architecture with similar hardware
How about run fast?
and most likely cleaner and better
That doesn't matter anymore. The internals may be a mess, but only CPU engineers have to care about that. The insturction set may have some horrendous quirks, but only compiler writers have to care about that. Face it, the architecture wars are over and x86 has won.
$50 million worth of R&D into any CPU design, architecture or instruction set will produce a roughly equivalent speedup.
Sure, but how many million would it take to make MIPS competitive with x86, at this stage? And who's ever going to spend it?
It's ALL about money. It's always about money.
Of course it is. The fact is that, regardless of the cleaner, better design, non-x86 architectures are noneconomical.
And yes I know about ARM; it's a matter of time for it too. It's just that it has a big head start from being in a market x86 didn't really compete in.
With Konqueror, it is quite unstable, doesn't work with the bank sites I use (javascript issues, opera had a problem with less bank sites too related to javascript), my system would end up becoming less responsive after having many windows and tabs open when compared to FF3.
Hmm, that's the precise opposite of my experience. Are you using (K)ubuntu's KDE, or KDE4, or something?
Start? It seems to be on already. My copy of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles would only play at pretty low res on my computer with my legitimate software player (presumably because I was using an analogue monitor). (So of course I ripped it, so that I can play at full quality, and having gone to that effort I might as well give my friends copies...but that's for another time)
They can't be seen or isolated, but we know the reasons why we can't do that. They can only be traced insofar as we observe the particles they make up, like this one. So it's rather like asking whether the electromagnetic field is real - we can't observe it directly, but it simplifies our theories a lot.
Whether that's good enough is up to you. You're never going to be able to separate out a quark and hold it in your hand, but it makes one's life a lot easier to treat it as if it were real, and all the measurements that we can make give the results we would expect if it was real.
Rather than waiting for Chrome, why not try Opera or Konqueror?
I use an ASUS A730W as my portable media player - it wasn't noticably more expensive, and occasionally the ability to browse the web or IRC from it comes in handy. If these USB key movies become popular, there's no reason people couldn't use similar devices to play them portably.
It always seems like everyone I know knows limited flash writes aren't a problem any more. Except for those who've actually tried to run a system off a flash drive.
That's directly contradictory to what the md documentation says; if a read fails it will rewrite it, then attempt to read it again, and only then fail the drive if that fails.
FreeBSD licensing always seems very schizophrenic, or just unreasoningly anti-GPL - they're happy to include code with many more restrictive GPL-like licenses, even binary blobs on occasion, and then they'll fight tooth and nail to remove GPLed code from the system.
Saying the CDDL is incompatible with the GPL is misleading - the CDDL doesn't say anything about code not explicitly released under it. It is the GPL which imposes constraints on third-party code.
You're being very misleading - the CDDL applies restrictions to derivative works, just like the GPL - if it didn't, you could make your added code GPL and combine them with ease, like is done with BSD-licensed code all the time. In fact the reason the CDDL and GPL are incompatible is that they both have essentially the same restrictions. Incompatible goes both ways in this case, and neither license is any more to blame than the other.
Where's the broken? No, really. I'm writing this from my lvm-over-md setup, 120mb/s read speeds (and I haven't done any settings tuning). What's the problem?
I haven't tried ZFS, because as I understand it can't do raid5-like parity (I don't quite feel I have the spare diskspace for mirroring), so I can easily believe it might have advantages, but there's not a whole lot *wrong* with the linux model that I can see.
No, they took a random sample of malware, and found that 2% of it was on blogger, and performed a perfectly valid statistical extrapolation. You're looking at it from the wrong angle; they didn't go and count up all the malware on blogger and say "ooh, this sounds like about 2% to me"
By definition, the best design is that which works best.
A reproduction of a baroque chair is not a "modern" chair, and an imperative, single inheritance, statically typed object oriented language is not "modern".
Accepting that for the sake of argument, you can use languages which are none of those in .net, should you so wish.That's not a "great advancement". The Symbolics Lisp machine supported that in the 1980's, and there were dozens of interoperable languages on the JVM before .NET even existed.
I can't talk about the lism machine, but it occurred on the JVM more or less by accident, with no real promotion from Sun, wheras MS is actively pushing it.
Because my experience with Flash on linux/x86_64 has been that it is buggy as hell, wheras my experience with Moonlight has been generally positive - not perfect, no, but better. Empirical results, that's all.
considering that Moonlight is only Silverlight 1.0 compatible... whereas Silverlight is now on version 2.0. If Microsoft "officially" supported Moonlight, why is it a major version behind? Why is mono a major version behind .NET?
I never claimed that MS was officially supporting it, merely that the standard was published. If Mono isn't keeping up, that may well be just a sign of a lack of developers, it doesn't have to be anything sinister.
Not all of the .NET platform is fully published as a public specification. In fact large parts of the class library are private and proprietary.
Sure, they've got their own proprietary parts in the libraries they ship, but that's true of anything - look at the sun.* hierarchy in Java, or the myriad GNU extensions to C. They elected to use thin wrappers around the win32 API for e.g. GUI (and given the snails that AWT/Swing are, I can't blame them), so of course that's going to be windows-only, but it's all isolated off into the correct parts of the class library (mostly System.Windows.*). But if you prefer you can use your favourite cross-platform GUI library (both GTK and Qt bindings) and write a cross-platform app with it. .net in itself doesn't lock you into a single platform any more than C does.
Yes, IBM used to suck, but they have learned since then. Look at Eclipse and the other numerous open source technologies IBM contributes.
My point exactly - so don't be too quick to dismiss a promising technology just because it comes from MS.
"Bollocks" to you, frankly. If you're surprised when a .NET application doesn't run on Mono, then you must not know much about .NET or Mono. As great as Wine is, if you think it's some magic panacea for running Windows apps, you are again deluding yourself.
My surprise is not based on theory, but rather on empirical experience - when downloading a random utility program for .net or win32, my experience has been that 9 times out of 10 I can run it.
A) The official Sun Java implementation is open source and has been available in source form for acedemic use for years
Is it actually open source yet? I've been tuning out the hundreds of "Sun's going to open source Java really, and real soon now" announcements on slashdot. As for academic use, I'm pretty sure that's true of the official .net implementation too.
B) There are hundreds (if not thousands) of implementations of Java from various people and companies.
As far as compatibility is concerned, it can be technically PROVEN for a given application. In the Java world, there is a technology called the "TCK." What the Java TCK's purpose is to check and report just how compatible a given Java implementation is with the official standard. If you want examples of 100% compatible Java environments, you can check out IBM's Java, Apple's Java, BEA's Java and they are many more 100% compatible implementations.
I say 100% because they can be systematically proven to be compatible.
Yeah, and you can take your systematically proven, 100% compatible implementation, and try it in the real, empirical world, and all that pretty theory doesn't mean shit. I have put quite a lot of effort into this, because Sun Java on my system has a bug (yes, it is a bug in Java, it's well known (GUIs are broken when X has been compile
Like I say, I've tried nspluginwrapper. It's buggy as hell. Yes, it works when it works, but it also crashes about one time in three.
The unified paging architecture is very elegant (disk cache and swap are just two sides of the same coin); the "kernel personalities" are nice and useful (see SFU), it has an asynchronous API which actually works, even if underused, its priority scheduling handles I/O properly so you can actually use it (on windows, you can play a video smoothly in a player set to high priority while hashing files in the background; try the same on linux and it'll stutter like anything, because the video player's getting more than enough CPUtime but not getting priority in its hard disk accesses).
C# isn't a "modern" language
It was created pretty damn recently, which is pretty much the definition. But the great thing about .net is that lots of languages are supported.
It is good that C# interoperates with C. But so did a lot of other languages. Modula-3, for example, did a pretty good job at it.
Almost all languages interoperate with C in one direction - they can call C code. But few allow interoperation in the other direction, calling them from C. Those languages which do generally do so by restricting themselves to the C ABI and hence the C types; the great advancement in .net is to allow bidirectional interoperation between all supported languages, with a rich type system that can support classes, first-class functions, etc. (And all without many time-consuming type conversions)