Uh no. With RMI (or any other remote method call protocol) they don't need to write their own IPC protocol. They can just call objects as if they were local. What the hell is wrong with you?
Please watch "Bowling for Columbine" and it says that this type of exaggeration by the media, and most notably US media, is driving the Americans crazy paranoid with fear.
LOL. Don't you see any irony in that (psst fear mongering) statement at all?
Ahem that's not the point. They were text files with a certain format. If you wanted to parse/read/write to the files you had to either go thru the supplied apis (Win32 GetProfileString & family) or manually parse the format yourself.
Look at X's config files -- they're a different format from inetd's config files which are a different format from samba's config files. You'd have to write a different parser for each config file. With XML, it doesn't matter that the schemas are different, you can still easily parse, read and write to those files easily and with one common API.
Does XML really grant us that much beyond what CSV and good databases behind the scenes really help that much???
Yes because XML fits in places where databases aren't even worth considering. If you think XML is a replacement for relational databases then you're a bit lost IMO.
How many generic CSV parsers are there? Are the fields (tabs?) self describing?
Think of an OS and applications today and the various files they use. Think of configuration files, shortcut files, bookmark files, document files, project files etc. Think of all those files that have until recently all been stored in proprietry, hard to interpret and sometimes buggy binary files.
Does CSV have a transformation language (XSLT)? Does CSV have an easy to use parser & object model (SAX, DOM)? Does CSV have an in document addressing language (XPATH)? Does CSV have a standard way of supporting hierarchical data?
Just cause you think it's overhyped doesn't mean it isn't worth every bit of that hype. I've been using XML since 1998. I shudder when I think about the pre-XML days.
I was told that the caju (cashew) fruit is poisonous unless it is cooked first
I've eaten cashew fruit fresh from the tree. It has a weird taste and texture and tends to stain clothing (similar to iodine) but it wasn't poisouness (not to me at least).
Even assuming this makes sense technically (see below), surely if you no longer care about portability between Dotnet and dotGNU, you've just lost the main justification for the dotGNU project?
Much of the.NET libraries are ugly -- there is some need to implement the APIs for compatability but there isn't a vital need. Even without API compatability, DotGnu will still bring advantages to open source software development. DotGnu will provide a modern, cross platform and cross language runtime which offers binary compatability between cpus/platforms. The portable.net compiler (cscc) is already able to compile C, Java and C# code to IL. cscc will one day become the new gcc.
Imagine being able to compile some C application (flex, make, bash, whatever) into a binary that will run on *all* platforms (linux, windows, solaris, etc) without need for recompilation. And not only that, but your java, c# (et al) applications will all be able to directly call exported methods in that C application without having to jump through hoops. That is just one of the advantages of DotGnu.
DotGNU can and will go well beyond what MS can offer. In fact, I would say that DotGNU has surpassed MS in terms of taking advantage of IL's features. Rhys has done an absolutely amazing job on the design of the compiler and runtime. Check out the pnet cvs if you want to see real innovation.
Or you could do a hardware mod with the latest chips that support turning themselves off using either switches or a special combination of button presses.
No thanks. I use a bluetooth headset and connect my phone to my notebook using bluetooth.
Until Nokia stop being total wankers and resume support bluetooth on their phones I'm not buying one -- no matter how many "features" it has.
People have been abandoning Nokia like hell because they've stopped making "professional" products. I mean, who wants an FM(!) radio (!) over bluetooth?
1)Use a small older computer from ebay and install linux
2) Build a computer and install linux
They won't be as fast or as quiet or as compact, discrete and good looking.
Buy a PS2 with the Linux Kit
Buy a dreamcast and burn your linux boot cd
Won't be as fast.
And I still don;t see the use for it. What are you possibly going to do with Linux on an Xbox that you couldn't do with Linux on your computer?
You can leave it sitting in your living room. It looks great. It's not a replacement for your desktop computer. Unlike the PC equivalents, the software (Mame, Xbox media player etc) are all designed to be controlled using an xbox controller so the GUIs are much more appropriate and easier to use when you're sitting back on your couch.
Not everyone wants to huddle in front of a PC to watch a movie or play an arcade game.
They shouldn't be returning positives for incorrect queries. I bet big companies could afford to properly register the misspelt domain names themselves.
THE SKY IS NOT BLUE. Ok? The sky is composed of nitrogen and oxygen in large proportions. Both are transparent materials in gaseous form.
So? That doesn't make the fact that when you look up at the sky you see blue (providing that its during the day and is clear).
During a sunset, the sky is not blue and red, it is some shade in-between. As the light is refracted through the atmosphere, the color changes.
So the sky is a colour inbetween blue and red now? I thought it didn't have colour cause it was made up of transparent materials?
If the sky were really blue, the moon and the stars at night would also look blue.
No. When people say "the sky is blue" they don't necessarily mean *all* the time.
Conversely, if the sky really were blue, the earth viewed from space would look like one solid blue ball.
But you said yourself that the blueness comes from the interaction of the sun's light and your angle to the sky on earth.
The SKY is blue. Who cares what makes it appear that colour? We never said the sky is "the gas that makes up the upper atmosphere". I don't know about your definition of sky but to me and everyone I've asked the sky is just the thing that is "up there".
I would call you a pedant, if you were right. I would also welcome you to come back and talk with me after you pass a couple of High School science courses. This seems unlikely though because of your low user id. The only conclusion I can come up with: It is you who are ignorant.
Perhaps if you passed some college physics courses instead of slipping through basic high school science courses you wouldn't be so ignorant yourself.
WinForms contains a number of window-isms, which the Wine project have already implemented. Reimplementing winelib seems silly and a waste of energy. I can't imagine it'd be appreciably harder to port Mono's WinForms implementation across platforms had it been written from scratch than it would be to port winelib itself. And if winelib gets ported, people other than Mono users and developers can benefit from that work.
WTF!? WinForms is based on windows controls but that doesn't mean you need an implementation of the entire windows API to implement them. The windows controls themselves can be written in pure C#. The only native part you need is the System.Drawing APIs which can be implemented different for different platforms. There is absolutely no need to have the entire windows API to implement a few basic controls. Also, I'd love to see how they plan on getting winlib + mono small enough to work comfortably on an iPaq.
Slashdot Mirror
Just get a USB->RS232 cable.
Sometimes, they use rollback too. It's not enter() and exit(). And it's not please() and letsGo() either.
Well I was thinking of monitors at the time and spat out not so accurate terms wrt transactions. So sue me.
The objects are in memory. You implement the locking mechanisms yourself in your object model.
WTF? Even with a database API you need to enter and exit a transaction by calling enter() and exit().
Whether you call those methods (enter & exit) over RMI or locally is irrelevant.
And the implementation would simply be done using a java monitor.
Duh.
Uh no. With RMI (or any other remote method call protocol) they don't need to write their own IPC protocol. They can just call objects as if they were local. What the hell is wrong with you?
Please watch "Bowling for Columbine" and it says that this type of exaggeration by the media, and most notably US media, is driving the Americans crazy paranoid with fear.
LOL. Don't you see any irony in that (psst fear mongering) statement at all?
I would have thought that "overhyped" meant that it isn't worth all the hype. Anything less would mean that it was "underhyped". Maybe.
Ahem that's not the point. They were text files with a certain format. If you wanted to parse/read/write to the files you had to either go thru the supplied apis (Win32 GetProfileString & family) or manually parse the format yourself.
Look at X's config files -- they're a different format from inetd's config files which are a different format from samba's config files. You'd have to write a different parser for each config file. With XML, it doesn't matter that the schemas are different, you can still easily parse, read and write to those files easily and with one common API.
strtok? please. you might as well just give scanf as an example. what a joke.
Hummmm... PLEASE tell me where I can find a library that requires less than 20 pages reading
I think any programmer worth his salary can learn how to use use XML by reading a shorttutorial.
I mean, it's not that hard. It's even easier if you're using a language like python of ruby.
Does XML really grant us that much beyond what CSV and good databases behind the scenes really help that much???
Yes because XML fits in places where databases aren't even worth considering. If you think XML is a replacement for relational databases then you're a bit lost IMO.
How many generic CSV parsers are there? Are the fields (tabs?) self describing?
Think of an OS and applications today and the various files they use. Think of configuration files, shortcut files, bookmark files, document files, project files etc. Think of all those files that have until recently all been stored in proprietry, hard to interpret and sometimes buggy binary files.
Yeesh.
XML is a huge step forward.
What are you talking about?
CSV? LOL.
Does CSV have a transformation language (XSLT)?
Does CSV have an easy to use parser & object model (SAX, DOM)?
Does CSV have an in document addressing language (XPATH)?
Does CSV have a standard way of supporting hierarchical data?
Just cause you think it's overhyped doesn't mean it isn't worth every bit of that hype. I've been using XML since 1998. I shudder when I think about the pre-XML days.
I was told that the caju (cashew) fruit is poisonous unless it is cooked first
I've eaten cashew fruit fresh from the tree. It has a weird taste and texture and tends to stain clothing (similar to iodine) but it wasn't poisouness (not to me at least).
Sounds to me like you're getting the mono and dotgnu homepages mixed up.
Even assuming this makes sense technically (see below), surely if you no longer care about portability between Dotnet and dotGNU, you've just lost the main justification for the dotGNU project?
Much of the
Imagine being able to compile some C application (flex, make, bash, whatever) into a binary that will run on *all* platforms (linux, windows, solaris, etc) without need for recompilation. And not only that, but your java, c# (et al) applications will all be able to directly call exported methods in that C application without having to jump through hoops. That is just one of the advantages of DotGnu.
DotGNU can and will go well beyond what MS can offer. In fact, I would say that DotGNU has surpassed MS in terms of taking advantage of IL's features. Rhys has done an absolutely amazing job on the design of the compiler and runtime. Check out the pnet cvs if you want to see real innovation.
But..but...war is always bad...the status quo rules. Haven't you been listening to any wild eyed, hardcore leftists lately?
Well said.
7650 -- doesn't support bluetooth headset profile.
3650 - weird key layout.
6310i - very old but not a bad phone.
6650, 6600 ngage, 8910 -- i'll loook into them. the 6650 looks good.
I'm suprised, their last lot of phone releases only included one bluetooth phone (the 3650).
Or you could do a hardware mod with the latest chips that support turning themselves off using either switches or a special combination of button presses.
No thanks. I use a bluetooth headset and connect my phone to my notebook using bluetooth.
Until Nokia stop being total wankers and resume support bluetooth on their phones I'm not buying one -- no matter how many "features" it has.
People have been abandoning Nokia like hell because they've stopped making "professional" products. I mean, who wants an FM(!) radio (!) over bluetooth?
1)Use a small older computer from ebay and install linux
2) Build a computer and install linux
They won't be as fast or as quiet or as compact, discrete and good looking.
Buy a PS2 with the Linux Kit
Buy a dreamcast and burn your linux boot cd
Won't be as fast.
And I still don;t see the use for it. What are you possibly going to do with Linux on an Xbox that you couldn't do with Linux on your computer?
You can leave it sitting in your living room. It looks great. It's not a replacement for your desktop computer. Unlike the PC equivalents, the software (Mame, Xbox media player etc) are all designed to be controlled using an xbox controller so the GUIs are much more appropriate and easier to use when you're sitting back on your couch.
Not everyone wants to huddle in front of a PC to watch a movie or play an arcade game.
They shouldn't be returning positives for incorrect queries. I bet big companies could afford to properly register the misspelt domain names themselves.
Probably because they didn't want people writing crappy drivers willy nilly. Crappy drivers used to be a huge cause of blue screens in windows.
THE SKY IS NOT BLUE. Ok? The sky is composed of nitrogen and oxygen in large proportions. Both are transparent materials in gaseous form.
So? That doesn't make the fact that when you look up at the sky you see blue (providing that its during the day and is clear).
During a sunset, the sky is not blue and red, it is some shade in-between. As the light is refracted through the atmosphere, the color changes.
So the sky is a colour inbetween blue and red now? I thought it didn't have colour cause it was made up of transparent materials?
If the sky were really blue, the moon and the stars at night would also look blue.
No. When people say "the sky is blue" they don't necessarily mean *all* the time.
Conversely, if the sky really were blue, the earth viewed from space would look like one solid blue ball.
But you said yourself that the blueness comes from the interaction of the sun's light and your angle to the sky on earth.
The SKY is blue. Who cares what makes it appear that colour? We never said the sky is "the gas that makes up the upper atmosphere". I don't know about your definition of sky but to me and everyone I've asked the sky is just the thing that is "up there".
I would call you a pedant, if you were right. I would also welcome you to come back and talk with me after you pass a couple of High School science courses. This seems unlikely though because of your low user id. The only conclusion I can come up with: It is you who are ignorant.
Perhaps if you passed some college physics courses instead of slipping through basic high school science courses you wouldn't be so ignorant yourself.
Grass isn't green. Sunlight reflecting off it makes it appear green. Evidence of this is at nighttime; the it isn't green at all.
WinForms contains a number of window-isms, which the Wine project have already implemented. Reimplementing winelib seems silly and a waste of energy. I can't imagine it'd be appreciably harder to port Mono's WinForms implementation across platforms had it been written from scratch than it would be to port winelib itself. And if winelib gets ported, people other than Mono users and developers can benefit from that work.
WTF!? WinForms is based on windows controls but that doesn't mean you need an implementation of the entire windows API to implement them. The windows controls themselves can be written in pure C#. The only native part you need is the System.Drawing APIs which can be implemented different for different platforms. There is absolutely no need to have the entire windows API to implement a few basic controls. Also, I'd love to see how they plan on getting winlib + mono small enough to work comfortably on an iPaq.