You're confusing byref semantics with byval semantics.
Sure, you *could* just hack it so when the compiler see's i++ it writes i += 1, or i = i.next, but that doesn't mean it's the same thing
That's EXACTLY what i++ does. It does it on the stack. The code would look something like this:
load i push 1 add store i
and you'll really notice that when you start referencing objects from multiple points and use i++ expecting it to change the object when it really changes the actual object i is pointing to.
ints (like other primitive types in java) are NOT REFERENCE TYPES. They are VALUE TYPES. THERE ARE NO REFERENCES TO WORRY ABOUT. You can't reference "i" at all. All you ever do is get a copy of the value "i". And ofcourse for VALUE TYPES, changing any value of that value-object will only cause that object to change.
e.g.
int x, y;
x = 10 y = x; x = 20;
y is still 10 (obviously).
int x, y;
x = 10; y = x; x++;
y is still 10. And it doesn't matter x++ means x = x + 1 or x.addone(). Both would change the VALUE of x to be 11. The result would both be the same. If x was stored on a stack (because it's a local variable) the actual value on the stack would (in both cases) be changed to 11.
The problem is not with the SID. The problem occurs because Microsoft puts all the configuration parameters in one file (called SOFTWARE) in the registry. This is a fundamental design flaw in Windows.
The registry is NOT made up of one file. The registry is split over SYSTEM and USER databases. What you said is bullshit. It's like saying that ORACLE has a fundamental design flaw because it doesn't store data in 1000000 tiny text files.
The registry may not be made of many files, but it is a properly indexed and synchronized database. It isn't the hacked job that UNIX uses (tiny little text files which can go corrupt if more than one process tries to read/write to them). The registry is very much like a file system, with hives, keys and values. Just cause it is stored in only a few files doesn't mean you have to backup ALL OF IT at once.
The Unix method of storing configuration information iis apalling. You have to manually parse text files (no standard APIs to do so). You have to maintain a complete lock on the file while you're writing new values (so other processes have to WAIT or risk corruption). There is no standard layout for configurtion information. The location of the config files etc is different on different versions of Unix and even on different distributions of Linux.
The registry is one of the best features of windows. It certainly isn't a fundamental design flaw...even if you do try to alarm people into thinking it is.
And BTW, Windows XP has a user profile transfer wizard which makes backups of the HKEY_*_USER hive.
How do you do this while making ++ a method on the Numeric object? How do you give it the power to change what a variable name points to? Typically you'd return the next object, but without an assignment there's no place for the return value to go.
The point is there IS an assignment. i++ is the same as i = i + 1.
It's no different from saying:
String s = "hello"; s += " world";
(primitive) i++ CHANGES the value of "i" just as (object) i++ CHANGES the reference of "i".
On a single platform, perhaps. It's true enough that early editions of Java's Swing weren't the swiftest UIs on the block, Swing has to contend with being platform independant. How well does a.NET UI run on a Solaris workstation?
The UI for most server-side applications is probably HTML, anyway, so I'm not sure what his point was.
That is the point. C#, ASP.NET and VS.NET are the perfect combination if you want to make HTML based UIs. You just drag a button onto a webpage, double click and write the event handling code in C#. The C# is compiled into a server side component along with some ASPX pages. The UI is completely HTML based and cross platform. The HTML generated can be transformed to work on all types of browsers (utilising the features of each). Anything that can't be done client side is done on the server side.
You pretty much write HTMl pages the same way you would write a standard GUI application and.NET takes care of the rest. Its a great way to program HTML UIs. And I think that was part of his point.
Um. The typical 700MB DivX movie has a higher resolution than the handhelds (around 570x280). Compressing the movie to 200x100 (or thereabouts) would result in a much smaller file that wouldn't look any worse on a tiny screen.
64 kbps tests are pointless because no-ones uses those rates, and at higher rates the differences become negligable.
With MP3 maybe, but OGG, WMA, MP3Pro and ACC all aim to get MP3@128Kbs quality at 64Kbs. That's what this test is FOR! Try comparing a 128KBps MP3 with a 64KBps OGG file. You'll find the quality to be quite comparable. It's a pity the test didn't include MP3 (at 128KBps) so we could see how good these new codecs really are.
And BTW, you might as well say it is pointless to test 128, 160 or 192kbps and that we should all be testing uncompressed 1500Kbps audio.
What if there's a physical limitation to the universe that makes FTL travel/transportation etc impossible? It would take a lot of time to explore the galaxy in that case.
Re:My XP box doesn't connect to Microsoft.
on
Do You Have The Time?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I don't know if one can add time servers (perhaps in the registry? never read anything about it), but it would be very nice to find out one could
Um, err... Just type the name of the timeserver in the textbox and it'll be added. No need to access the registry.
REGEDIT works over networks. Windows registry APIs work over networks.
As far as I know, it's not common to use tools to iterate over the windows registry. But it's standard practice to use common command line tols to change a particular configuration file over a network of Unix computers.
Yes. We use Windows Scripting to change the registry.
Give Unix a try - there's a reason that it's the worlds most popluar network operating system.
I've been using Unix for a long time. I also have a degree in computer science from a predominantly UNIX oriented university.
In windows, once you know the setting's key/value you can easily change it with a few API calls. In Unix, you'd have to parse a text file insert/delete/change lines and then rewrite the file. Fun.
Windows stores settings in a nice fast indexed database. It includes both GUI and command line tools for changing these settings. The settings are arranged in a logical hierarchical order (much like the file system is). For applications, the process of retrieving and updating settings is easy because the underlying format is abstracted away (it could be stored in a database, an XML file or on the internet).
Unix uses hundreds of obscure text files spread over the file system. Each file has it's own format, and is usually not ordered or categorised in any logical order. The settings can't be all managed from a central program because there is no accepted standard for the format or location of the files.
Ofcourse, Windows XP will ask you, and then automatically set your display resolution and refresh rate to the optimal for your monitor when you first bootup.
Microsoft isn't cutting up babies and putting them into burgers.
Maybe you should read less anti-microsoft bullshit from/.
/. ONLY posts stories that put Microsoft in a bad light. Never the positive ones. The ones that talk about the great research they're doing, the money they (and bill) are giving away etc.
I'm sure I could make you look evil if I just concentrated on the bad shit YOU have done. I'm sure you've stolen software yourself.
/. reminds me of how the some goverments in middle east always portrays the west as EVIL EVIL EVIL. They never point out the good points. Always the bad. The children grow up thinking that the west are just EVIL and nothing ever good comes out of the west.
Exactly. I tried to buy a Palm, but they wouldn't let me buy one without PalmOS (let along give me a discount). Fuck that!
Also, when i tried to buy a Microwave, I told the shopping assistant that I wanted a discount because I was going to run Linux on the thing, and not the proprietry Panasonic software they had running on it. I ain't paying no software tax! The shopping assistant didn't know what Linux was. What a loser. Linux rocks man. Everyone who doesn't know anything about computers or Linux must be an IDIOT. I'm so cool cause I know about Linux. I'm a good Javas programmer too.
The fact that a virus framework for.Net was released to the wild before the "official".Net specification.
It didn't work because of any hole in the.NET framework. It was just written in C#. It's just another program. And if you run programs with your priveledges, they can do the same thing you can. You could easily write that 'virus' in C for Linux (oh no!) or Java etc.
int x = 5;
object o = x;// autoboxes to an Int32 object
int y = (int)o;// unboxes to an int again
Actually, it doesn't 'autobox' into an Int32 object. Int32 is an object, but it is a value type. Int32 is the SAME thing as int in C#. What it does is automatically box it into an internal type created by the CLR. That's why you can box any kind of struct, not just ints or doubles.
I looked, the entry price for.Net development was a $1000/year MSDN subscription. Right!
The.NET framework SDK has always been FREE. This includes the C# compiler, VB compiler, JScript.NET compiler and even the the C++ compiler. The SDK also comes with full documentation, source examples and GUI debugger.
We would expect that if you argue the case that Windows is modular, then you would come to conclusion that IE could be removed from the OS without harming it. This, afterall, is the whole basis for the discussion. Instead, you confirm that there are too many dependencies for this to happen without crippling Windows. For the sake of the discussion, you have contradicted your own argument and agreed with the position that, no, Windows isn't sufficiently modular to remove IE. You claim it is a "vital part" of the system.
Modularity doesn't mean you can remove a component without any effects. If other components rely on IE then removing IE would mean that those components would fail. IE isn't vital to the operation of the windows kernel. But it is vital to the end user experience (html based help, windows update etc etc).
. Your argument seems to indicate that Windows has COM, but Linux doesn't suggest any particular inter-object protocol. It would seem that Linux is more modular in this respect, then, by your own admittance. As for drivers, Linux certainly allows for kernel modules to be written by any third party without needing a single line of kernel code. I do not see how this is any different than the Windows drivers.
I am well aware that Linux has component models (NOW) such as Bonobo, KParts, Mono etc -- I wondered who they were copied off. I'm also aware Linux has a kernel module system similar to device drivers in windows. Windows has had those for years. You often still have to recompile the kernel to get a certain new feature or piece of hardware working and MANY, MANY applications are still statically linked. the majority of apps on Linux are non Gnome/KDE apps which have a monolithic design (much like the Linux kernel).
The only thing you prove with this comment is that, once installed, removing components ad-hoc is a bad thing. We know that. The issue is, can it not be installed at all?
Uh. That's the same thing. If you don't install IE at all, then other components fail (like the help system). Ofcourse IE can not be installed at all. Win95 existed right? Win31 existed right? DOS existed right? It's just a matter of what components would fail if you removed IE.
Yes, we understand that modular design techniques were used in the implementation of Windows. We do not care about that. That is not the issue.
Yes it is though! Modular design encourages componenet reuse. Component reuse causes component dependecy. Component dependency prevents dependent components from being removed 'safely'.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry but you're just wrong.
You're confusing byref semantics with byval semantics.
Sure, you *could* just hack it so when the compiler see's i++ it writes i += 1, or i = i.next, but that doesn't mean it's the same thing
That's EXACTLY what i++ does. It does it on the stack. The code would look something like this:
load i
push 1
add
store i
and you'll really notice that when you start referencing objects from multiple points and use i++ expecting it to change the object when it really changes the actual object i is pointing to.
ints (like other primitive types in java) are NOT REFERENCE TYPES. They are VALUE TYPES. THERE ARE NO REFERENCES TO WORRY ABOUT. You can't reference "i" at all. All you ever do is get a copy of the value "i". And ofcourse for VALUE TYPES, changing any value of that value-object will only cause that object to change.
e.g.
int x, y;
x = 10
y = x;
x = 20;
y is still 10 (obviously).
int x, y;
x = 10;
y = x;
x++;
y is still 10. And it doesn't matter x++ means x = x + 1 or x.addone(). Both would change the VALUE of x to be 11. The result would both be the same. If x was stored on a stack (because it's a local variable) the actual value on the stack would (in both cases) be changed to 11.
The problem is not with the SID. The problem occurs because Microsoft puts all the configuration parameters in one file (called SOFTWARE) in the registry. This is a fundamental design flaw in Windows.
The registry is NOT made up of one file. The registry is split over SYSTEM and USER databases. What you said is bullshit. It's like saying that ORACLE has a fundamental design flaw because it doesn't store data in 1000000 tiny text files.
The registry may not be made of many files, but it is a properly indexed and synchronized database. It isn't the hacked job that UNIX uses (tiny little text files which can go corrupt if more than one process tries to read/write to them). The registry is very much like a file system, with hives, keys and values. Just cause it is stored in only a few files doesn't mean you have to backup ALL OF IT at once.
The Unix method of storing configuration information iis apalling. You have to manually parse text files (no standard APIs to do so). You have to maintain a complete lock on the file while you're writing new values (so other processes have to WAIT or risk corruption). There is no standard layout for configurtion information. The location of the config files etc is different on different versions of Unix and even on different distributions of Linux.
The registry is one of the best features of windows. It certainly isn't a fundamental design flaw...even if you do try to alarm people into thinking it is.
And BTW, Windows XP has a user profile transfer wizard which makes backups of the HKEY_*_USER hive.
Um any exception extending RuntimeException is unchecked.
How do you do this while making ++ a method on the Numeric object? How do you give it the power to change what a variable name points to? Typically you'd return the next object, but without an assignment there's no place for the return value to go.
The point is there IS an assignment. i++ is the same as i = i + 1.
It's no different from saying:
String s = "hello";
s += " world";
(primitive) i++ CHANGES the value of "i" just as (object) i++ CHANGES the reference of "i".
On a single platform, perhaps. It's true enough that early editions of Java's Swing weren't the swiftest UIs on the block, Swing has to contend with being platform independant. How well does a
The UI for most server-side applications is probably HTML, anyway, so I'm not sure what his point was.
That is the point. C#, ASP.NET and VS.NET are the perfect combination if you want to make HTML based UIs. You just drag a button onto a webpage, double click and write the event handling code in C#. The C# is compiled into a server side component along with some ASPX pages. The UI is completely HTML based and cross platform. The HTML generated can be transformed to work on all types of browsers (utilising the features of each). Anything that can't be done client side is done on the server side.
You pretty much write HTMl pages the same way you would write a standard GUI application and
Um. The typical 700MB DivX movie has a higher resolution than the handhelds (around 570x280). Compressing the movie to 200x100 (or thereabouts) would result in a much smaller file that wouldn't look any worse on a tiny screen.
the MP3Pro (not plain MP3) was also at 64kb/s.
Well duh. Read my post again.
64 kbps tests are pointless because no-ones uses those rates, and at higher rates the differences become negligable.
With MP3 maybe, but OGG, WMA, MP3Pro and ACC all aim to get MP3@128Kbs quality at 64Kbs. That's what this test is FOR! Try comparing a 128KBps MP3 with a 64KBps OGG file. You'll find the quality to be quite comparable. It's a pity the test didn't include MP3 (at 128KBps) so we could see how good these new codecs really are.
And BTW, you might as well say it is pointless to test 128, 160 or 192kbps and that we should all be testing uncompressed 1500Kbps audio.
What if there's a physical limitation to the universe that makes FTL travel/transportation etc impossible? It would take a lot of time to explore the galaxy in that case.
I don't know if one can add time servers (perhaps in the registry? never read anything about it), but it would be very nice to find out one could
Um, err... Just type the name of the timeserver in the textbox and it'll be added. No need to access the registry.
REGEDIT works over networks.
Windows registry APIs work over networks.
As far as I know, it's not common to use tools to iterate over the windows registry. But it's standard practice to use common command line tols to change a particular configuration file over a network of Unix computers.
Yes. We use Windows Scripting to change the registry.
Give Unix a try - there's a reason that it's the worlds most popluar network operating system.
I've been using Unix for a long time. I also have a degree in computer science from a predominantly UNIX oriented university.
In windows, once you know the setting's key/value you can easily change it with a few API calls. In Unix, you'd have to parse a text file insert/delete/change lines and then rewrite the file. Fun.
Windows stores settings in a nice fast indexed database. It includes both GUI and command line tools for changing these settings. The settings are arranged in a logical hierarchical order (much like the file system is). For applications, the process of retrieving and updating settings is easy because the underlying format is abstracted away (it could be stored in a database, an XML file or on the internet).
Unix uses hundreds of obscure text files spread over the file system. Each file has it's own format, and is usually not ordered or categorised in any logical order. The settings can't be all managed from a central program because there is no accepted standard for the format or location of the files.
Which one is harder?
Ofcourse, Windows XP will ask you, and then automatically set your display resolution and refresh rate to the optimal for your monitor when you first bootup.
I think they mean the next 100 years.
Microsoft isn't cutting up babies and putting them into burgers.
/.
Maybe you should read less anti-microsoft bullshit from
/. ONLY posts stories that put Microsoft in a bad light. Never the positive ones. The ones that talk about the great research they're doing, the money they (and bill) are giving away etc.
I'm sure I could make you look evil if I just concentrated on the bad shit YOU have done. I'm sure you've stolen software yourself.
/. reminds me of how the some goverments in middle east always portrays the west as EVIL EVIL EVIL. They never point out the good points. Always the bad. The children grow up thinking that the west are just EVIL and nothing ever good comes out of the west.
Exactly. I tried to buy a Palm, but they wouldn't let me buy one without PalmOS (let along give me a discount). Fuck that!
/.er)
Also, when i tried to buy a Microwave, I told the shopping assistant that I wanted a discount because I was going to run Linux on the thing, and not the proprietry Panasonic software they had running on it. I ain't paying no software tax! The shopping assistant didn't know what Linux was. What a loser. Linux rocks man. Everyone who doesn't know anything about computers or Linux must be an IDIOT. I'm so cool cause I know about Linux. I'm a good Javas programmer too.
(there's my rendition of a typical
The fact that a virus framework for
It didn't work because of any hole in the
If your outlook server (whatever that is) keeps crashing, how will replacing the client (outlook) with evolution help?
int x = 5;
object o = x;
int y = (int)o;
Actually, it doesn't 'autobox' into an Int32 object. Int32 is an object, but it is a value type. Int32 is the SAME thing as int in C#. What it does is automatically box it into an internal type created by the CLR. That's why you can box any kind of struct, not just ints or doubles.
Uh, I realise you're trolling...but just to clarify... the last time Microsoft changed the XSL file format was 1997.
It does not have Windows XP certified drivers, which means that it crashes Windows XP when trying to hibernate if the unit is plugged in
Well actually, Windows XP disables hibernation support if any legacy drivers are installed.
So, before all... Think of it. MS tried to "invade" an area which it never belonged and has no experience.
Exactly, sony did that too, and look how they failed...oh whoops
Windows doesn't include garbage collection though.
I looked, the entry price for
The
Try again troll.
We would expect that if you argue the case that Windows is modular, then you would come to conclusion that IE could be removed from the OS without harming it. This, afterall, is the whole basis for the discussion. Instead, you confirm that there are too many dependencies for this to happen without crippling Windows. For the sake of the discussion, you have contradicted your own argument and agreed with the position that, no, Windows isn't sufficiently modular to remove IE. You claim it is a "vital part" of the system.
Modularity doesn't mean you can remove a component without any effects. If other components rely on IE then removing IE would mean that those components would fail. IE isn't vital to the operation of the windows kernel. But it is vital to the end user experience (html based help, windows update etc etc).
. Your argument seems to indicate that Windows has COM, but Linux doesn't suggest any particular inter-object protocol. It would seem that Linux is more modular in this respect, then, by your own admittance. As for drivers, Linux certainly allows for kernel modules to be written by any third party without needing a single line of kernel code. I do not see how this is any different than the Windows drivers.
I am well aware that Linux has component models (NOW) such as Bonobo, KParts, Mono etc -- I wondered who they were copied off. I'm also aware Linux has a kernel module system similar to device drivers in windows. Windows has had those for years. You often still have to recompile the kernel to get a certain new feature or piece of hardware working and MANY, MANY applications are still statically linked. the majority of apps on Linux are non Gnome/KDE apps which have a monolithic design (much like the Linux kernel).
The only thing you prove with this comment is that, once installed, removing components ad-hoc is a bad thing. We know that. The issue is, can it not be installed at all?
Uh. That's the same thing. If you don't install IE at all, then other components fail (like the help system). Ofcourse IE can not be installed at all. Win95 existed right? Win31 existed right? DOS existed right? It's just a matter of what components would fail if you removed IE.
Yes, we understand that modular design techniques were used in the implementation of Windows. We do not care about that. That is not the issue.
Yes it is though! Modular design encourages componenet reuse. Component reuse causes component dependecy. Component dependency prevents dependent components from being removed 'safely'.