AFAIK Linux manages NUMA transparently by default including a NUMA-aware scheduler, and you have a pretty sophisticated API on top, see this link. Moreover NUMA on Linux works on a pretty broad range of hardware including bona fide supercomputers.
Whereas with this pretty pitiful MS API you are free to do your own NUMA management yourself, and it's AMD64 or Itanium or nothing.
Ordinary desktop usage shows hundreds of theads active. It doesn't take long at a MacOS/X desktop to find out that the scheduler doesn't do a very good job (this is on 10.3, apparently 10.4 is worse).
Whereas at any Linux desktop if you do nothing the CPU meter shows almost exactly 0, even a reasonably busy desktop with lots and lots and apps and windows open ; on a similar OS/X desktop even though none of the apps are doing anything, the CPU meter typically hover at about 15%. This seems to be pure scheduler overhead.
On MacOS/X it is typically impossible for any app to take anywhere near 100% CPU. There are specialized (shareware) apps that make it easier to manually put all the apps you are not using right now *to sleep* so that a given front app can take more of the CPU. The typical example is iTunes when it converts a CD to mp3.
iTunes never gets more than 80% CPU even though it is working full tilt. With the aforementioned shareware (called Cunning Fox or something like that) iTune can work at near 100%. In effect the difference is much more impressive. iTunes becomes suddendly about 40-50% faster at converting the tracks.
To me this is clearly evidence of a badly broken scheduler.
Overall I find OS/X not very well optimized for desktop usage. Sure the GUI is pretty and functionnal, but there is just too much wasted overhead and it does show. MacOS also requires VASTS amounts of memory.
I almost never swap on my 1GB RAM Linux desktop. My 768MB OS/X machine starts swapping when I read mail in addition to browsing the web. This is unacceptable. After about a week of usage I have to reboot so much it thrashes around everytime I switch apps.
Apple still has a lot of work to do. Can't it port Aqua to pure FreeBSD?
Let's just say that I admire how much resources it takes under NT to spawn one new process. In fact I'm positively astonished. A good thing? I think not.
I'm also in awe of the way the NT kernel is virtualized and compartimentalized. Wait, it's not. You do know, don't you, that a Sun E15k with an arbitrary number of CPUs under Solaris can be split any which way (dynamically even) as virtual computers?
Is it the TCP/IP stack that you admire? Hmm, where was that taken from again?
The directory system then? Novell anyone?
NUMA perhaps? no, NT doesn't have that.
In fact what's so special about NT, with or without win32, that is so good? Is there a single piece that no one else has?
1969 AT&T Unix V.1 has nothing to do with current versions of Solaris, BSD or even Linux other than that they are their common ancestor.
According to K&R 1st edition, the complete V1 of Unix was about 10,000 lines of codes in C plus about 1000 in assembly, whereas Win2000 is reportedly 25 million LoC.
At least initially, until you can prove you weren't the driver at the time of the crime. The fines will be sent to your address, and it will be up to you to fight them in court and provide evidence.
This is the 4th person being saved by the system. So far the system hasn't missed anybody drowning. There is about 1-4 false positive per day per pool (which is acceptable according to lifeguards).
The system is very quick, reacts in about 10s. It essentially works by finding and tracking everybody underwater in the pools. It knows the 3D location of all swimmers, and reacts if someone is underwater and motionless for a few seconds. Poseidon/VisionIQ did a lot of innovative research in 3D tracking which has been published and patented over the last 10 years or so. Some of the people working at that company are among the smartest I know.
Poseidon is a small company and as it is they barely break even. The system is not just clever software, but lots of cameras and a fast computer system. The installation is not easy as all cameras have to be calibrated for the specific 3D architecture of the pool. The cost may look steep but really is isn't that much compared with the normal cost of the pool maintenance, as it is essentially a one-off cost.
At a large public pool apparently someone can be expected to drown every other year or so in spite of lifeguards presence. Poseidon can make a difference. It cannot replace lifeguards as someone trained has to do the rescues, it is just an alert system.
In 2004 in the UK a person drowned in a pool which had rejected the Poseidon system. The next day the paper's outline were "Person drowns for want of 65,000 Pounds".
For all the Linux afficionados out there, last I heard Poseidon ran on Windows NT 4.0.
For all the naysayers out there, when Poseidon started no one thought they had a business, but they single-handedly created their own market. We can now expect competitors to show up. As most trailblazers Poseidon might be bought out in the future by some big security company spinoff or something. We can also expect the system's cost to come down somewhat in the future, and hopefully to be more prevalent.
Nevertheless I'd be very proud to have been associated with a small outfit who has measurably saved people's lives. Very few endeavours succeed in that regard.
Read again my example with the rocket. FYI, I have taken and stayed awake throught more physics courses than I care to remember, and way after high school too.
The idea that gravity is a potential giving rise to a force is at the heart of Newtonian physics.
In General Relativity (GRT) gravity does not give rise to a force. It accelerates things in exactly the same way as a rocket or an elevator does.
Compare two rooms. Both are closed without windows. One is in a rocket or an elevator accelerating at a given unchanging rate (at 1g) the other is placed in a gravity field at 1g.
GRT says there does not exists an experiment in physics that allows to distinguish the two rooms from each other.
Acceleration and gravity are one and the same thing.
Hence, the laptop sitting still at the table is constantly accelerating at 1g, and so is the typist. If the laptop falls from the table then for a while from its own point of view, it does not feel any gravity anymore (ignoring air drag, etc) and so is no longer accelerated! Any accelerometer attached to the laptop would register 0g in any and alll directions and would confirm this.
The typist on the other hand is still being accelerated at 1g and this is why it sees the laptop picking up speed. However from the laptop point of view at 0 g, it is definitely the typist who is being accelerated, not itself!
Up to a very high degree of precision the situation which you describe, where gravity is assimilated to a potential giving rise to a force, and the one I describe are equivalent, but not quite.
Numerous experiments have shown the GRT point of view to be more correct because it allows to account for many spacetime effects. FYI the laptop in free fall follows a geodesic in spacetime.
What is happening is that some random people took some "Perfect 10" images, either from P10's publicly available previews, or by any other means. Then these same random people have put up their own web site with these selfsame images, without permission from P10.
Finally these sites were harvested by Google and indexed.
So who is committing copyright infrigement again?
If anything Google should be thanked for providing a link to the people's website who took the images without permission, allowing them to be perhaps identified. P10 should be suing *them*.
But no, it's too much work and they probably are just a bunch of amateur with little to no money, so P10 is choosing to sue Google instead. Guess why.
How this has anything to to with Google's alleged "arrogance" we'll never know.
"Arrogant" is another term for successful people who are onto a good thing and they know it. Many can't take somebody else's success. So Apple, Microsoft and now Google are "arrogant".
Personnally I'm delighted that Google is doing so well. So far everybody benefits, including mere users. At least we have Microsoft running scared a little. In the past this meant they react intelligently and fast (like in the case of the web browser for win95) but these days they take the PR approach a bit more.
Moderators are not on crack, on the contrary they have taken a physics course I believe.
We are talking about two different points of view. From the point of view of the laptop in itself, if it is sitting still on a table then it is accelerating at 1g. This is what the Earth's gravity does to the laptop. According to GRT, there is no difference whatsoever between gravity and acceleration.
Relative to an observer typing on the laptop for example, the laptop does not *appear* to accelerate because the observer is also accelerating exactly at the same rate and in the same direction (under the same gravity field in fact!).
Now if the laptop is dropped, then for a moment the laptop is in fact *no longer* accelerating. It is in free fall, in an indistinguishable fashion as if it were far away from any source of gravity and in constant motion.
From the point of view of the observer, the laptop *appears* to accelerate, but in fact what is happening is that it is the observer which is still accelerating at 1g (in the opposite direction), while the laptop is no longer!
Finally the laptop is brought to a stop relative to the observer by a hard surface. This makes the laptop feel a high acceleration for a brief moment and what is usually damaging it.
Imagine that instead of being on the Earth, the observer and the laptop were in a rocket heading to the stars at 1g constant acceleration. Then they'd be no argument that both laptop and observer, if stitting still in the rocket at some desk, would be accelerating at 1g, and if the laptop was dropped, then it would be in free fall.
GRT was developed by taking the hypothesis that the situation in the rocket and on the Earth were indistinguishable, and working out the implication. So far GRT has proved correct.
You are perfectly correct. I think however that socialism doesn't account for sociopaths, and that there are many of them around. With capitalism sociopath are in fact rewarded, many end up as CEO!
According to the article 20 million people have taken Vioxx. How many have died or have suffered heart problems as a cause of having taken the drug? This is the real problem.
The public demands 100% safe drugs, but there aren't any such things. What level of risk are we willing to accept?
Do you know that the only person to get shot at so far under the "shoot-to-kill" anti-terrorist policy in London was in fact innocent, and is now dead?
Common sense my foot. If you have a bona fide terrorist with a suicide belt on that you can see and the finger on the button then you do shoot to kill, for sure, no one disputes that.
The problem is that in many cases you are in a poorly lit area, far away, and you need to interpret what you dimly see, very quickly. A sure-fire recipe for killing lots of innocents.
Everybody wants to shoot the terrorists, and nobody wants to shoot the innocents. How you distinguish one from the other is not as simple as it may seems from the comfy chair where you are typing.
Could you explain why running a trade surplus is a terrible thing and what it has to do with lack of investments ?
Foreign or domestic investments don't show in trade balance. A trade surplus just means the Chinese sell more to other countries than they buy from them. They may well invest the difference in domestic investments.
Moreover since the whole world is a closed system, if economy A is running a trade deficit then the complement of A must run a trace surplus.
At the moment the USA and Europe buy a lot of Chinese goods, and all the economic indicators show that the Chinese economy is growing fast as a result, and has been for some time.
Well I sat through a Chomsky lecture once, and it was very entertaining. He says the most horrid and challenging things with total equanimity, then back them up with long lists of facts. He is a great public speaker and must be a difficult person to challenge in a public debate. If you search on MIT's website you'll find a few of his lectures available for download.
Similarly if you haven't sat through the standard RMS spiel on Free Software then you've missed something. RMS may not the best public speaker but he speaks simply, clearly and visibly believes what he is talking about.
The common point of these two people is that most people come out of these lectures at least challenged by their viewpoint. It is not at all the sort of thing one regularly hears on prime-time television.
On the other hand, if people didn't get fined, then some revenue would get lost and the State, who has legitimate expenses of its own (such as pay troopers, maintain roads, etc) would have to raise the money somehow, i.e. by raising taxes.
The point of the fine system is to help the State meet its expenses by making people who abuse the system (and get caught) pay more than those who don't.
Now is that insane or perfectly legitimate? Can you propose a better system?
I suspect that you'd rather that the perpetrators pay their fines to the victims (when there are any) without the State taking its cut. That sounds fair until you realize that some perps won't pay. They may be insolvent, they may run away, they may be dead (in the accident), all sorts of reasons. Some perps might even want to take revenge on the victim for forcing them to part with their hard-earned cash. Also the State would probably not be very motivated to force people to pay since they would not be getting their piece of the action.
The outcome would be that some victims would get compensated and some wouldn't. It wouldn't be fair. Also it would probably be massively more complicated and inefficient. The fine system is simple, efficient and well enforced.
That's why we have the insurance system and social security to compensate victims instead.
Feel free to come up with a better system, then get elected. After all you live in a democracy.
I'm not sure any crime is committed if somebody buys a student/teacher VS license and then sells it to you. The EULA may prevent it but it goes against the doctrine of first sale and so probably would not hold in court. IANAL so this is does not constitute any legal advice.
If you want to avoid the problem you mention of shipping some Microsoft software along your code without a proper license, then first you can develop your software using the student/teacher version of VS, and then compile for production using the free command-line tools.
There are few restrictions on the compiled code shipped with the free tools, from Microsoft:
Are there any restrictions on how I use the Visual C++ Toolkit? In general, no. You may use the Toolkit to build C++ -based applications, even commercial applications, and you may redistribute those applications in accordance with the terms of the End User License Agreement (EULA).
The text of the said EULA is for once rather short and unobtrusive (for these sort of things).
The original title for this documentary was "La marche de l'empereur", or "the emperor's march" which is a lot wittier than the current translated title.
Why the marketing department decided to dumb down the title translation is one of life's little mystery.
Slashdot Mirror
AFAIK Linux manages NUMA transparently by default including a NUMA-aware scheduler, and you have a pretty sophisticated API on top, see
this link. Moreover NUMA on Linux works on a pretty broad range of hardware including bona fide supercomputers.
Whereas with this pretty pitiful MS API you are free to do your own NUMA management yourself, and it's AMD64 or Itanium or nothing.
Have you noticed that the ink cartriges on new printers are not full?
Kind of like the very poor quality "for testing only" batteries you get with some electronic equipment nowadays.
I disagree,
Ordinary desktop usage shows hundreds of theads active. It doesn't take long at a MacOS/X desktop to find out that the scheduler doesn't do a very good job (this is on 10.3, apparently 10.4 is worse).
Whereas at any Linux desktop if you do nothing the CPU meter shows almost exactly 0, even a reasonably busy desktop with lots and lots and apps and windows open ; on a similar OS/X desktop even though none of the apps are doing anything, the CPU meter typically hover at about 15%. This seems to be pure scheduler overhead.
On MacOS/X it is typically impossible for any app to take anywhere near 100% CPU. There are specialized (shareware) apps that make it easier to manually put all the apps you are not using right now *to sleep* so that a given front app can take more of the CPU. The typical example is iTunes when it converts a CD to mp3.
iTunes never gets more than 80% CPU even though it is working full tilt. With the aforementioned shareware (called Cunning Fox or something like that) iTune can work at near 100%. In effect the difference is much more impressive. iTunes becomes suddendly about 40-50% faster at converting the tracks.
To me this is clearly evidence of a badly broken scheduler.
Overall I find OS/X not very well optimized for desktop usage. Sure the GUI is pretty and functionnal, but there is just too much wasted overhead and it does show. MacOS also requires VASTS amounts of memory.
I almost never swap on my 1GB RAM Linux desktop. My 768MB OS/X machine starts swapping when I read mail in addition to browsing the web. This is unacceptable. After about a week of usage I have to reboot so much it thrashes around everytime I switch apps.
Apple still has a lot of work to do. Can't it port Aqua to pure FreeBSD?
Really?
Let's just say that I admire how much resources it takes under NT to spawn one new process. In fact I'm positively astonished. A good thing? I think not.
I'm also in awe of the way the NT kernel is virtualized and compartimentalized. Wait, it's not. You do know, don't you, that a Sun E15k with an arbitrary number of CPUs under Solaris can be split any which way (dynamically even) as virtual computers?
Is it the TCP/IP stack that you admire? Hmm, where was that taken from again?
The directory system then? Novell anyone?
NUMA perhaps? no, NT doesn't have that.
In fact what's so special about NT, with or without win32, that is so good? Is there a single piece that no one else has?
1969 AT&T Unix V.1 has nothing to do with current versions of Solaris, BSD or even Linux other than that they are their common ancestor.
According to K&R 1st edition, the complete V1 of Unix was about 10,000 lines of codes in C plus about 1000 in assembly, whereas Win2000 is reportedly 25 million LoC.
I don't know in your jurisdiction, but in mine :
1- yes
2- yes
3- yes.
At least initially, until you can prove you weren't the driver at the time of the crime. The fines will be sent to your address, and it will be up to you to fight them in court and provide evidence.
Well in Ghandi's case he was prepared to go to prison, and he did, many times. How many downloaders are, I'm not sure.
This is the 4th person being saved by the system. So far the system hasn't missed anybody drowning. There is about 1-4 false positive per day per pool (which is acceptable according to lifeguards).
The system is very quick, reacts in about 10s. It essentially works by finding and tracking everybody underwater in the pools. It knows the 3D location of all swimmers, and reacts if someone is underwater and motionless for a few seconds. Poseidon/VisionIQ did a lot of innovative research in 3D tracking which has been published and patented over the last 10 years or so. Some of the people working at that company are among the smartest I know.
Poseidon is a small company and as it is they barely break even. The system is not just clever software, but lots of cameras and a fast computer system. The installation is not easy as all cameras have to be calibrated for the specific 3D architecture of the pool. The cost may look steep but really is isn't that much compared with the normal cost of the pool maintenance, as it is essentially a one-off cost.
At a large public pool apparently someone can be expected to drown every other year or so in spite of lifeguards presence. Poseidon can make a difference. It cannot replace lifeguards as someone trained has to do the rescues, it is just an alert system.
In 2004 in the UK a person drowned in a pool which had rejected the Poseidon system. The next day the paper's outline were "Person drowns for want of 65,000 Pounds".
For all the Linux afficionados out there, last I heard Poseidon ran on Windows NT 4.0.
For all the naysayers out there, when Poseidon started no one thought they had a business, but they single-handedly created their own market. We can now expect competitors to show up. As most trailblazers Poseidon might be bought out in the future by some big security company spinoff or something. We can also expect the system's cost to come down somewhat in the future, and hopefully to be more prevalent.
Nevertheless I'd be very proud to have been associated with a small outfit who has measurably saved people's lives. Very few endeavours succeed in that regard.
Best.
Hello,
Read again my example with the rocket. FYI, I have taken and stayed awake throught more physics courses than I care to remember, and way after high school too.
The idea that gravity is a potential giving rise to a force is at the heart of Newtonian physics.
In General Relativity (GRT) gravity does not give rise to a force. It accelerates things in exactly the same way as a rocket or an elevator does.
Compare two rooms. Both are closed without windows. One is in a rocket or an elevator accelerating at a given unchanging rate (at 1g) the other is placed in a gravity field at 1g.
GRT says there does not exists an experiment in physics that allows to distinguish the two rooms from each other.
Acceleration and gravity are one and the same thing.
Hence, the laptop sitting still at the table is constantly accelerating at 1g, and so is the typist. If the laptop falls from the table then for a while from its own point of view, it does not feel any gravity anymore (ignoring air drag, etc) and so is no longer accelerated! Any accelerometer attached to the laptop would register 0g in any and alll directions and would confirm this.
The typist on the other hand is still being accelerated at 1g and this is why it sees the laptop picking up speed. However from the laptop point of view at 0 g, it is definitely the typist who is being accelerated, not itself!
Up to a very high degree of precision the situation which you describe, where gravity is assimilated to a potential giving rise to a force, and the one I describe are equivalent, but not quite.
Numerous experiments have shown the GRT point of view to be more correct because it allows to account for many spacetime effects. FYI the laptop in free fall follows a geodesic in spacetime.
Yes I agree with your definition of arrogant, no issue there.
On the other hand people are quick to label someone as "arrogant" simply if they are successful.
What is happening is that some random people took some "Perfect 10" images, either from P10's publicly available previews, or by any other means. Then these same random people have put up their own web site with these selfsame images, without permission from P10.
Finally these sites were harvested by Google and indexed.
So who is committing copyright infrigement again?
If anything Google should be thanked for providing a link to the people's website who took the images without permission, allowing them to be perhaps identified. P10 should be suing *them*.
But no, it's too much work and they probably are just a bunch of amateur with little to no money, so P10 is choosing to sue Google instead. Guess why.
How this has anything to to with Google's alleged "arrogance" we'll never know.
"Arrogant" is another term for successful people who are onto a good thing and they know it. Many can't take somebody else's success. So Apple, Microsoft and now Google are "arrogant".
Personnally I'm delighted that Google is doing so well. So far everybody benefits, including mere users. At least we have Microsoft running scared a little. In the past this meant they react intelligently and fast (like in the case of the web browser for win95) but these days they take the PR approach a bit more.
We'll see what happens.
Moderators are not on crack, on the contrary they have taken a physics course I believe.
We are talking about two different points of view. From the point of view of the laptop in itself, if it is sitting still on a table then it is accelerating at 1g. This is what the Earth's gravity does to the laptop. According to GRT, there is no difference whatsoever between gravity and acceleration.
Relative to an observer typing on the laptop for example, the laptop does not *appear* to accelerate because the observer is also accelerating exactly at the same rate and in the same direction (under the same gravity field in fact!).
Now if the laptop is dropped, then for a moment the laptop is in fact *no longer* accelerating. It is in free fall, in an indistinguishable fashion as if it were far away from any source of gravity and in constant motion.
From the point of view of the observer, the laptop *appears* to accelerate, but in fact what is happening is that it is the observer which is still accelerating at 1g (in the opposite direction), while the laptop is no longer!
Finally the laptop is brought to a stop relative to the observer by a hard surface. This makes the laptop feel a high acceleration for a brief moment and what is usually damaging it.
Imagine that instead of being on the Earth, the observer and the laptop were in a rocket heading to the stars at 1g constant acceleration. Then they'd be no argument that both laptop and observer, if stitting still in the rocket at some desk, would be accelerating at 1g, and if the laptop was dropped, then it would be in free fall.
GRT was developed by taking the hypothesis that the situation in the rocket and on the Earth were indistinguishable, and working out the implication. So far GRT has proved correct.
All the best.
Actually, technically all laptops are absolutely fine at 9.8m/s^2. This is the acceleration they feel by sitting sill on a table for example.
;-)
When they do fall for a while they experience a marked deceleration, and then later a huge acceleration again, much higher than g.
This is the latter they don't like
Let's see:
Movie ticket: $10 (roughly) / person
Babysitter: $20 (at least)
Food and drink: $5 / person
Gas (petrol for you Yanks) $2
Incidentals $3
An evening out for 2 can go up to about $60.
You are perfectly correct. I think however that socialism doesn't account for sociopaths, and that there are many of them around. With capitalism sociopath are in fact rewarded, many end up as CEO!
He will be OK I think.
According to this link diagnostic, surgical and therapeutic methods for the treatment of humans or animals are not patentable in Vietnam.
Moreover, Vietnamese patents expire after 20 years, and according to that link the endoscope was invented in 1806!
This is strange.
According to the article 20 million people have taken Vioxx. How many have died or have suffered heart problems as a cause of having taken the drug? This is the real problem.
The public demands 100% safe drugs, but there aren't any such things. What level of risk are we willing to accept?
Do you read the news?
Do you know that the only person to get shot at so far under the "shoot-to-kill" anti-terrorist policy in London was in fact innocent, and is now dead?
Common sense my foot. If you have a bona fide terrorist with a suicide belt on that you can see and the finger on the button then you do shoot to kill, for sure, no one disputes that.
The problem is that in many cases you are in a poorly lit area, far away, and you need to interpret what you dimly see, very quickly. A sure-fire recipe for killing lots of innocents.
Everybody wants to shoot the terrorists, and nobody wants to shoot the innocents. How you distinguish one from the other is not as simple as it may seems from the comfy chair where you are typing.
Could you explain why running a trade surplus is a terrible thing and what it has to do with lack of investments ?
Foreign or domestic investments don't show in trade balance. A trade surplus just means the Chinese sell more to other countries than they buy from them. They may well invest the difference in domestic investments.
Moreover since the whole world is a closed system, if economy A is running a trade deficit then the complement of A must run a trace surplus.
At the moment the USA and Europe buy a lot of Chinese goods, and all the economic indicators show that the Chinese economy is growing fast as a result, and has been for some time.
Two words: chicken and egg.
From actual physicists
Impedance (electric resistance) -> Ohm
Capacitance -> Farad
Inductance -> Henry.
Well I sat through a Chomsky lecture once, and it was very entertaining. He says the most horrid and challenging things with total equanimity, then back them up with long lists of facts. He is a great public speaker and must be a difficult person to challenge in a public debate. If you search on MIT's website you'll find a few of his lectures available for download.
Similarly if you haven't sat through the standard RMS spiel on Free Software then you've missed something. RMS may not the best public speaker but he speaks simply, clearly and visibly believes what he is talking about.
The common point of these two people is that most people come out of these lectures at least challenged by their viewpoint. It is not at all the sort of thing one regularly hears on prime-time television.
All the best.
On the other hand, if people didn't get fined, then some revenue would get lost and the State, who has legitimate expenses of its own (such as pay troopers, maintain roads, etc) would have to raise the money somehow, i.e. by raising taxes.
The point of the fine system is to help the State meet its expenses by making people who abuse the system (and get caught) pay more than those who don't.
Now is that insane or perfectly legitimate? Can you propose a better system?
I suspect that you'd rather that the perpetrators pay their fines to the victims (when there are any) without the State taking its cut. That sounds fair until you realize that some perps won't pay. They may be insolvent, they may run away, they may be dead (in the accident), all sorts of reasons. Some perps might even want to take revenge on the victim for forcing them to part with their hard-earned cash. Also the State would probably not be very motivated to force people to pay since they would not be getting their piece of the action.
The outcome would be that some victims would get compensated and some wouldn't. It wouldn't be fair. Also it would probably be massively more complicated and inefficient. The fine system is simple, efficient and well enforced.
That's why we have the insurance system and social security to compensate victims instead.
Feel free to come up with a better system, then get elected. After all you live in a democracy.
Best of luck.
If you want to avoid the problem you mention of shipping some Microsoft software along your code without a proper license, then first you can develop your software using the student/teacher version of VS, and then compile for production using the free command-line tools.
There are few restrictions on the compiled code shipped with the free tools, from Microsoft:
The text of the said EULA is for once rather short and unobtrusive (for these sort of things).
Why the obsession for the GUI? through practice I got to know the gdb command set well enough, GUIs get in the way.
The original title for this documentary was "La marche de l'empereur", or "the emperor's march" which is a lot wittier than the current translated title.
Why the marketing department decided to dumb down the title translation is one of life's little mystery.