What I really want is a set of KHTML components ported to Windows as COM objects; preferably the WebCore KHTML package, adaptaion by Apple, as COM objects.
Or, one can simply say that implementing own API standards suck ass because it benefits no-one and promotes platform lock-in. The second fact is, that API's are abstract implementations which means that, for example, same API call ore most oftenly exploitable on one platform but not on another; there are of course exceptions, like not having lenght parameters in functioncalls for c strings.
TCO is only useful as an internal evaluation tool; anyone using a TCO as a generalization of how things are is only something a complete idiot would do.
If a company get a lower TCO from doing whatever, it doesn't mean jack shit if someone else does the same thing, the resault will be different.
All these reports on TCO, well, you can shove them up the ass, 'cause that's where they belong.
In fact, I hate all people who do these idiotic things, especially Cybersource and the likes, because they obviously don't understand what they are doing; and yet, people still listen. Amazing!
Sorry if I come of as a flamer, but dammit, this needs to be said.
does anyone know if this will stop me from using GPL'ed components (like Mircosoft COM)? That would be terrible because then they would put restrictions on the output of programs; and I'm no fan of restricting USAGE.
Actually, I'm no fan of GPL, but if GPL v3 puts such restrictions on software it is doomed in the enterprise.
Jon is clueless about all things related to Mircosoft, which is nothing strange from where he comes from. I, however, originally came from the UNIX (BSD)world and has gone to the Microsoft.NET platform. Now knowing what Microsoft is today brings Jon's statements in a different light than probably most/.tters. Everything Microsoft is available through.NET, which by the way are mostly very open standards, except for WinForms and that doesn't really bother me all that much.
The others are just pure flamethrowers.
That's what I like about Linus, he usually doesn't talk about things of which he doesn't know a great deal.
It's no wonder that people think of Linux users as totally clueless, because if one of the pioneers have no clue at all, then what about the rest?
If there is anything like bad press then Bruce Perens, maddog, ESR and RMS are the pioneers of it.
You fellows should be glad that Linus is such a lovely chap, he can sometimes make up for it.
Seriously, if Linux was a company and had all the same incompetent spokespersons it would be in the gutter.
Maybe Linus can gag them for attampt on ruining his reputation.;)
Seriously, couldn't Linus assign official spokespersons so that us non Linux users can hear something other than uninformed opinions? That would be great, because; even though I will never use Linux; I'm still interested in what is _really_ going on.
Form the last paragraph, if you're too lacy to read the short article: The kernel is definitely maturing in the sense that a lot of the exciting really _new_ things are all in user space, and the kernel is sometimes called upon to make them easier to work with...
I thought the deal was that it fitted better in with the NetBSD philosophy, that the code is simpler and therefor better in the long run for the project.
Matt has the same goal, but not in code, but in concept. I could be wrong though, I have not done my homework on UVM.
But, after having begain using Windows then.NET was released I came to the simple conclusion that WinUAE is so much better than plain UAE it's almost funny. Naturally, this is intended for games and not serious work, but anyway; I recomend anyone that runs Windows to try WinUAE and AmigaOS with last release of Directory Opus, wow, what a desktop!
For a while I ran more AmigaOS than BSD(or the Windows system used to run WinUAE), which is strange since I've been a BSD-only user since '94. AmigaOS with Directory Opus is the only GUI enviroment I've ever tried that did feel natural.
If anyone could make a LIGHTWEIGHT clone of this to run on my BSD boxes (that is without the use of X.org, GTK/QT) I'd be very happy. I run zsh only!
All this probably sounds strange, hell, it sounds strange to me too. I've tested KDE which was nice once you trimed it down, and GNOME which I didn't like at all, but all of them are dead in usability and joyful experience compared to the ancient system.
Too bad there are very few apps; and no memory protection, on the other hand I only had one guru meditation in about 3 months.
The Linux kernel development model works quite well.
There are however a few dark spots; the first come first serve attitude, like the old VM debacle for example; and all the other beta stuff that enters, like drivers for example. The fact is that technical merits are always weighted by opinions, and opinions on lklm are strong.
These things will not bite you if you're sensible and don't update your kernels day in and day out; the few good Linux admins I know (maybe because I know few Linux users;) are still on kernel version less or equal to 2.2.x.
It really doesn't matter what system you run; be it AmigaOS, Windows, VMS, BSD, Random Linux Distro, or OS/400, to name a few; if you know what you're doing you kan do pretty much anything.
Matt has and have always had a strong opinion on the weight on specific technical merits, namely simplicity. You have to remember that Matt is originally from AmigaOS country, and his opinion therefor is strongly shaped by his love for its design. While I agree with Matt, I also understand why the rest of the FreeBSD team picked another option; because it also, from their point of view, the best. Matt's opinion is strong, and he refused to accept the choice of others, like he has done many times before; therefor we have DFBSD. This is not bad or wrong, because we will have two excellent options to choose from, depending on how we weight technical merit with our opinions.
It seams PREEMPTION is changes to how the VM works, i.e. it avoids a few NOPs and context switches. The current implementation of PREEMPTION was designed for working with SCHED_ULE, not SCHED_4BSD, but as SCHED_ULE is causing trouble on it's own; and PREEMPTION is causing problems with SCHED_4BSD; I recomend only option SCHED_4BSD for servers. At least try SCHED_ULE + PREEMPTION on the desktop, to see if you don't experience any problems. The more people use SCHED_ULE + PREEMPTION the better, we want it fixed as soon as possible.
Because it's a system and not a kernel? To be honest, if you're happy with Gentoo, then use it; we don't really care either way, we use BSD because it's the best for us.
Try it, for 2 months at least, and then decide. If you like it, fine, if you don't fine. I don't really care what other people uses, as long as it doesn't interfere with what I'm doing; hell, I've even started using Windows when.NET v1.1 was released, because *gasp* I like.NET.
Does anyone know if ULE is put back in as the default scheduler? The 4BSD scheduler is stronger, and better in almost every aspect, but unfortanly not on the desktop where you'll notice the difference. The reason I ask is that my less than experienced FreeBSD users that have cron'ed cvsup and buildworld might complain that performace when using VLC is decreasing; it's annoying to have to explain possible reasons without knowing. The mentioned disabled PREEMPTION option seams to indicate this, but I'm not familiar with that option as I'm very happy with the old RELEASE which has another option (options SCHED_ULE).
Tree-SSA is not new, it's new to GCC but the concept of Single Static Assignment itself is ancient and using it for optimizing trees in not new. The problem is the GCC codebase is so badly designed it takes major changes to many parts to introduce a very old concept of SSA into it. So you can't take advantage of a generic SSA but have to introduce different patches for the system.
Back in my university days we did SSA in our own compilers, for a 5 week course! GCC needs a complete rewrite or a switch to something like TenDRA, which right now produces good solid code, but not extremely optimized machinecode. On the other hand TenDRA is really well designed so it would catch up really fast if more people worked on it.
Yes, that's what I said; it's still a new API, though eclipsing the traditional. The thing is, it's still doesn't matter, because the current apps can't take advantage of it and new apps will not work on old systems. So, you still depend on a daemon or a competent user, just as I said.
It's trivial to implement this, I could do this on FreeBSD in just a few hours, but it isn't as useful as it seems. Snapshots are supported on ZFS just as on the old UFS2/SU on FreeBSD, so transactions are trivial to implement on top of it; but you still have to rewrite the apps! Again, you need have a daemon or competent user to monitor if it indeed is a successful transaction (can be done in-kernel but you should keep that to a minimum).
And, well, you also need a new API interface to replace flock, as you need semaphoric heterogenous process flocks for trasactions to work in reality.
There are several FS like this, but you don't know of them because they require completely new FS API to work with. With UFS2/SU we have snapshots which is a compromise; it does require any changes in the original UNIX API, and all current apps therefor work. On the other hand, it either requires a daemon or a competent user.
So, either you have UNIX or you have something else. Plan9 has many advantages, still, we use BSD, Solaris or whatever.
I'm really happy with UFS2/SU, and have been more than happy with the original UFS in general since 1994 when I first started off with NetBSD. But, with ZFS, maybe we finally have found a FS with replacing it with. I sure look forward to trying Solaris 10, though I'm sure that I will find that SunOS has a better feal to it, like always.
Maybe DragonflyBSD will be the one to do this, FreeBSD is generally more restrictive to radical changes; for good reasons, you don't get that stability without reason.
My point is that, all these brats here on/. running thier mouths when a bug appears in software by Microsoft, then try, just like you to turn the same event in FSF/OSS software into something positive. Man, do you annoy me.
For the common man, diversity is the key to security. As long as we have diversity the less humanity as a whole is vulnerable, such as the DNA.
You people never took biology class right? There is two key elements to life, simplicity and diversity. The simpler the lifeform, the better for survival in the long run. The more diversity, the less vulnerable you are to specific threats.
I can't stop laughing at how you guys always try to make security an closed vs open source thing. Man am I glad you don't work where I do.
I did some research into this on my B.Sc. thesis, in essence it's a solution looking for a problem.
The thing is, you want backups because you want to be able to get it back, with this (and my idea) you have little control over the backup; in short words, it's not a backup.
FreeNet may at a first ignorant glance be a solution to this dilemma, however, you still have the same terror of doubt. Because you're not in control!
To summarize, there is a difference between not wanting to lose something, and wanting something. If you don't get something you want, it hurts, if you lose something you need, it kills.
Control is everything, even if you have a 50% success rate and you know it you'll be quite happy. You will not like a 60% +/-40% success rate.
Considering the fact that a single fly laying eggs would; if the offspring wasn't to die premature age by spiders and such; would, after a year, have caused such a huge amount of flies that it would equal the mass of this little planet.
A great energy source, all the robots would need to do is to smell like shit, and they'd be done for life:)
Imagine a lake covered in shitsmelling robots, what a sight!
Slashdot Mirror
What I really want is a set of KHTML components ported to Windows as COM objects; preferably the WebCore KHTML package, adaptaion by Apple, as COM objects.
Or, one can simply say that implementing own API standards suck ass because it benefits no-one and promotes platform lock-in.
The second fact is, that API's are abstract implementations which means that, for example, same API call ore most oftenly exploitable on one platform but not on another; there are of course exceptions, like not having lenght parameters in functioncalls for c strings.
TCO is only useful as an internal evaluation tool; anyone using a TCO as a generalization of how things are is only something a complete idiot would do.
If a company get a lower TCO from doing whatever, it doesn't mean jack shit if someone else does the same thing, the resault will be different.
All these reports on TCO, well, you can shove them up the ass, 'cause that's where they belong.
In fact, I hate all people who do these idiotic things, especially Cybersource and the likes, because they obviously don't understand what they are doing; and yet, people still listen. Amazing!
Sorry if I come of as a flamer, but dammit, this needs to be said.
My guess is that MySQL will decline now that PHP uses SQLite, and that PostgreSQL has so much more speed, stamina, strength and beauty.
.NET remoting and I'll be really happy.
Still, it's good that comprehensive book is released, some will sure find it useful.
Now, someone point me to a nice book on SQLite integration with
does anyone know if this will stop me from using GPL'ed components (like Mircosoft COM)?
That would be terrible because then they would put restrictions on the output of programs; and I'm no fan of restricting USAGE.
Actually, I'm no fan of GPL, but if GPL v3 puts such restrictions on software it is doomed in the enterprise.
Jon is clueless about all things related to Mircosoft, which is nothing strange from where he comes from. .NET platform. Now knowing what Microsoft is today brings Jon's statements in a different light than probably most /.tters. .NET, which by the way are mostly very open standards, except for WinForms and that doesn't really bother me all that much.
I, however, originally came from the UNIX (BSD)world and has gone to the Microsoft
Everything Microsoft is available through
The others are just pure flamethrowers.
That's what I like about Linus, he usually doesn't talk about things of which he doesn't know a great deal.
It's no wonder that people think of Linux users as totally clueless, because if one of the pioneers have no clue at all, then what about the rest?
;)
If there is anything like bad press then Bruce Perens, maddog, ESR and RMS are the pioneers of it.
You fellows should be glad that Linus is such a lovely chap, he can sometimes make up for it.
Seriously, if Linux was a company and had all the same incompetent spokespersons it would be in the gutter.
Maybe Linus can gag them for attampt on ruining his reputation.
Seriously, couldn't Linus assign official spokespersons so that us non Linux users can hear something other than uninformed opinions?
That would be great, because; even though I will never use Linux; I'm still interested in what is _really_ going on.
It's simple logic. Any idiot will understand this, and if they don't they just have to take a CS101.
Hell, even Linus appear to understand it.
Form the last paragraph, if you're too lacy to read the short article:
The kernel is definitely maturing in the sense that a lot of the exciting really _new_ things are all in user space, and the kernel is sometimes called upon to make them easier to work with...
I thought the deal was that it fitted better in with the NetBSD philosophy, that the code is simpler and therefor better in the long run for the project.
Matt has the same goal, but not in code, but in concept. I could be wrong though, I have not done my homework on UVM.
That's the best post I've ever seen on slashdot, by far. Kudos.
But, after having begain using Windows then .NET was released I came to the simple conclusion that WinUAE is so much better than plain UAE it's almost funny.
Naturally, this is intended for games and not serious work, but anyway; I recomend anyone that runs Windows to try WinUAE and AmigaOS with last release of Directory Opus, wow, what a desktop!
For a while I ran more AmigaOS than BSD(or the Windows system used to run WinUAE), which is strange since I've been a BSD-only user since '94.
AmigaOS with Directory Opus is the only GUI enviroment I've ever tried that did feel natural.
If anyone could make a LIGHTWEIGHT clone of this to run on my BSD boxes (that is without the use of X.org, GTK/QT) I'd be very happy. I run zsh only!
All this probably sounds strange, hell, it sounds strange to me too. I've tested KDE which was nice once you trimed it down, and GNOME which I didn't like at all, but all of them are dead in usability and joyful experience compared to the ancient system.
Too bad there are very few apps; and no memory protection, on the other hand I only had one guru meditation in about 3 months.
The Linux kernel development model works quite well.
;) are still on kernel version less or equal to 2.2.x.
There are however a few dark spots; the first come first serve attitude, like the old VM debacle for example; and all the other beta stuff that enters, like drivers for example.
The fact is that technical merits are always weighted by opinions, and opinions on lklm are strong.
These things will not bite you if you're sensible and don't update your kernels day in and day out; the few good Linux admins I know (maybe because I know few Linux users
It really doesn't matter what system you run; be it AmigaOS, Windows, VMS, BSD, Random Linux Distro, or OS/400, to name a few; if you know what you're doing you kan do pretty much anything.
Matt has and have always had a strong opinion on the weight on specific technical merits, namely simplicity.
You have to remember that Matt is originally from AmigaOS country, and his opinion therefor is strongly shaped by his love for its design.
While I agree with Matt, I also understand why the rest of the FreeBSD team picked another option; because it also, from their point of view, the best.
Matt's opinion is strong, and he refused to accept the choice of others, like he has done many times before; therefor we have DFBSD.
This is not bad or wrong, because we will have two excellent options to choose from, depending on how we weight technical merit with our opinions.
It seams PREEMPTION is changes to how the VM works, i.e. it avoids a few NOPs and context switches.
The current implementation of PREEMPTION was designed for working with SCHED_ULE, not SCHED_4BSD, but as SCHED_ULE is causing trouble on it's own; and PREEMPTION is causing problems with SCHED_4BSD; I recomend only option SCHED_4BSD for servers.
At least try SCHED_ULE + PREEMPTION on the desktop, to see if you don't experience any problems.
The more people use SCHED_ULE + PREEMPTION the better, we want it fixed as soon as possible.
You might want to try Jython and the Numerical Python for Jython.
I have not used either for a long time, but use plain Python and Numerical Python a lot; sure beats Matlab and Mathematica for most things. Right now for solving optimization problems with 10k+ s.t. constraints.
Because it's a system and not a kernel?
.NET v1.1 was released, because *gasp* I like .NET.
To be honest, if you're happy with Gentoo, then use it; we don't really care either way, we use BSD because it's the best for us.
Try it, for 2 months at least, and then decide. If you like it, fine, if you don't fine.
I don't really care what other people uses, as long as it doesn't interfere with what I'm doing; hell, I've even started using Windows when
Does anyone know if ULE is put back in as the default scheduler? The 4BSD scheduler is stronger, and better in almost every aspect, but unfortanly not on the desktop where you'll notice the difference.
The reason I ask is that my less than experienced FreeBSD users that have cron'ed cvsup and buildworld might complain that performace when using VLC is decreasing; it's annoying to have to explain possible reasons without knowing.
The mentioned disabled PREEMPTION option seams to indicate this, but I'm not familiar with that option as I'm very happy with the old RELEASE which has another option (options SCHED_ULE).
Tree-SSA is not new, it's new to GCC but the concept of Single Static Assignment itself is ancient and using it for optimizing trees in not new.
The problem is the GCC codebase is so badly designed it takes major changes to many parts to introduce a very old concept of SSA into it. So you can't take advantage of a generic SSA but have to introduce different patches for the system.
Back in my university days we did SSA in our own compilers, for a 5 week course! GCC needs a complete rewrite or a switch to something like TenDRA, which right now produces good solid code, but not extremely optimized machinecode. On the other hand TenDRA is really well designed so it would catch up really fast if more people worked on it.
Yes, that's what I said; it's still a new API, though eclipsing the traditional.
The thing is, it's still doesn't matter, because the current apps can't take advantage of it and new apps will not work on old systems.
So, you still depend on a daemon or a competent user, just as I said.
It's trivial to implement this, I could do this on FreeBSD in just a few hours, but it isn't as useful as it seems. Snapshots are supported on ZFS just as on the old UFS2/SU on FreeBSD, so transactions are trivial to implement on top of it; but you still have to rewrite the apps! Again, you need have a daemon or competent user to monitor if it indeed is a successful transaction (can be done in-kernel but you should keep that to a minimum).
And, well, you also need a new API interface to replace flock, as you need semaphoric heterogenous process flocks for trasactions to work in reality.
There are several FS like this, but you don't know of them because they require completely new FS API to work with.
With UFS2/SU we have snapshots which is a compromise; it does require any changes in the original UNIX API, and all current apps therefor work. On the other hand, it either requires a daemon or a competent user.
So, either you have UNIX or you have something else. Plan9 has many advantages, still, we use BSD, Solaris or whatever.
I'm really happy with UFS2/SU, and have been more than happy with the original UFS in general since 1994 when I first started off with NetBSD.
But, with ZFS, maybe we finally have found a FS with replacing it with. I sure look forward to trying Solaris 10, though I'm sure that I will find that SunOS has a better feal to it, like always.
Maybe DragonflyBSD will be the one to do this, FreeBSD is generally more restrictive to radical changes; for good reasons, you don't get that stability without reason.
Just so you know, links is my browser of choice.
/. running thier mouths when a bug appears in software by Microsoft, then try, just like you to turn the same event in FSF/OSS software into something positive.
My point is that, all these brats here on
Man, do you annoy me.
For the common man, diversity is the key to security. As long as we have diversity the less humanity as a whole is vulnerable, such as the DNA.
You people never took biology class right?
There is two key elements to life, simplicity and diversity. The simpler the lifeform, the better for survival in the long run. The more diversity, the less vulnerable you are to specific threats.
I can't stop laughing at how you guys always try to make security an closed vs open source thing. Man am I glad you don't work where I do.
Those who talk about shit are full of it.
I'm so glad this happened, which it would happen hourly so that those annoying FSF/OSS brats shut up.
Diversity is the key to security. I'm glad we still have quite a few choices around, no matter where we look.
I did some research into this on my B.Sc. thesis, in essence it's a solution looking for a problem.
The thing is, you want backups because you want to be able to get it back, with this (and my idea) you have little control over the backup; in short words, it's not a backup.
FreeNet may at a first ignorant glance be a solution to this dilemma, however, you still have the same terror of doubt. Because you're not in control!
To summarize, there is a difference between not wanting to lose something, and wanting something.
If you don't get something you want, it hurts, if you lose something you need, it kills.
Control is everything, even if you have a 50% success rate and you know it you'll be quite happy. You will not like a 60% +/-40% success rate.
f(x)=2^x-2^(x-1)
lim(x)->infinity
Considering the fact that a single fly laying eggs would; if the offspring wasn't to die premature age by spiders and such; would, after a year, have caused such a huge amount of flies that it would equal the mass of this little planet.
:)
A great energy source, all the robots would need to do is to smell like shit, and they'd be done for life
Imagine a lake covered in shitsmelling robots, what a sight!