But the UK Railways are measured in Miles and Chains.
Old ones (which is most of the distance).
The London Underground, and anything built more recently (mostly various tram systems, but there are some proper railways), is measured in millimetres. Possibly massively refurbished ones too.
In any case, AIUI the actual work is done in millimetres. The miles and chains is mostly used to locate the site, "replace 100 metres of track on the northbound line at 82 miles4 chains from datum". (Source: someone at the DfT, so practical usage may or may not differ.)
The company I work at has had numerous railway diagnostic systems installed there - London Underground included. I don't see how 82 + 40,000 millimeters is more useful than 82 + 40 meters - I do agree it is more useful than 82 + 4 chains. However, it's unlikely to change, just like in the US it will likely never change from Miles+Feet to KM+Meter, since the historical records are all using the old units and they like to be able to compare going back to see the problems, especially when problems occur. From what I've noticed, any one client tends to use the same units on all their rails for uniformity, so I don't see them doing one on old systems and another on new systems.
You're implying that MS employees use their own crap?
The only place that the Surface was sold out was Seattle, with lines wrapping around the block (at least from what the media was saying). Given their 80k+ employees there, that's about the only reason - the employees and their families.
The biggest user of Windows Phone is also their employees - of course, only because MS gave everyone one. No telling how many actually stuck with them though.
Then again, MS never used their own Visual Source Safe product. (They do use TFS to some degree, but I doubt its organization wide.)
> That's not hiding. That's saying "look at all my nifty functions, none of which you can use, neener neener neener".
What the hell is that even supposed to mean?
Private functions are not meant to protect your code against some other developer's envious glances, it's to protect programmers (including yourself) from their own stupidity, while still keeping your code neatly organized and debuggable. If you're anywhere near developer's job, especially in a team - resign right now and go back to college.
You still have to declare the private section to outsiders so that they get the memory accesses correct - even if they derive from your class or do other things.
Comparatively as the GP mentioned, C (and C++ by extension) has the ability to completely hide things by using proper file scoping - you don't even declare it to the outside work at all, it's 100% hidden within the implementation file.
Now there are some advantages to having it in the class - namely that it is then associated with a specific instantiated instance; however, barring that association it is far better to have use the static functions/variables in the implementation file alone.
In embedded systems memory is often so low that the use of a VM -.Net or Java - is not an option. C++ may be an option if they can use a library big enough to support it, but typically a language like C, Ada, and a few others are the only alternatives to Assembly.
This is still true even with RAM and Flash prices so depressed as many of those embedded systems opt for smaller with the same amount of RAM/Flash instead of adding more RAM/Flash capacity.
Is that why they program extremely resource constrained smart cards with Java?
I see 64KiB mentioned on there. Yet C and assembly are the only languages used for the PC 4K challenge - not Java, and no the Java 4K Contest doesn't count - that's 4KiB of data, where the real challenge is the whole program in 4KiB of memory (data and non-data) at run-time.
I'm not sure what you mean by a "good" software patent. There's obviously been a number of software patents that have been upheld by the Federal Circuit as being valid and infringed. There are others that are close calls. The claim below was just ruled valid and infringed at a lower court... (Carnegie Mellon v. Marvel). Why should the underlying invention there not be subject to protection if it if novel and unobvious?
How does novel and non-obvious get beyond abstract ideas, or merely recitation of mathematical formula? It's already been ruled that merely implementing a mathematical formula - e.g. adding 1+1 to get 2 - does not quality for a patent. Something novel and non-obvious must be done with that formula that in and of itself is also not recitation of another mathematical formula - e.g. f(x) = x+x, g(x) = f(x) * f(x+1). E=mc^2 does not qualify for patent protection, nor does calculating using a computer.
(from PatentlyO.com):
The asserted patent claims are basically signal processing logic algorithms for determining the value of items coming from a computer memory signal. This is necessary because the "0" and "1" that we normally talk about for binary digital signals is not actually accurate. In particular, the invention indicates that you should apply a "signal dependent" function to calculate the value as a way to overcome noise in the signal. Apparently a key distinguishing factor from the prior art is that the decoding functions used are "selected from a set of signal-dependent functions." The asserted claims do not identify the particular functions used, only that functions are used.
The two infringing claims are as follows:
Claim 4 of US Patent 6,201,839:
A method of determining branch metric values for branches of a trellis for a Viterbi-like detector, comprising:
selecting a branch metric function for each of the branches at a certain time index from a set of signal-dependent branch metric functions; and applying each of said selected functions to a plurality of signal samples to determine the metric value corresponding to the branch for which the applied branch metric function was selected, wherein each sample corresponds to a different sampling time instant.
Which courts? If you notice in CLS v. Alice the Federal Circuit court upheld a patent the lower court said is invalid re:Bilski, and I've had one patent lawyer tell me that the Federal Circuit ruling is basically in direct conflict with re:Bilski. The Federal Circuit is very friendly towards patent owners right now, and upholding a lot of patents - even blatently abstract patents - that should not have been granted.
Please also note that I mentioned that claims do not usually stand up to USPTO review either, and TFA is about the USPTO trying to make sense of software patents in light of SCOTUS and the conflictions being generated out of the Federal Circuit.
To look at what you are listing - it has been known since the dawn of computers that a signal does not stick at the two voltages selected in the analog circuit for determining what 0 means and what 1 means - typically ~0.0v and ~0.5v, though some use ~0.0v and ~0.33v too. So any patent that claims to regulate that would be have computers since the 1940's as prior art. So again, even though it was upheld is it truly valid, novel, or non-obvious? (And BTW I'm not even an EE and know that.)
Most of the comments here echo a prevailing view of most software developers: just ban software patents. A lot of rhetoric, not much in the way of thoughtful analysis.
Consider this: In a few milliseconds, you can search just about every web page that exists in the world, while driving your 55 mpg vehicle to get a magnetic imaging scan @ the hospital, and while waiting there you can use your iPhone to call any other person having a cell phone, in the whole world. All brought to you by innovative software...
But those on these boards don't seem to recognize this -- I think it's a case of a few bad patents spoiling the bunch, frankly. It would be nice to at least have the haters concede some of the good points of software patents. If one can think of none, then the intellectual blinders are on, because without question it is a mixed bag -- there is good, and there is bad that comes w/ time-limited monopolies. A better discussion would focus on the pros and cons and the balance.
Also: is it merely coincidence that the most innovative software companies set up shop in countries where there is the most protection available for software innovations? How many tier 1 software companies exist where there's no protection? (I'm sure there are a few, but the VAST majority of tier 1 software companies are in the USA -- think Google, Apple, MS, Adobe, etc. etc. etc.).
As one person said - show us a good software patent.
Honestly, we're prohibited by our employers from even looking at patents because of the risk of treble damages, and it's not simply the "one rotten apple spoils the bushel". We're simply trying to find the one good apple in the bushel to start with, and as folks who know the technology and how it functions we don't see a usefulness.
Fact of the matter is no software company - not even Microsoft, Apple, Oracle, Adobe, or Google - relies on a software patent to run their business even if they have patents. Nearly all of them admit having them for defensive purposes only because everyone else is doing it; the lone wolf in that might be IBM, but IBM again doesn't rely on them for any of their businesses.
Fact of the matter is that no software developers utilize patents to build new technology. Not only are they (i) prohibited from reading patents to start with, but (ii) the vast majority don't know how to read a patent. Those that have been trained to read a patent typically find them useless any how.
Fact of the matter is that the software business turns over faster than patents can issue. Technology typically turns over between 2 and 5 years, while it takes 6-8 years to get a patent approved. Yes, you have protection during the patent application process, but you also have no guarantee of its validity and people are not going to necessarily license it from you during that time period unless they know it's going to be approved as valid and upheld in court - and...
Fact of the matter is that most patents are not upheld in court - at the very least they are revised with further limits put in place whether by the courts or by USPTO, often with claims getting thrown out entirely. Not a good record. If the tables were turned such that they were good enough that they were passing the courts inspection in the majority of cases people would think twice, but they don't - the vast majority is patents are revised or invalidated.
Fact of the matter is that most of what would qualify as prior art is locked away in companies due to Trade Secret laws as the early software industry relied not on Patents, not on Copyrights, but on Trade Secrets. Even today the proprietary software industry (e.g. Microsoft, Apple, Adobe) relies on Trade Secret law to protect what they do, and relies on Copyright law for what they have to publish to others to support their platforms.
So, please show us one good software patent that would not b
>Assuming Microsoft are still around to make Win9 and we haven't all had to make the choice between OSX or Linux
Do you have any idea how much cash the company has? Windows 8 would not have to sell a single copy and Microsoft would be still filthy rich, just from Office sales.
Do you have any idea how much cash Microsoft burns through each year?
If sales of Windows or Office fall significantly, then their profits evaporate pretty quickly, and the banked up cash will go just as fast.
If sales of both Windows and Office fall signficantly at the same time, then that whole process will dramatically speed up, and the cash could be gone in a two or three year timespan.
Read the SEC reports - yes, they make $1B USD/month in profit, they also spend nearly as much to run the business.
Speaking of ESL writers, as a native Anglophone it's interesting to see developers whose native languages are Swedish and Portuguese communicating so smoothly in a third language. Linus, in particular, would pass my Turning Test for a native speaker. If you can type a grammatically correct blue streak in English idioms, you're practically ready to edit Webster's. He must have had a lot of practice.
You do realize he has lived in the USA since 1995, first in California and then in Oregon, don't you? And he communicated in English prior to that - given his initial usenet postings were in English.
I'd say characterizing yourself as a "no longer a windows user" is somewhat inaccurate, wouldn't you?
But depending on what you want to do, that can very well be a bug.
If you REALLY want to do that, you can buy a 3rd party solution.
Why should you need a third party solution? That's the whole point, and there are many that do use multi-monitor support in numerous ways. The Unix and Linux communities make far more use of multi-monitor than the Windows community; but they have also had better tools for it that are far more flexible for a lot longer.
Good to hear. They're catching up to the Unix world with much of that. KDE 3 (EOL'd several years ago) had multiple "taskbars" on each display years (10+?) ago; but Windows just gets it with Windows 8!
Meanwhile setting up multiple monitors on KDE3 in the first was a huge pain in the ass while I ran plug-and-play multiple monitors with windows 10+ years ago. I'm so glad Linux is finally just getting "plug-and-play" multi-monitor support that actually works. (well, we'll see if it actually just plug-n-play works... once distros start bundling it.);)
The DM developers (e.g. KDE, GNOME, etc) for a long time had no access to APIs that did that. It wasn't until udev+hald that some of that functionality to dynamically support it at the DM level was possible. Now, I do quite agree that that should have been done a long time ago. However, that doesn't negate the fact that once the X configuration file was setup, you quickly and easily got multi-monitor support in every DM without further hassle.
I had been running a multi-monitor display in KDE3 almost 10 years ago myself, and knew many that were running it well over 10 years ago with GNOME and KDE3.
Microsoft has done a bit to help cleanup the APIs for applications, and make a nicer settings for it all they still leave 90% of the grunt work to the graphics drivers; where X handles it in the X Server - above the graphics drivers, but below the Display Manager.
This seems like architectural nit-picking to me. So what if the grunt work is in the drivers?
It's a design difference yes, but one that makes a huge difference in the support. By leaving it to the drivers and providing a minimal uniform interface it all but guarantees incompatibilities will prevent the functionality as is the case with Windows. Where by implementing it in a level above the drivers the functionality can be provided without putting any requirements on the drivers themselves, so as long as the display is usable it can be made to work in multi-monitor, as has been the case with X Windows for over 20 years - yes, X Windows (X11 and its predecessors) was doing multi-monitor support when Windows was barely a year old; Xorg and Wayland continue that tradition. The ease of use varied by Unix flavor; but has been there for a very long time.
Still, Windows is far behind in features for multi-monitor support compared to the rest of the world.
And yet I'd rather set up multiple monitors on Windows than on linux because despite it being allegedly "far behind" its much easier to do, it's not a big mess if you remove or swap in a different monitor without reconfiguring the system first -- it just works.
Funny. My Dell D600 laptop (vintage 2003) I ran with Multi-monitor under Windows 2000 and XP (SP2 through SP3); however, whenever I wanted to hook up the external display (e.g. for a projector) I had to reboot the computer while running Windows to get it to be recognized. When I switched the same system to Linux (KDE), it just worked without any reboot required. I've known quite a few computers to have that same kind of issue - it always came down to the drivers.
Multi-monitor in Linux is now dead simple - far simpler than Windows ever was. Yes, there are still some things to fix; but I'd much rather do it in Linux than Windows.
- Windows allows you to either clone the monitors (e.g. presentation mode) or have one really big desktop that spans all the monitors; but applications can only min/max on one monitor; you can stretch an application to cross both monitors, but the max function provided by Windows won't do that.
The maximize button maximizes to current screen, doesn't stop you from actually making the window span all by resizing it yourself.
As noted in the original response.
- Windows leaves much of the multi-monitor support to the drivers. if you have several display adapters they better work well together at the driver level or you won't get multi-monitor. At work we tried adding a second monitor to a Windows system (2008 Server I think) but the driver for the second card would only work with other drivers that had WDM support; which the main card did not.
So you're argument is that you have a shitty card without drivers and you're complaining that it doesn't work? Seriously? Could you even use that card in Linux? I mean if it doesn't have a Windows driver what is the chance you're using anything other than VESA in Linux?
It has drivers. It just doesn't have drivers that support a certain Windows API that the other video card requires to do the multi-monitor support. It's not about bad drivers or lack of them; it's about how Microsoft implements multi-monitor and the fact that they leave it to the drivers to do the majority of the work unlike X windows which does it about the driver level.
- As of WinXP SP3 Windows does provide a nice built-in utility for manipulating mutli-monitor support when it is available, but it's very limited. Usually you'll get more functionality out of the driver tools (e.g. nVidia's ControlPanel) that will let you do a bit more. In no cases do any of those tools provide the flexibility of what Linux provides.
Its always proper to compare a 4.5 year old release of Windows to a modern Linux distro isn't it...
Again, read the thread. XP was mentioned, but so was Windows Vista, Windows 7, AND Windows 8.
This is true even of Windows 7; and given the lack of differences for Win8 I would assume so there to - those from what I have seen, Windows 8 will put the Metro interface on one monitor and the Desktop interface on a second monitor by default; so you're dual-head display is now essentially a single head display for with two different environments on each monitor. Might be the only way to use Windows 8 without getting rid of Metro.
Then you need to learn how to use the control panel. Span the desktop properly and Metro will span with it. There pretty much isn't any truthful comparison in your entire post.
That's pretty new for Windows; yet Linux and Unix has been able to do that for well over 15 years (Linux) and over 20 years (Unix) that I know of.
This is true even of Windows 7; and given the lack of differences for Win8 I would assume so there to - those from what I have seen, Windows 8 will put the Metro interface on one monitor and the Desktop interface on a second monitor by default; so you're dual-head display is now essentially a single head display for with two different environments on each monitor. Might be the only way to use Windows 8 without getting rid of Metro.
Ah well, then I guess you are well qualified to comment then.
I wouldn't qualify myself as a Windows user any more as I used Linux all the time. That said, I still keep up with Windows (to a degree) as I still write software for it and such. (Mostly write the software using Qt, then compile under Windows to deliver; but I also have a number of Windows applications - Win32/MFC - that I help maintain as well.) So yes, having worked with Windows XP, Vista, Win7, Server 2003/2008, etc - I'd say I'm still qualified to answer.
or have one really big desktop that spans all the monitors
That's over simplifying a lot.
The monitors can be set up more or less independently. They don't need to have the same resolution, and they can be positioned arbitrarily relative to each other.
The task bar doesn't get stretched out.
There are hotkeys for moving windows between monitors.
The desktop background isn't stretched out either.
Its hardly simply a really big desktop with a few "viewports" onto it.
but applications can only min/max on one monitor
That's a feature not a bug. The desirability of the maximize button maximizing an application across multiple monitors of often different resolutions and arbitrary relative positions is pretty much nil. But if you want to stretch it across multiple monitors you can.
As I fully noted. But depending on what you want to do, that can very well be a bug. With Linux you have to configure X such that it makes the monitors one big desktop area; there is no option on Windows to do so save a few very special (and expensive) graphics cards with drivers that do it to make the marketeers happy.
Windows leaves much of the multi-monitor support to the drivers.
Windows does most of the main multi-monitor functions just fine on its own. A few more esoteric functions, like being able to define rotations for the screens independently is typically offered by the drivers, and is not natively offered by windows. (And rotations might even be offered in windows 8... I'm not sure about that one offhand; although I do recall seeing something about setting the orientation.)
Windows doesn't do much of it on its own. It pushes it to the graphics driver; but they've done a lot better job of hiding that via the Display Properties since Windows XP SP3.
As of WinXP SP3 Windows does provide a nice built-in utility for manipulating mutli-monitor support when it is available...
So, uh, as of a version that is pretty much EOL, and is the oldest version you would really expect to see people actually using it already had a useful tool for managing multiple monitors? Is that the last time you used windows?
No, and you seem to be missing quite a bit of what I said based on your comments. Yes you've added some more details, but largely missed what I stated.
and given the lack of differences for Win8 I would assume so there to
Windows 8 adds some really nice multiple monitor improvements actually... in particular you can show taskbars on multiple displays - with a variety of options such as the ability to have an application icon appear just on the taskbar on the screen its on, or on the screen its on, plus the primary display, or on all taskbars on all displays.
Additionally you can open the start start screen on any display, and you can set independent backgrounds.
Good to hear. They're catching up to the Unix world with much of that. KDE 3 (EOL'd several years ago) had multiple "taskbars" on each display years (10+?) ago; but Windows just gets it with Windows 8!
so you're dual-head display is now essentially a single head display for with two different environments on each monitor
In other words, with dual monitors you can run metro and
No longer a Windows user; but Windows does not have any where near the same level of functionality for multi-monitor support the Linux does.
Are you comparing Windows XP with a latest linux distro? Because I had problems for _years_ with X/Xorg and multiple monitors.
Not simply XP, but Vista and 7 as well. I've used all three; but I primarily use Linux. (My wife has Vista on her laptop, and I get to dabble with Win7 from time to time at work. But 90+% of my time is under KDE on Linux - Kubuntu for the time being, and Gentoo.)
For a long time you had to specifically setup your X configuration file to get it right. It was a pain to get right, but it did work very well once configured. Since Xorg 1.5 you don't have to specifically craft the X configuration file any longer, but it depends on your DE (e.g. GNOME, KDE, etc) to get the dynamic configuration working right. KDE 4.5 and later could do it; but it's only really matured in that manner with 4.8. I can't speak to GNOME as I don't touch it.
Windows allows you to either clone the monitors (e.g. presentation mode) or have one really big desktop that spans all the monitors; but applications can only min/max on one monitor; you can stretch an application to cross both monitors, but the max function provided by Windows won't do that.
None of the applications I use make sense being spread across monitors horizontally, maximized, so never needed it. Can you give me an example of such application?
Some users like to do it for video editing, or multi-screen displays. I haven't done it so I'm not familiar with the use-case so much, but I do know you can do it under Linux.
Windows system (2008 Server I think)
Pick a 2009 Linux distro, install it on a laptop, and then span the desktop to another monitor, with different resolutions. Now try see a fullscreen movie on the 2nd monitor, and tell me about it. Or boot up the SO, plug an external video device, and see how the resolution detection works.
I do it with both Gentoo and Kubuntu, no X configuration file now - though I use to on the Gentoo system. You can use Xinerama to have a seamless display between several monitors, or separate desktops on each, or one desktop with different configurations for each. Right now, I've got my Lenovo T61p running KDE 4.9 with one wallpaper on the laptop display and another on a 22" LCD monitor. Works great.
Now, I'm not saying KDE manages it perfectly yet - there's still a few bugs to work out. But the flexibility is far greater than what Windows provides.
Replying to myself. XRPA does in fact work with the following caveats:
1. It does appear to use bitmap tossing and probably for this reason is painfully slow over low bandwidth connections - far more sluggish than Windows' RDP.
2. Like "screen" for console apps, you'd have to have started the application in the xrpa session in order to be able to attach it to a remote screen.
FYI - XRPA, which I referenced in my original reply, supports both VNC and RDP protocols via the same library used by various Linux RDP clients to talk with Windows RDP Servers. So I would expect they would be doing the same compression when using RDP, and like with Windows it displays on a local X instance (Windows Terminal Services Display) that is then forwarded to the remote side.
Windows does not support remote rendering of applications like the X Protocol does. The Win32 API simply doesn't support it - all rendering is done locally then the bitmap compressed and forwarded to the remote RDP client.
Use SSH+X-Forwarding, start screen with a named window, start the application, press CTRL+Z to put it in the background, detach from screen.
Start another SSH+X-Forwarding on another system, attach to screen using the named window, and foreground the process.
Haven't tried it, but it should work. "screen" (or one the many others that do the same job) should keep the application up and running while you switch machines just like it does for console applications.
Or you could just install a Remote Desktop Service to handle RDP just like Windows, for example XRDP.
Not to bait you but you didn't actually debunk his post, are there any Win users here that use multiple monitors to give us a comparison?
No longer a Windows user; but Windows does not have any where near the same level of functionality for multi-monitor support the Linux does.
Here's a little glimpse:
- Windows allows you to either clone the monitors (e.g. presentation mode) or have one really big desktop that spans all the monitors; but applications can only min/max on one monitor; you can stretch an application to cross both monitors, but the max function provided by Windows won't do that.
- Windows leaves much of the multi-monitor support to the drivers. if you have several display adapters they better work well together at the driver level or you won't get multi-monitor. At work we tried adding a second monitor to a Windows system (2008 Server I think) but the driver for the second card would only work with other drivers that had WDM support; which the main card did not.
- As of WinXP SP3 Windows does provide a nice built-in utility for manipulating mutli-monitor support when it is available, but it's very limited. Usually you'll get more functionality out of the driver tools (e.g. nVidia's ControlPanel) that will let you do a bit more. In no cases do any of those tools provide the flexibility of what Linux provides.
This is true even of Windows 7; and given the lack of differences for Win8 I would assume so there to - those from what I have seen, Windows 8 will put the Metro interface on one monitor and the Desktop interface on a second monitor by default; so you're dual-head display is now essentially a single head display for with two different environments on each monitor. Might be the only way to use Windows 8 without getting rid of Metro.
Well, no new admin. New users. The only admin setup the FTP account; I don't know why they just didn't generate a publickey pair at the same time to hand out.
i think (good) password vs. ssh-keys is both okay from the security point of view. But ssh-keys have much more convenience, where you have them (with ssh-agent you type your password only once, agent forwarding, etc.), and passwords are a sane fallback for when you just somewhere and downloaded putty to access your server. another good option for not so trustworthy environments are one-time-passwords. There is a pam module for this, and you just carry a list of 100 OTPs.
Any links for that PAM module? Or how the 100 OTP list would work?
why would you want passwords in your lan?
when you need passwords sometimes, when you are on the road with your laptop or at some pc, which is not yours, okay there its useful. But in you own lan, you always can access some ssh-key. So your policy isn't very useful that way.
When I first started my current job, we could only login to one server by using an SSH Key. However, you were expected to generate your own key and put in on the server. The only method was to use the insecure FTP (where passwords were allowed) to upload a new authorized_keys file.
A couple years later, the hard disk failed and we had to rebuild the server. Needless to say, the SSH Key requirement did not get transferred. (And no, I'm not the admin; if I were It might get reinstated for logins from the outside our LAN.)
Yes, the SSH Keys provide a useful minimum security check from outside; but there also needs to be a little more flexibility on the inside of the network too. Then users that need the outside access will setup the more secure option, and user's that don't will get locked out (and rightfully so). SSH Keys don't provide much enhancement of security inside the network any way - since the tools could just brute force the password on the key before trying to use it to access other resources (and no security tools will be any the wiser to such an attack).
Also if its so crap why is the linux community starting to emulate it?
I wouldn't say GNOME/Unity are emulating it so much as Microsoft is emulating them. Unity was out long before Metro was advertised by Microsoft - true WinPhone7 was probably out first, so it may go both ways.
However, the vast majority of Linux Windows Managers and Environments do not do anything like Unity/GNOME or WinPhone7 or Win8.
Slashdot Mirror
But the UK Railways are measured in Miles and Chains.
Old ones (which is most of the distance).
The London Underground, and anything built more recently (mostly various tram systems, but there are some proper railways), is measured in millimetres. Possibly massively refurbished ones too.
In any case, AIUI the actual work is done in millimetres. The miles and chains is mostly used to locate the site, "replace 100 metres of track on the northbound line at 82 miles4 chains from datum". (Source: someone at the DfT, so practical usage may or may not differ.)
The company I work at has had numerous railway diagnostic systems installed there - London Underground included. I don't see how 82 + 40,000 millimeters is more useful than 82 + 40 meters - I do agree it is more useful than 82 + 4 chains. However, it's unlikely to change, just like in the US it will likely never change from Miles+Feet to KM+Meter, since the historical records are all using the old units and they like to be able to compare going back to see the problems, especially when problems occur. From what I've noticed, any one client tends to use the same units on all their rails for uniformity, so I don't see them doing one on old systems and another on new systems.
You're implying that MS employees use their own crap?
The only place that the Surface was sold out was Seattle, with lines wrapping around the block (at least from what the media was saying). Given their 80k+ employees there, that's about the only reason - the employees and their families.
The biggest user of Windows Phone is also their employees - of course, only because MS gave everyone one. No telling how many actually stuck with them though.
Then again, MS never used their own Visual Source Safe product. (They do use TFS to some degree, but I doubt its organization wide.)
> That's not hiding. That's saying "look at all my nifty functions, none of which you can use, neener neener neener".
What the hell is that even supposed to mean?
Private functions are not meant to protect your code against some other developer's envious glances, it's to protect programmers (including yourself) from their own stupidity, while still keeping your code neatly organized and debuggable. If you're anywhere near developer's job, especially in a team - resign right now and go back to college.
You still have to declare the private section to outsiders so that they get the memory accesses correct - even if they derive from your class or do other things. Comparatively as the GP mentioned, C (and C++ by extension) has the ability to completely hide things by using proper file scoping - you don't even declare it to the outside work at all, it's 100% hidden within the implementation file.
Now there are some advantages to having it in the class - namely that it is then associated with a specific instantiated instance; however, barring that association it is far better to have use the static functions/variables in the implementation file alone.
In embedded systems memory is often so low that the use of a VM - .Net or Java - is not an option. C++ may be an option if they can use a library big enough to support it, but typically a language like C, Ada, and a few others are the only alternatives to Assembly.
This is still true even with RAM and Flash prices so depressed as many of those embedded systems opt for smaller with the same amount of RAM/Flash instead of adding more RAM/Flash capacity.
Is that why they program extremely resource constrained smart cards with Java?
I see 64KiB mentioned on there. Yet C and assembly are the only languages used for the PC 4K challenge - not Java, and no the Java 4K Contest doesn't count - that's 4KiB of data, where the real challenge is the whole program in 4KiB of memory (data and non-data) at run-time.
All 3 of them.
who are not Microsoft employees, paid advertisers, etc.
But the UK Railways are measured in Miles and Chains.
Considering 1 Metric Meter is 39.3700787401575 inches, and 1/4 gallon is approximately 1.1 metric liters...I can't speak to the rest.
I'm not sure what you mean by a "good" software patent. There's obviously been a number of software patents that have been upheld by the Federal Circuit as being valid and infringed. There are others that are close calls. The claim below was just ruled valid and infringed at a lower court... (Carnegie Mellon v. Marvel). Why should the underlying invention there not be subject to protection if it if novel and unobvious?
How does novel and non-obvious get beyond abstract ideas, or merely recitation of mathematical formula? It's already been ruled that merely implementing a mathematical formula - e.g. adding 1+1 to get 2 - does not quality for a patent. Something novel and non-obvious must be done with that formula that in and of itself is also not recitation of another mathematical formula - e.g. f(x) = x+x, g(x) = f(x) * f(x+1). E=mc^2 does not qualify for patent protection, nor does calculating using a computer.
(from PatentlyO.com):
The asserted patent claims are basically signal processing logic algorithms for determining the value of items coming from a computer memory signal. This is necessary because the "0" and "1" that we normally talk about for binary digital signals is not actually accurate. In particular, the invention indicates that you should apply a "signal dependent" function to calculate the value as a way to overcome noise in the signal. Apparently a key distinguishing factor from the prior art is that the decoding functions used are "selected from a set of signal-dependent functions." The asserted claims do not identify the particular functions used, only that functions are used.
The two infringing claims are as follows:
Claim 4 of US Patent 6,201,839:
A method of determining branch metric values for branches of a trellis for a Viterbi-like detector, comprising:
selecting a branch metric function for each of the branches at a certain time index from a set of signal-dependent branch metric functions; and applying each of said selected functions to a plurality of signal samples to determine the metric value corresponding to the branch for which the applied branch metric function was selected, wherein each sample corresponds to a different sampling time instant.
Which courts? If you notice in CLS v. Alice the Federal Circuit court upheld a patent the lower court said is invalid re:Bilski, and I've had one patent lawyer tell me that the Federal Circuit ruling is basically in direct conflict with re:Bilski. The Federal Circuit is very friendly towards patent owners right now, and upholding a lot of patents - even blatently abstract patents - that should not have been granted.
Please also note that I mentioned that claims do not usually stand up to USPTO review either, and TFA is about the USPTO trying to make sense of software patents in light of SCOTUS and the conflictions being generated out of the Federal Circuit.
To look at what you are listing - it has been known since the dawn of computers that a signal does not stick at the two voltages selected in the analog circuit for determining what 0 means and what 1 means - typically ~0.0v and ~0.5v, though some use ~0.0v and ~0.33v too. So any patent that claims to regulate that would be have computers since the 1940's as prior art. So again, even though it was upheld is it truly valid, novel, or non-obvious? (And BTW I'm not even an EE and know that.)
Most of the comments here echo a prevailing view of most software developers: just ban software patents. A lot of rhetoric, not much in the way of thoughtful analysis.
Consider this: In a few milliseconds, you can search just about every web page that exists in the world, while driving your 55 mpg vehicle to get a magnetic imaging scan @ the hospital, and while waiting there you can use your iPhone to call any other person having a cell phone, in the whole world. All brought to you by innovative software...
But those on these boards don't seem to recognize this -- I think it's a case of a few bad patents spoiling the bunch, frankly. It would be nice to at least have the haters concede some of the good points of software patents. If one can think of none, then the intellectual blinders are on, because without question it is a mixed bag -- there is good, and there is bad that comes w/ time-limited monopolies. A better discussion would focus on the pros and cons and the balance.
Also: is it merely coincidence that the most innovative software companies set up shop in countries where there is the most protection available for software innovations? How many tier 1 software companies exist where there's no protection? (I'm sure there are a few, but the VAST majority of tier 1 software companies are in the USA -- think Google, Apple, MS, Adobe, etc. etc. etc.).
As one person said - show us a good software patent.
Honestly, we're prohibited by our employers from even looking at patents because of the risk of treble damages, and it's not simply the "one rotten apple spoils the bushel". We're simply trying to find the one good apple in the bushel to start with, and as folks who know the technology and how it functions we don't see a usefulness.
Fact of the matter is no software company - not even Microsoft, Apple, Oracle, Adobe, or Google - relies on a software patent to run their business even if they have patents. Nearly all of them admit having them for defensive purposes only because everyone else is doing it; the lone wolf in that might be IBM, but IBM again doesn't rely on them for any of their businesses.
Fact of the matter is that no software developers utilize patents to build new technology. Not only are they (i) prohibited from reading patents to start with, but (ii) the vast majority don't know how to read a patent. Those that have been trained to read a patent typically find them useless any how.
Fact of the matter is that the software business turns over faster than patents can issue. Technology typically turns over between 2 and 5 years, while it takes 6-8 years to get a patent approved. Yes, you have protection during the patent application process, but you also have no guarantee of its validity and people are not going to necessarily license it from you during that time period unless they know it's going to be approved as valid and upheld in court - and...
Fact of the matter is that most patents are not upheld in court - at the very least they are revised with further limits put in place whether by the courts or by USPTO, often with claims getting thrown out entirely. Not a good record. If the tables were turned such that they were good enough that they were passing the courts inspection in the majority of cases people would think twice, but they don't - the vast majority is patents are revised or invalidated.
Fact of the matter is that most of what would qualify as prior art is locked away in companies due to Trade Secret laws as the early software industry relied not on Patents, not on Copyrights, but on Trade Secrets. Even today the proprietary software industry (e.g. Microsoft, Apple, Adobe) relies on Trade Secret law to protect what they do, and relies on Copyright law for what they have to publish to others to support their platforms.
So, please show us one good software patent that would not b
>Assuming Microsoft are still around to make Win9 and we haven't all had to make the choice between OSX or Linux
Do you have any idea how much cash the company has? Windows 8 would not have to sell a single copy and Microsoft would be still filthy rich, just from Office sales.
Do you have any idea how much cash Microsoft burns through each year?
If sales of Windows or Office fall significantly, then their profits evaporate pretty quickly, and the banked up cash will go just as fast.
If sales of both Windows and Office fall signficantly at the same time, then that whole process will dramatically speed up, and the cash could be gone in a two or three year timespan.
Read the SEC reports - yes, they make $1B USD/month in profit, they also spend nearly as much to run the business.
Speaking of ESL writers, as a native Anglophone it's interesting to see developers whose native languages are Swedish and Portuguese communicating so smoothly in a third language. Linus, in particular, would pass my Turning Test for a native speaker. If you can type a grammatically correct blue streak in English idioms, you're practically ready to edit Webster's. He must have had a lot of practice.
You do realize he has lived in the USA since 1995, first in California and then in Oregon, don't you? And he communicated in English prior to that - given his initial usenet postings were in English.
I'd say I'm still qualified to answer.
I'd say characterizing yourself as a "no longer a windows user" is somewhat inaccurate, wouldn't you?
But depending on what you want to do, that can very well be a bug.
If you REALLY want to do that, you can buy a 3rd party solution.
Why should you need a third party solution? That's the whole point, and there are many that do use multi-monitor support in numerous ways. The Unix and Linux communities make far more use of multi-monitor than the Windows community; but they have also had better tools for it that are far more flexible for a lot longer.
Good to hear. They're catching up to the Unix world with much of that. KDE 3 (EOL'd several years ago) had multiple "taskbars" on each display years (10+?) ago; but Windows just gets it with Windows 8!
Meanwhile setting up multiple monitors on KDE3 in the first was a huge pain in the ass while I ran plug-and-play multiple monitors with windows 10+ years ago. I'm so glad Linux is finally just getting "plug-and-play" multi-monitor support that actually works. (well, we'll see if it actually just plug-n-play works... once distros start bundling it.) ;)
The DM developers (e.g. KDE, GNOME, etc) for a long time had no access to APIs that did that. It wasn't until udev+hald that some of that functionality to dynamically support it at the DM level was possible. Now, I do quite agree that that should have been done a long time ago. However, that doesn't negate the fact that once the X configuration file was setup, you quickly and easily got multi-monitor support in every DM without further hassle.
I had been running a multi-monitor display in KDE3 almost 10 years ago myself, and knew many that were running it well over 10 years ago with GNOME and KDE3.
Microsoft has done a bit to help cleanup the APIs for applications, and make a nicer settings for it all they still leave 90% of the grunt work to the graphics drivers; where X handles it in the X Server - above the graphics drivers, but below the Display Manager.
This seems like architectural nit-picking to me. So what if the grunt work is in the drivers?
It's a design difference yes, but one that makes a huge difference in the support. By leaving it to the drivers and providing a minimal uniform interface it all but guarantees incompatibilities will prevent the functionality as is the case with Windows. Where by implementing it in a level above the drivers the functionality can be provided without putting any requirements on the drivers themselves, so as long as the display is usable it can be made to work in multi-monitor, as has been the case with X Windows for over 20 years - yes, X Windows (X11 and its predecessors) was doing multi-monitor support when Windows was barely a year old; Xorg and Wayland continue that tradition. The ease of use varied by Unix flavor; but has been there for a very long time.
Still, Windows is far behind in features for multi-monitor support compared to the rest of the world.
And yet I'd rather set up multiple monitors on Windows than on linux because despite it being allegedly "far behind" its much easier to do, it's not a big mess if you remove or swap in a different monitor without reconfiguring the system first -- it just works.
Funny. My Dell D600 laptop (vintage 2003) I ran with Multi-monitor under Windows 2000 and XP (SP2 through SP3); however, whenever I wanted to hook up the external display (e.g. for a projector) I had to reboot the computer while running Windows to get it to be recognized. When I switched the same system to Linux (KDE), it just worked without any reboot required. I've known quite a few computers to have that same kind of issue - it always came down to the drivers.
Multi-monitor in Linux is now dead simple - far simpler than Windows ever was. Yes, there are still some things to fix; but I'd much rather do it in Linux than Windows.
- Windows allows you to either clone the monitors (e.g. presentation mode) or have one really big desktop that spans all the monitors; but applications can only min/max on one monitor; you can stretch an application to cross both monitors, but the max function provided by Windows won't do that.
The maximize button maximizes to current screen, doesn't stop you from actually making the window span all by resizing it yourself.
As noted in the original response.
- Windows leaves much of the multi-monitor support to the drivers. if you have several display adapters they better work well together at the driver level or you won't get multi-monitor. At work we tried adding a second monitor to a Windows system (2008 Server I think) but the driver for the second card would only work with other drivers that had WDM support; which the main card did not.
So you're argument is that you have a shitty card without drivers and you're complaining that it doesn't work? Seriously? Could you even use that card in Linux? I mean if it doesn't have a Windows driver what is the chance you're using anything other than VESA in Linux?
It has drivers. It just doesn't have drivers that support a certain Windows API that the other video card requires to do the multi-monitor support. It's not about bad drivers or lack of them; it's about how Microsoft implements multi-monitor and the fact that they leave it to the drivers to do the majority of the work unlike X windows which does it about the driver level.
- As of WinXP SP3 Windows does provide a nice built-in utility for manipulating mutli-monitor support when it is available, but it's very limited. Usually you'll get more functionality out of the driver tools (e.g. nVidia's ControlPanel) that will let you do a bit more. In no cases do any of those tools provide the flexibility of what Linux provides.
Its always proper to compare a 4.5 year old release of Windows to a modern Linux distro isn't it ...
Again, read the thread. XP was mentioned, but so was Windows Vista, Windows 7, AND Windows 8.
This is true even of Windows 7; and given the lack of differences for Win8 I would assume so there to - those from what I have seen, Windows 8 will put the Metro interface on one monitor and the Desktop interface on a second monitor by default; so you're dual-head display is now essentially a single head display for with two different environments on each monitor. Might be the only way to use Windows 8 without getting rid of Metro.
Then you need to learn how to use the control panel. Span the desktop properly and Metro will span with it. There pretty much isn't any truthful comparison in your entire post.
That's pretty new for Windows; yet Linux and Unix has been able to do that for well over 15 years (Linux) and over 20 years (Unix) that I know of.
This is true even of Windows 7; and given the lack of differences for Win8 I would assume so there to - those from what I have seen, Windows 8 will put the Metro interface on one monitor and the Desktop interface on a second monitor by default; so you're dual-head display is now essentially a single head display for with two different environments on each monitor. Might be the only way to use Windows 8 without getting rid of Metro.
Not sure what you mean by lack of difference in Win8. There is very significantly improved multimonitor support in Windows 8: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2012/05/21/enhancing-windows-8-for-multiple-monitors.aspx
There's a significant difference in the User Interface, but a very lack of difference in kernel space (e.g. drivers).
This Gentoo one looks like a good one - a forum post, but a good one nonetheless.
No longer a Windows user...
Ah well, then I guess you are well qualified to comment then.
I wouldn't qualify myself as a Windows user any more as I used Linux all the time. That said, I still keep up with Windows (to a degree) as I still write software for it and such. (Mostly write the software using Qt, then compile under Windows to deliver; but I also have a number of Windows applications - Win32/MFC - that I help maintain as well.) So yes, having worked with Windows XP, Vista, Win7, Server 2003/2008, etc - I'd say I'm still qualified to answer.
or have one really big desktop that spans all the monitors
That's over simplifying a lot.
The monitors can be set up more or less independently. They don't need to have the same resolution, and they can be positioned arbitrarily relative to each other.
The task bar doesn't get stretched out. There are hotkeys for moving windows between monitors. The desktop background isn't stretched out either. Its hardly simply a really big desktop with a few "viewports" onto it.
but applications can only min/max on one monitor
That's a feature not a bug. The desirability of the maximize button maximizing an application across multiple monitors of often different resolutions and arbitrary relative positions is pretty much nil. But if you want to stretch it across multiple monitors you can.
As I fully noted. But depending on what you want to do, that can very well be a bug. With Linux you have to configure X such that it makes the monitors one big desktop area; there is no option on Windows to do so save a few very special (and expensive) graphics cards with drivers that do it to make the marketeers happy.
Windows leaves much of the multi-monitor support to the drivers.
Windows does most of the main multi-monitor functions just fine on its own. A few more esoteric functions, like being able to define rotations for the screens independently is typically offered by the drivers, and is not natively offered by windows. (And rotations might even be offered in windows 8... I'm not sure about that one offhand; although I do recall seeing something about setting the orientation.)
Windows doesn't do much of it on its own. It pushes it to the graphics driver; but they've done a lot better job of hiding that via the Display Properties since Windows XP SP3.
As of WinXP SP3 Windows does provide a nice built-in utility for manipulating mutli-monitor support when it is available...
So, uh, as of a version that is pretty much EOL, and is the oldest version you would really expect to see people actually using it already had a useful tool for managing multiple monitors? Is that the last time you used windows?
No, and you seem to be missing quite a bit of what I said based on your comments. Yes you've added some more details, but largely missed what I stated.
and given the lack of differences for Win8 I would assume so there to
Windows 8 adds some really nice multiple monitor improvements actually... in particular you can show taskbars on multiple displays - with a variety of options such as the ability to have an application icon appear just on the taskbar on the screen its on, or on the screen its on, plus the primary display, or on all taskbars on all displays.
Additionally you can open the start start screen on any display, and you can set independent backgrounds.
Good to hear. They're catching up to the Unix world with much of that. KDE 3 (EOL'd several years ago) had multiple "taskbars" on each display years (10+?) ago; but Windows just gets it with Windows 8!
so you're dual-head display is now essentially a single head display for with two different environments on each monitor
In other words, with dual monitors you can run metro and
No longer a Windows user; but Windows does not have any where near the same level of functionality for multi-monitor support the Linux does.
Are you comparing Windows XP with a latest linux distro? Because I had problems for _years_ with X/Xorg and multiple monitors.
Not simply XP, but Vista and 7 as well. I've used all three; but I primarily use Linux. (My wife has Vista on her laptop, and I get to dabble with Win7 from time to time at work. But 90+% of my time is under KDE on Linux - Kubuntu for the time being, and Gentoo.)
For a long time you had to specifically setup your X configuration file to get it right. It was a pain to get right, but it did work very well once configured. Since Xorg 1.5 you don't have to specifically craft the X configuration file any longer, but it depends on your DE (e.g. GNOME, KDE, etc) to get the dynamic configuration working right. KDE 4.5 and later could do it; but it's only really matured in that manner with 4.8. I can't speak to GNOME as I don't touch it.
Windows allows you to either clone the monitors (e.g. presentation mode) or have one really big desktop that spans all the monitors; but applications can only min/max on one monitor; you can stretch an application to cross both monitors, but the max function provided by Windows won't do that.
None of the applications I use make sense being spread across monitors horizontally, maximized, so never needed it. Can you give me an example of such application?
Some users like to do it for video editing, or multi-screen displays. I haven't done it so I'm not familiar with the use-case so much, but I do know you can do it under Linux.
Windows system (2008 Server I think)
Pick a 2009 Linux distro, install it on a laptop, and then span the desktop to another monitor, with different resolutions. Now try see a fullscreen movie on the 2nd monitor, and tell me about it. Or boot up the SO, plug an external video device, and see how the resolution detection works.
I do it with both Gentoo and Kubuntu, no X configuration file now - though I use to on the Gentoo system. You can use Xinerama to have a seamless display between several monitors, or separate desktops on each, or one desktop with different configurations for each. Right now, I've got my Lenovo T61p running KDE 4.9 with one wallpaper on the laptop display and another on a 22" LCD monitor. Works great.
Now, I'm not saying KDE manages it perfectly yet - there's still a few bugs to work out. But the flexibility is far greater than what Windows provides.
Replying to myself. XRPA does in fact work with the following caveats:
1. It does appear to use bitmap tossing and probably for this reason is painfully slow over low bandwidth connections - far more sluggish than Windows' RDP. 2. Like "screen" for console apps, you'd have to have started the application in the xrpa session in order to be able to attach it to a remote screen.
FYI - XRPA, which I referenced in my original reply, supports both VNC and RDP protocols via the same library used by various Linux RDP clients to talk with Windows RDP Servers. So I would expect they would be doing the same compression when using RDP, and like with Windows it displays on a local X instance (Windows Terminal Services Display) that is then forwarded to the remote side.
Windows does not support remote rendering of applications like the X Protocol does. The Win32 API simply doesn't support it - all rendering is done locally then the bitmap compressed and forwarded to the remote RDP client.
Use SSH+X-Forwarding, start screen with a named window, start the application, press CTRL+Z to put it in the background, detach from screen.
Start another SSH+X-Forwarding on another system, attach to screen using the named window, and foreground the process.
Haven't tried it, but it should work. "screen" (or one the many others that do the same job) should keep the application up and running while you switch machines just like it does for console applications.
Or you could just install a Remote Desktop Service to handle RDP just like Windows, for example XRDP.
Not to bait you but you didn't actually debunk his post, are there any Win users here that use multiple monitors to give us a comparison?
No longer a Windows user; but Windows does not have any where near the same level of functionality for multi-monitor support the Linux does.
Here's a little glimpse:
- Windows allows you to either clone the monitors (e.g. presentation mode) or have one really big desktop that spans all the monitors; but applications can only min/max on one monitor; you can stretch an application to cross both monitors, but the max function provided by Windows won't do that.
- Windows leaves much of the multi-monitor support to the drivers. if you have several display adapters they better work well together at the driver level or you won't get multi-monitor. At work we tried adding a second monitor to a Windows system (2008 Server I think) but the driver for the second card would only work with other drivers that had WDM support; which the main card did not.
- As of WinXP SP3 Windows does provide a nice built-in utility for manipulating mutli-monitor support when it is available, but it's very limited. Usually you'll get more functionality out of the driver tools (e.g. nVidia's ControlPanel) that will let you do a bit more. In no cases do any of those tools provide the flexibility of what Linux provides.
This is true even of Windows 7; and given the lack of differences for Win8 I would assume so there to - those from what I have seen, Windows 8 will put the Metro interface on one monitor and the Desktop interface on a second monitor by default; so you're dual-head display is now essentially a single head display for with two different environments on each monitor. Might be the only way to use Windows 8 without getting rid of Metro.
Well, no new admin. New users. The only admin setup the FTP account; I don't know why they just didn't generate a publickey pair at the same time to hand out.
i think (good) password vs. ssh-keys is both okay from the security point of view. But ssh-keys have much more convenience, where you have them (with ssh-agent you type your password only once, agent forwarding, etc.), and passwords are a sane fallback for when you just somewhere and downloaded putty to access your server. another good option for not so trustworthy environments are one-time-passwords. There is a pam module for this, and you just carry a list of 100 OTPs.
Any links for that PAM module? Or how the 100 OTP list would work?
why would you want passwords in your lan? when you need passwords sometimes, when you are on the road with your laptop or at some pc, which is not yours, okay there its useful. But in you own lan, you always can access some ssh-key. So your policy isn't very useful that way.
When I first started my current job, we could only login to one server by using an SSH Key. However, you were expected to generate your own key and put in on the server. The only method was to use the insecure FTP (where passwords were allowed) to upload a new authorized_keys file.
A couple years later, the hard disk failed and we had to rebuild the server. Needless to say, the SSH Key requirement did not get transferred. (And no, I'm not the admin; if I were It might get reinstated for logins from the outside our LAN.)
Yes, the SSH Keys provide a useful minimum security check from outside; but there also needs to be a little more flexibility on the inside of the network too. Then users that need the outside access will setup the more secure option, and user's that don't will get locked out (and rightfully so). SSH Keys don't provide much enhancement of security inside the network any way - since the tools could just brute force the password on the key before trying to use it to access other resources (and no security tools will be any the wiser to such an attack).
Also if its so crap why is the linux community starting to emulate it?
I wouldn't say GNOME/Unity are emulating it so much as Microsoft is emulating them. Unity was out long before Metro was advertised by Microsoft - true WinPhone7 was probably out first, so it may go both ways.
However, the vast majority of Linux Windows Managers and Environments do not do anything like Unity/GNOME or WinPhone7 or Win8.