A small memory footprint very often leads to more efficient use of the CPU cache, and thus, increased execution speed compared to programs with a huge memory footprint.
When DOS was around, many people had to optimize their programs to fit it completely into the RAM. Nowadays, the CPU caches are so big that - if you optimize them to be small - your programs may fit into your CPU cache, if you optimize them for size a little bit.
Your "Fuck the size! Fuck the memory footprint!" attitude is exactly the reason why the hardware gets faster and faster every year, but software does _not_ feel any faster for the last 15 to 20 years.
I know, but SCO "logic" is weird. Gregory Blepp was also always talking about "non-literal IP transfer", meaning that the algorithms were taken vom SysV to Linux. Of course, there is no law that makes using the same algorithms a crime: neither patent law (since SCO doesn't have a patent on the algorithm), nor copyright law (which is only about literal copying). Another interesting thing he said was that "SCO won't sue companies in Europe, because there, the laws that we need to sue them don't exist _yet_." That was late May this year. I'm pretty sure these laws will _never_ pass, since it would simply be a basic violation of current continental European law concepts.
SCO's sales of "SCO IP in Linux" licenses, such as the license it sold to EV1, clearly breach the GPL, in that they a) charge royalties for GPL'd code, b) restrict the licensee to use only, and don't permit modification, and c) infringe the copyrights of all the other Linux contributors who have not given permission to license their code under any other terms but the GPL.
I once saw Gregory Blepp (you know, the SCO FUD spreader here in Old Europe) talk live about the whole topic. When I asked specifically about that, he told me that you don't pay royalties for the GPLed code, but only for the SCO code. The only trick is that they currently won't tell you what is GPL code and what is SCO code, so you don't exactly know what you would pay royalties for, anyway. Nevertheless it's FUD what they spread, but at least you now know SCOs view of the whole case.
> but the hotspot compiler can do that rathar well.
Unless it shows some bugs on "obsure" platforms like AIX. A sequence of a.foo(); a.bar(); a.baz(); executed foo() and baz() but not bar(). It turned out to be a serious defect of the hotspot optimizer, which simply optimized away the call to bar(). Another bug was that sometimes, threads simply disappeared into nowhere. So, we decided that, instead of letting Java drop threads, we would drop Java on AIX.
Isn't portage the stuff where the source is downloaded and then compiled? Sorry, but this is way too time-consuming. Why spend significant amounts of time for compiling when your Linux distributor can do that for you. And no, "optimized" compilations (like many Gentoo people do them) usually don't have any measurable performance improvements.
It's really funny that you need Free Software to make Windows usable. Heck, I am currently forced to work on Win32 (Metroworks Codewarrrior for Symbian OS only exists for this platform), and it would be impossible to survive (for me) on Win32 without cygwin, vim, gimp2, putty, Thunderbird, Firefox and gaim.
Those who describe GPL as a "communist" license have neither understood communism nor GPL.
A viable way to make money with Free Software is not so much by GPLing your own software but by using other people's published Free Software to build new software on top of it (e.g. customization) and to make money with this service. The modifications of the source then only need to be given to the client who contracted the developer (or the development company), so it's fully compliant to GPL and nobody really needs to publish the modifications to "everyone".
Prior art is well-documented, e.g. in http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/rob/movies/b lit.mpg
The video shows a mouse cursor clicking, then dragging up a terminal emulation program, and then clicking again, for setting the terminal's size. So, we have prior art from 1983, and it's extremely well documented.
GNUStep is pretty cool. It's like a slightly primative, somewhat ugly Mac.
What you call "ugly Mac" is what I call NeXTstep/OpenStep look and feel. Of course it looks primitive, but that's late 80's GUI design, and IMHO pretty progressive compared to the other GUIs that were around at that time.
Re:A bad workman blames his tools
on
PHP and SQL Security
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Well, sometimes you can simply blame the tools. Or would you blame the workman who cuts off his arm with the buzz saw's totally unprotected blade?
The same is valid for programming languages, with some it's just easier to shoot yourself in the foot when you make a mistake. One example are buffer overflows and C: it's so easy to mistakenly write code that produces one, while in other languages like Ada or Perl it's virtually impossible.
The same goes for PHP and SQL, which is shown everyday on the usual mailing lists like Bugtraq or full-disclosure.
Actually, the "copyright" of continental Europe is totally different from the one common in Great Britain and the USA. In Europe, there is no such thing as "copyright": it's "author right", which means that the author has an exclusive, non-transferrable right to decide how his work is being used, e.g. by giving out usage permissions or licenses, whereas the US-american copyright is transferrable.
Another fundamental difference is that the idea of "copyright" is directly from the owners of the first printing presses: they had the first printing presses, thus they had all the power about what is being printed and what not. Then, in the 17th century, European philosophers reconsidered this totally unfair relation between the author, the copier and the user, and decided to transfer a fair share right of rights to each of the 3 parties: first, the author gets the exclusive right about his work as soon as it is created, second, the user gets a fair-use right that he is allowed to use it the way he wants, including the permission to create a limited number of copies for personal use, and that also includes usage of these copies through family members, friends, etc.
And as most/. readers know, the ideas of the continental European idea of author right is in total opposition of the idea of US-american law. That can be especially seen in things like the DMCA, where fair-use is being prohibited by simply forbidding the user to make copies even for fair-use.
Where do you filter the emails? After downloading, I guess. And downloading mails, since it's traffic, usually costs money. And even if you have a flat-rate, your provider still has to pay for the traffic, and at some point, the traffic caused by spam is higher than what the provider earns from the customers. And at that point, the costs for the traffic have to be passed to the customer. IMHO, that is a _big_ problem.
It's immoral not to fight spam because it doesn't have a bad impact on oneself's mail system. I, for one, get more than 300 spam mails per day, and more than 2000 bounces of undeliverable mails because some spammers use my domain for generating fake from-headers.
Not necessarily. Every native Mac OS X program that can print can also generate PDF files -- the print dialog has a button "save as PDF" beside the "print" button, and clicking that button makes the program "print" into the specified file (which is then in PDF format) instead of sending the output to the actual printer device.
No, it's not obscure. Please have a look at Ruby, where closures are the natural way of doing most things. For example, there is no for-loop, but it is implemented as method for Integer objects (literals are also objects in Ruby):
14.upto(19) do |i|
# do... end is the closure end
so, the closure is executed 6 times, the first time with i = 14, the next time with i = 15, the third time with i = 16, up to i = 19.
Just have a closer look at Ruby, and you will see that the whole standard library is built on top of this simple and elegant concept. The book "Programming Ruby" can even be read online and downloaded from www.pragmaticprogrammer.com.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not a pyramid scheme, it has the shape of a trapezoid.
A small memory footprint very often leads to more efficient use of the CPU cache, and thus, increased execution speed compared to programs with a huge memory footprint.
When DOS was around, many people had to optimize their programs to fit it completely into the RAM. Nowadays, the CPU caches are so big that - if you optimize them to be small - your programs may fit into your CPU cache, if you optimize them for size a little bit.
Your "Fuck the size! Fuck the memory footprint!" attitude is exactly the reason why the hardware gets faster and faster every year, but software does _not_ feel any faster for the last 15 to 20 years.
You mean "ALL THESE WORLDS ARE YOURS EXCEPT EUROPA. ATTEMPT NO LANDINGS THERE"
For those who don't get it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010:_Odyssey_Two
I know, but SCO "logic" is weird. Gregory Blepp was also always talking about "non-literal IP transfer", meaning that the algorithms were taken vom SysV to Linux. Of course, there is no law that makes using the same algorithms a crime: neither patent law (since SCO doesn't have a patent on the algorithm), nor copyright law (which is only about literal copying). Another interesting thing he said was that "SCO won't sue companies in Europe, because there, the laws that we need to sue them don't exist _yet_." That was late May this year. I'm pretty sure these laws will _never_ pass, since it would simply be a basic violation of current continental European law concepts.
SCO's sales of "SCO IP in Linux" licenses, such as the license it sold to EV1, clearly breach the GPL, in that they a) charge royalties for GPL'd code, b) restrict the licensee to use only, and don't permit modification, and c) infringe the copyrights of all the other Linux contributors who have not given permission to license their code under any other terms but the GPL.
I once saw Gregory Blepp (you know, the SCO FUD spreader here in Old Europe) talk live about the whole topic. When I asked specifically about that, he told me that you don't pay royalties for the GPLed code, but only for the SCO code. The only trick is that they currently won't tell you what is GPL code and what is SCO code, so you don't exactly know what you would pay royalties for, anyway. Nevertheless it's FUD what they spread, but at least you now know SCOs view of the whole case.
> but the hotspot compiler can do that rathar well.
Unless it shows some bugs on "obsure" platforms like AIX. A sequence of a.foo(); a.bar(); a.baz(); executed foo() and baz() but not bar(). It turned out to be a serious defect of the hotspot optimizer, which simply optimized away the call to bar(). Another bug was that sometimes, threads simply disappeared into nowhere. So, we decided that, instead of letting Java drop threads, we would drop Java on AIX.
Am I incorrect in thinking that embedded means that the OS is onchip?
Well, being on a chip doesn't mean it can't be replaced.
NASDAQ sucks anyway. So what's your point?
Isn't portage the stuff where the source is downloaded and then compiled? Sorry, but this is way too time-consuming. Why spend significant amounts of time for compiling when your Linux distributor can do that for you. And no, "optimized" compilations (like many Gentoo people do them) usually don't have any measurable performance improvements.
It's really funny that you need Free Software to make Windows usable. Heck, I am currently forced to work on Win32 (Metroworks Codewarrrior for Symbian OS only exists for this platform), and it would be impossible to survive (for me) on Win32 without cygwin, vim, gimp2, putty, Thunderbird, Firefox and gaim.
Those who describe GPL as a "communist" license have neither understood communism nor GPL.
A viable way to make money with Free Software is not so much by GPLing your own software but by using other people's published Free Software to build new software on top of it (e.g. customization) and to make money with this service. The modifications of the source then only need to be given to the client who contracted the developer (or the development company), so it's fully compliant to GPL and nobody really needs to publish the modifications to "everyone".
A good text editor, probably. And in case you miss the emacs key shortcuts, there's vimacs.
"Hi, webmaster of $foo.org here. Thought that the slashdot community might like to take part in an exclusive load test for our server farms."
Prior art is well-documented, e.g. in http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/rob/movies/b lit.mpg
The video shows a mouse cursor clicking, then dragging up a terminal emulation program, and then clicking again, for setting the terminal's size. So, we have prior art from 1983, and it's extremely well documented.
Do you remember the mutated penguins ad? You can find it here.
1000000megs.. I wonder what age I'll be when I have that much storage space on my computer.
Suppose current (cheap) PCs have a storage capacity of about 120 GB. We will then have the storage capacity of 1 TB in around 2.5 years.
Storage capacity doubles every 9 months, while CPU power doubles every 18 months.
I always experience THC slowdown after I smoked some good pot. No need for a simulation here, absolutely not.
GNUStep is pretty cool. It's like a slightly primative, somewhat ugly Mac.
What you call "ugly Mac" is what I call NeXTstep/OpenStep look and feel. Of course it looks primitive, but that's late 80's GUI design, and IMHO pretty progressive compared to the other GUIs that were around at that time.
Well, sometimes you can simply blame the tools. Or would you blame the workman who cuts off his arm with the buzz saw's totally unprotected blade?
The same is valid for programming languages, with some it's just easier to shoot yourself in the foot when you make a mistake. One example are buffer overflows and C: it's so easy to mistakenly write code that produces one, while in other languages like Ada or Perl it's virtually impossible.
The same goes for PHP and SQL, which is shown everyday on the usual mailing lists like Bugtraq or full-disclosure.
Actually, the "copyright" of continental Europe is totally different from the one common in Great Britain and the USA. In Europe, there is no such thing as "copyright": it's "author right", which means that the author has an exclusive, non-transferrable right to decide how his work is being used, e.g. by giving out usage permissions or licenses, whereas the US-american copyright is transferrable.
/. readers know, the ideas of the continental European idea of author right is in total opposition of the idea of US-american law. That can be especially seen in things like the DMCA, where fair-use is being prohibited by simply forbidding the user to make copies even for fair-use.
Another fundamental difference is that the idea of "copyright" is directly from the owners of the first printing presses: they had the first printing presses, thus they had all the power about what is being printed and what not. Then, in the 17th century, European philosophers reconsidered this totally unfair relation between the author, the copier and the user, and decided to transfer a fair share right of rights to each of the 3 parties: first, the author gets the exclusive right about his work as soon as it is created, second, the user gets a fair-use right that he is allowed to use it the way he wants, including the permission to create a limited number of copies for personal use, and that also includes usage of these copies through family members, friends, etc.
And as most
Where do you filter the emails? After downloading, I guess. And downloading mails, since it's traffic, usually costs money. And even if you have a flat-rate, your provider still has to pay for the traffic, and at some point, the traffic caused by spam is higher than what the provider earns from the customers. And at that point, the costs for the traffic have to be passed to the customer. IMHO, that is a _big_ problem.
It's immoral not to fight spam because it doesn't have a bad impact on oneself's mail system. I, for one, get more than 300 spam mails per day, and more than 2000 bounces of undeliverable mails because some spammers use my domain for generating fake from-headers.
Not necessarily. Every native Mac OS X program that can print can also generate PDF files -- the print dialog has a button "save as PDF" beside the "print" button, and clicking that button makes the program "print" into the specified file (which is then in PDF format) instead of sending the output to the actual printer device.
No, it's not obscure. Please have a look at Ruby, where closures are the natural way of doing most things. For example, there is no for-loop, but it is implemented as method for Integer objects (literals are also objects in Ruby):
... end is the closure
14.upto(19) do |i|
# do
end
so, the closure is executed 6 times, the first time with i = 14, the next time with i = 15, the third time with i = 16, up to i = 19.
Just have a closer look at Ruby, and you will see that the whole standard library is built on top of this simple and elegant concept. The book "Programming Ruby" can even be read online and downloaded from www.pragmaticprogrammer.com.
Well, I would, if they one built computers with Brainf*ck CPU.