Yes, this reminds me of what I heard described as the key to OpenBSD's security: The Stupid Sysadmin Prevention Technique. Make the system so difficult and fiddly to get working, that only a competent and dedicated sysadmin can get it to the stage where its useful enough for anyone to care about its security.
If he has a badge, he needs a search warrant to troll through private emails, or the evidence is inadmissible (and he gets prosecuted). This is a Good Thing.
It's been so long since there was a good GNAA troll on slashdot. You had us all in suspense, wondering if the GNAA was ever to make a triumphant return. Pity it's still as lame as ever, but keep trying!
I frequently see posts on here that use the wrong tense of verbs.
It seems that people, even ones which call themselves "educated", don't have a command of the English language.
I'm not referring to people who speak English as a second language, either.
Now I may be wrong, but I'm convinced that was meant seriously, so I feel I have to point out the many grammatical mistakes in the post. I'm not normally a grammar nazi, but I have to do something when a grammar nazi has such awful grammar.
"What with" Come on, that makes no sense. You need a verb "piss-poor" Colloquial, okay. Not usual when you're complaining about standards of English, but okay "on here" Bzzt! "on" is a preposition, and you follow it with an adverb ("here"). That makes as much sense as "near slowly" "people, even ones which" The relative pronoun to refer to people is "who", not "which". Try "people, even ones who", or, better, "people, even those who"
Learn the language better before you complain about others' usage of it. Or else ignore the bad grammar. Your choice. But you can't be a grammar nazi with bad grammar.
Interesting list, but "telnet (test SMTP, HTTP, etc servers by hand)"?
You really shouldn't use telnet for that. The telnet protocol involves sending control characters to initiate the connection, and will misinterpret some replies. A telnet client is *not* a general purpose TCP/IP tool. For that, see netcat (nc on most systems).
There is an important difference between "consist of" and "contain". Your site may "contain" ads, but must have some actual content as well, so that it does not "consist of" ads.
I'm amazed. That's the only time I've ever seen a post be modded 100% overrated. It was on a starting score of 1 and someone modded it overrated, and then the score was zero and someone still thought it was overrated
Is it really the case that these two departments, with the hundreds, if not thousands of people they keep in employment, has yet to notice this? That nobody in the courts has actually telephoned the patent office and said "Look, I know this might be a stupid question, but are you guys actually bothering to read patent applications before you grant them?".
I assume, as a/.er, you are well aware of the horredous fees that lawyers of all areas charge. You're probably also aware that a patent application costs a tidy sum. I reckon both the lawyers and the patent officers, are sitting in their rooms relaxing in front of a fire of $20 bills, while still being somewhat anxious that someone, somewhere, will find out how much money they are really making from this system and put a stop to it. Luckily for them, it hasn't happened yet.
In managed environments, patches are almost never applied ad-hoc, as they are released. They are collected together then tested and rolled out on a schedule, usually monthly.
However, with the Microsoft system of monthly patch releases, you are forced to wait up to a month for any given patch. You are effectively tied into Microsoft's schedule. With any Linux distro's patch cycle (release as soon as possible), you can choose when to install them. These "managed environments" can install the patches on a monthly basis, others can install them bi-monthly or the second they hit the servers. A one-line script will suffice to automatically download and install the patches on the second Tuesday of every month, if that floats your boat.
With the MS system, everyone waits a month. With the open-source system, everyone waits the amount of time they choose to wait.
That's interesting. I was thinking more along the lines of CPU support, so that it would ideally be possible to, e.g. do fixed-point multiplications in one instruction, instead of the multiply-shift sequence of any CPU I know of.
Actually, what I can't figure out is why you want floating point at all. Floating-point data stores a certain number of bits of actual data, and a certain number of bits as a scaling factor. To use your example, this would mean that while items near the origin would be picture-perfect, the object 10km away would be out by well more than a cm.
Back when integer arithmetic was so much faster that floating point it was worth the effort, game coders used to use fixed-point arithmetic. This kept a uniform level of accuracy around the entire world, not like floating point which makes data near the origin more accurate. It was also very fast, and easy to implement. Why hasn't anyone implement fast fixed-point arithmetic in hardware? You could afford to go 64-bit if it was fixed-point since it is so much easier to compute (think integer arithmetic versus floating point), and 64-bit is accurate enough for very small detail in a very large world.
Personally, I think we are going to need new languages to cope with parallel execution models. Consider this example: the for loop. A for loop in C or any of its offspring (C++, Java, C#, etc) relies on side-effects inside the loop to advance the code, and eventually one such side-effect will cause the loop to exit. This design implies serial execution, and converting it to parallel code would be extremely difficult.
Now consider one of the common uses of a for loop: to perform the same operation on an array or matrix of data. This is a conceptually parallel operation, which the programmer has had to force into the languages serial operation structure. To write a special compiler to convert it back out into parallel code is an unnecessary waste of time and effort. Instead, a new language should be written, which allows programmers to directly write code in parallel units. Imagine a language where, for example, all function calls were asynchrous.
AFAIK, the APL language was data-parallel which meant that you could perform operations, at least conceptually, on large sets of data at the same time. However, this language was last popular in the 60s. Anyone know of a modern language that can exploit parallelism?
Your average C programmer will not be developing the core code. Most likely, a group of very good coders will create a game engine, and the average C programmers can use the API that the highly-skilled, highly-paid engine coders created to hide unnecessary implementation details.
Microsoft's Todd Proebsting claims that compiler optimization only adds 4% performance per year, based on some back of the envelopes on x86 hardware.
Then Microsoft's Todd Proebstring is wrong. Ask some Gentoo users. Personally, I recently wrote a bit of fairly simple mathematical code (computing difference sets). The total runtime on my 3 gig P4 was 22 seconds. I shaved off 2 seconds by optimizing the algorithm myself. By using gcc -O3, I shaved off a further 10 seconds, halving the runtime.
Anyway, this compiler isn't so much optimization as taking code intended for one paradigm (simple single-threaded code) and converting it to another (code with 8 cores of execution).
The basic purpose of the Cell is to make the PS3 work. The basic purpose of the PS3 is to play games. Games, as a rule, don't give a damn about 64-bit floating point. Games can get away with 32-bit because they don't need to be incredibly accurate, they just need to be fast. No gamer will care whether or not the trajectory of the bullet was out by 0.000000000023~ as long as it moves fluidly. So, in making a chip for gaming, you are far better off making 32-bit really fast than spending time and die space on perfecting useless 64-bit.
Hire "Real Programmers". You know, the ones that only code in Assembler, and if they can't do it in Assembler then it isn't worth doing.
Hmph. "Real Programmers" needing a bleedin' assembler to tell them what their bleedin' instructions mean? Why, back in my day we had to write our programs in machine language. We saved our work by means of a small bar magnet held a short distance above a hard disk platter. And we had to pay for our own bytes.
Re:The Linux desktop is finally coming into it's o
on
A Look at GNOME 2.14
·
· Score: 1
Ok, sorry. How about this:
Gnome and KDE are both unusable, ugly desktops, made by a shower of incompetent coders who still think VB is a real language, and anyone who uses either of these two pieces of crash-happy bloatware is a moronic cretin with the intelligence, foresight and aesthetic eye of a dead rat, who should never have been allowed near a computer in the first place. After all, in Soviet Russia, badly-designed pieces of useless software use YOU!
Hang on, I seem to be missing something. Oh, yeah...
It won't be long before someone comes up with another simple server-side language to replace the morass and the enthusiatic crowds will move onto this new "lighning fast, low footprint" language and begin to "improve it". Rinse, repeat.
I don't think it's right to say anyone ported Xen to NetBSD
You're right, nobody ported Xen to NetBSD. That's not how Xen works. What happened was someone ported NetBSD to Xen. Instead of this new version of NetBSD accessing hardware, it asks Xen to do it. This required no modification of Xen, just modification of the NetBSD kernel to avoid accessing hardware directly. It's comparable with porting NetBSD to a new chip architecture.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, this reminds me of what I heard described as the key to OpenBSD's security: The Stupid Sysadmin Prevention Technique. Make the system so difficult and fiddly to get working, that only a competent and dedicated sysadmin can get it to the stage where its useful enough for anyone to care about its security.
If he has a badge, he needs a search warrant to troll through private emails, or the evidence is inadmissible (and he gets prosecuted). This is a Good Thing.
It's been so long since there was a good GNAA troll on slashdot. You had us all in suspense, wondering if the GNAA was ever to make a triumphant return. Pity it's still as lame as ever, but keep trying!
Is that "female" as in 40 year old man, or "female" as in 25 year old FBI agent?
You know, thanks to you and the Slashdot Effect, the slsahdot misspelling graphs show a record high...
What with the piss-poor grammar on here?
I frequently see posts on here that use the wrong tense of verbs.
It seems that people, even ones which call themselves "educated", don't have a command of the English language.
I'm not referring to people who speak English as a second language, either.
Now I may be wrong, but I'm convinced that was meant seriously, so I feel I have to point out the many grammatical mistakes in the post. I'm not normally a grammar nazi, but I have to do something when a grammar nazi has such awful grammar.
"What with" Come on, that makes no sense. You need a verb
"piss-poor" Colloquial, okay. Not usual when you're complaining about standards of English, but okay
"on here" Bzzt! "on" is a preposition, and you follow it with an adverb ("here"). That makes as much sense as "near slowly"
"people, even ones which" The relative pronoun to refer to people is "who", not "which". Try "people, even ones who", or, better, "people, even those who"
Learn the language better before you complain about others' usage of it. Or else ignore the bad grammar. Your choice. But you can't be a grammar nazi with bad grammar.
You really shouldn't use telnet for that. The telnet protocol involves sending control characters to initiate the connection, and will misinterpret some replies. A telnet client is *not* a general purpose TCP/IP tool. For that, see netcat (nc on most systems).
There is an important difference between "consist of" and "contain". Your site may "contain" ads, but must have some actual content as well, so that it does not "consist of" ads.
I'm amazed. That's the only time I've ever seen a post be modded 100% overrated. It was on a starting score of 1 and someone modded it overrated, and then the score was zero and someone still thought it was overrated
Is it really the case that these two departments, with the hundreds, if not thousands of people they keep in employment, has yet to notice this? That nobody in the courts has actually telephoned the patent office and said "Look, I know this might be a stupid question, but are you guys actually bothering to read patent applications before you grant them?".
/.er, you are well aware of the horredous fees that lawyers of all areas charge. You're probably also aware that a patent application costs a tidy sum. I reckon both the lawyers and the patent officers, are sitting in their rooms relaxing in front of a fire of $20 bills, while still being somewhat anxious that someone, somewhere, will find out how much money they are really making from this system and put a stop to it. Luckily for them, it hasn't happened yet.
I assume, as a
In managed environments, patches are almost never applied ad-hoc, as they are released. They are collected together then tested and rolled out on a schedule, usually monthly.
However, with the Microsoft system of monthly patch releases, you are forced to wait up to a month for any given patch. You are effectively tied into Microsoft's schedule. With any Linux distro's patch cycle (release as soon as possible), you can choose when to install them. These "managed environments" can install the patches on a monthly basis, others can install them bi-monthly or the second they hit the servers. A one-line script will suffice to automatically download and install the patches on the second Tuesday of every month, if that floats your boat.
With the MS system, everyone waits a month. With the open-source system, everyone waits the amount of time they choose to wait.
That's interesting. I was thinking more along the lines of CPU support, so that it would ideally be possible to, e.g. do fixed-point multiplications in one instruction, instead of the multiply-shift sequence of any CPU I know of.
Actually, what I can't figure out is why you want floating point at all. Floating-point data stores a certain number of bits of actual data, and a certain number of bits as a scaling factor. To use your example, this would mean that while items near the origin would be picture-perfect, the object 10km away would be out by well more than a cm.
Back when integer arithmetic was so much faster that floating point it was worth the effort, game coders used to use fixed-point arithmetic. This kept a uniform level of accuracy around the entire world, not like floating point which makes data near the origin more accurate. It was also very fast, and easy to implement. Why hasn't anyone implement fast fixed-point arithmetic in hardware? You could afford to go 64-bit if it was fixed-point since it is so much easier to compute (think integer arithmetic versus floating point), and 64-bit is accurate enough for very small detail in a very large world.
Now consider one of the common uses of a for loop: to perform the same operation on an array or matrix of data. This is a conceptually parallel operation, which the programmer has had to force into the languages serial operation structure. To write a special compiler to convert it back out into parallel code is an unnecessary waste of time and effort. Instead, a new language should be written, which allows programmers to directly write code in parallel units. Imagine a language where, for example, all function calls were asynchrous.
AFAIK, the APL language was data-parallel which meant that you could perform operations, at least conceptually, on large sets of data at the same time. However, this language was last popular in the 60s. Anyone know of a modern language that can exploit parallelism?
Your average C programmer will not be developing the core code. Most likely, a group of very good coders will create a game engine, and the average C programmers can use the API that the highly-skilled, highly-paid engine coders created to hide unnecessary implementation details.
Then Microsoft's Todd Proebstring is wrong. Ask some Gentoo users. Personally, I recently wrote a bit of fairly simple mathematical code (computing difference sets). The total runtime on my 3 gig P4 was 22 seconds. I shaved off 2 seconds by optimizing the algorithm myself. By using gcc -O3, I shaved off a further 10 seconds, halving the runtime.
Anyway, this compiler isn't so much optimization as taking code intended for one paradigm (simple single-threaded code) and converting it to another (code with 8 cores of execution).
The basic purpose of the Cell is to make the PS3 work. The basic purpose of the PS3 is to play games. Games, as a rule, don't give a damn about 64-bit floating point. Games can get away with 32-bit because they don't need to be incredibly accurate, they just need to be fast. No gamer will care whether or not the trajectory of the bullet was out by 0.000000000023~ as long as it moves fluidly. So, in making a chip for gaming, you are far better off making 32-bit really fast than spending time and die space on perfecting useless 64-bit.
Hire "Real Programmers". You know, the ones that only code in Assembler, and if they can't do it in Assembler then it isn't worth doing.
Hmph. "Real Programmers" needing a bleedin' assembler to tell them what their bleedin' instructions mean? Why, back in my day we had to write our programs in machine language. We saved our work by means of a small bar magnet held a short distance above a hard disk platter. And we had to pay for our own bytes.
Gnome and KDE are both unusable, ugly desktops, made by a shower of incompetent coders who still think VB is a real language, and anyone who uses either of these two pieces of crash-happy bloatware is a moronic cretin with the intelligence, foresight and aesthetic eye of a dead rat, who should never have been allowed near a computer in the first place. After all, in Soviet Russia, badly-designed pieces of useless software use YOU!
Hang on, I seem to be missing something. Oh, yeah...
MICRO$OFT IS TEH SUXX0RS!!!!!!!
I can already see my +5 Insightful...
I find your lack of lather disturbing...
You're right, nobody ported Xen to NetBSD. That's not how Xen works. What happened was someone ported NetBSD to Xen. Instead of this new version of NetBSD accessing hardware, it asks Xen to do it. This required no modification of Xen, just modification of the NetBSD kernel to avoid accessing hardware directly. It's comparable with porting NetBSD to a new chip architecture.
Which amounts to an incentive to create a winner
So it won't really be a very big story, then?
Have a look at NFSv4. It finally gets some sense and uses Kerberos instead of relying on the client to authenticate themselves.