You mean like how Nvidia and ATI.errr..AMD...errrr..whoever they are this week, post their FPS scores only to find that the way they get those high FPSes is by cheating and lowering rendering accuracy?
Agreed. Hence my statement about standard, meaningful numbers - something of which there's been a distinct lack.
You're using this wonderful tool for connecting with people right now we call the Internet. Finding someone who has used Monitor X or Monitor Y shouldn't be that hard.
THe problem with that is that there are enough manufacturers planting fake ratings/review/comments/etc at reputable sites that even this is not reliable...
They're just now cluing in that this is an 'unnecessary danger'? As if the/other/ services dont give google a goldmine of information for unrestricted use? No, no, this ONE it's just too much, right?
Ridiculous. As always - if you don't like the inherent privacy risks, don't use it. And leave alone the people who do want to use it - and those who provide the service.
Being correct about the problem of the collective does not give you carte blanche to toss around lame insults.
True, but it makes a certain type of person feel better about themselves to denigrate others through use of broad generalizations. Those people either simply post (as GP did) or mod such posts up. (Yes, that's a broad generalization too. Ah, the irony of it all.)
I fail to see how net neutrality solves this. The point of net neutrality is [simplified] to prevent ISPs from determining who can and can't put content in their pipes; or at what priority that content gets served.
It does nothing to prevent this scenario, where a content provider offers a deal to the ISP, and the ISP takes it. Neutrality is not violated - the provider is not getting a better transfer rate. Yes consumers might not be able to get to that content (if the ISP doesn't "play ball") - but this is because the content provider does not give them a choice; and not because the ISP has taken choice away from them.
Unfortunately this makes perfect sense from a business perspective. ISPs can gain competitive advantage. Content providers don't have to deal with billing millions of customers and all the associated headache. The consumer is the only one who loses.
As long as we continue to insist on checklists as a means of determining what to buy, manufacturers are going to keep using tricks like overdrive to make their checklists look better and better.
What choice is there? "Get the NuWave LCD 20000! It just feels better!"
I don't know about you, but that's not going to convince me to buy - especially when I can't actually test drive something. Give me numbers, raw data - all I ask is that it be REAL, and measured in a standard fashion across manufacturers.
Now we're getting splitting into different subjects... I was speaking more of starting an application in.net by microsoft - there's no perceptable delay as it initializes. The same with java. If you had run a JVM or the CLR (Microsoft's) recently, you'd see the same.
Your code may or may not run slower - both platforms do JIT compilation so that it is actually running as native code; in some cases this means it will actually run faster. And in nearly all cases, you're not going to perceive the difference in an end-user application - this is especially true on the server side but is also increasingly correct on the client as well.
I also specifically addressed your statement about how mono should compile to native code - it does if you want it to.
Anyway... I used to agree with your position; but in recent years some research has shown me that native is not always guaranteed to be better. This doesn't even touch on how a well designed system that is purely interpreted (which java/.net are not) can run faster than a shoddily designed system in a native platform.
The point of this rambling: the differences you can get between running native and running in a VM are relatively minor and in some cases will favor the VM. Of all the reasons you could decide not to use these platforms (and there are many others), this should be the last of them.
Because... the people using your product clearly don't know what their security needs are? You realize that this fix was a good thing, preventing bypass of UAC by malicious applications - plugging a potential security hole on the basis of what the "community feedback" revealed.
Forgot to add: PTTL is pretty damned useful, it lets you select text and open it as a link (among other things). Great for those annoying situations where you come across a plain-text URL, such as in blog comments (or/. )
Fair enough; it just seems like the focus of mono has a bit of a split personality issue. On the one hand I see "finally, write once, run anywhere!'... and on the other hand I see comments about how Mono is.net, but also/more/ than.net. The two seem to be complete opposites to me - and since my focus is more on cross platform systems, it's a bit offputting.
WinForms is most definitely NOT dead, it's not even dying. If it were dying, it would be a very slown drawn out death taking at least another 10 years.
Isn't that what Java does, without the odd precompiler psuedo-language structures of Qt? (Unless Qt has improved in hte last couple of years since I looked at it...)
I have much better things to do than wait for Java AND your app to initialise. Furthermore, I have better things to do than wait for Java AND your app to de-initialise at exit. Same goes for.NET and Mono.
Spoken like somebody who hasn't actually attempt to RUN a java or.net application in the last 5 years.
Mono should do this with C# and the like.
Spoken like somebody who hasn't looked at Mono in the last couple of years;)
I guess all that stuff in the Mono.* namespace that Microsoft's release of their framework doesn't support is just following right along. Like Mono.SIMD. Or Mono.CSharp, which (unlike Microsoft's libraries) contains a fully featured compiler service and runtime evaluat
Doesn't this defeat the 'cross platform' concept? Now if I want to run (or distribute) my apps on Windows, I can't rely on the ubiquitous.Net runtime that the majority of users already have...
Because the Unity platform uses Mono technology under the hood, developers can code their game once and then target Windows and Mac OS X simultaneously.
Yet the tools themselves only run on Mac...
For starters, unlike Microsoft.Net, Mono is cross-platform. It runs not only on Linux but on other Unix-like operating systems as well -- including Mac OS X. It even runs on Windows.
Shouldn't mono be completely irrelevant if done correctly? That is to say - if I can't compile a.net app of any complexity on Windows with Microsoft's tools, then run it on Linux under Mono; or vice-versa , then it's failed at being cross-platform.
Erm... and he did all of these things PERSONALLY? I would bet that out of that list, a bit of digging will show that he had a personal hand in very few (if any) of them.
The man is/was a figurehead, not a mad genius.
The list of crap is definitely valid (except for 13 - billions of dollars is still billions of dollars, regardless of what it amounts to relative to his income or his company's), I simply question his personal involvement with these things.
Yep, been using KVM myself recently. I never looked closely at Xen after I saw the hoops I'd have to jump through, but KVM and the third party tools that support it (also OSS) make it simple to provision and administer new VMs.
Orrrr.... as numerous studies have shown, when someone does not have preconceptions they can adapt much easier. Similarly the younger someone is, the more they can adapt to change.
Pick apart the examples all you want... but GP has a very valid point: it's far from rare that a company has a very narrow set of 'core competencies' without which they would fail.
The same Xen that has somehow managed to get blacklisted by recent version of nearly all major distributions except Novell's? I still haven't been able to figure out why, but practically every distro has quietly dropped Xen support over the last year.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean like how Nvidia and ATI.errr..AMD...errrr..whoever they are this week, post their FPS scores only to find that the way they get those high FPSes is by cheating and lowering rendering accuracy?
Agreed. Hence my statement about standard, meaningful numbers - something of which there's been a distinct lack.
You're using this wonderful tool for connecting with people right now we call the Internet. Finding someone who has used Monitor X or Monitor Y shouldn't be that hard.
THe problem with that is that there are enough manufacturers planting fake ratings/review/comments/etc at reputable sites that even this is not reliable...
Ridiculous. As always - if you don't like the inherent privacy risks, don't use it. And leave alone the people who do want to use it - and those who provide the service.
Being correct about the problem of the collective does not give you carte blanche to toss around lame insults.
True, but it makes a certain type of person feel better about themselves to denigrate others through use of broad generalizations. Those people either simply post (as GP did) or mod such posts up. (Yes, that's a broad generalization too. Ah, the irony of it all.)
I fail to see how net neutrality solves this. The point of net neutrality is [simplified] to prevent ISPs from determining who can and can't put content in their pipes; or at what priority that content gets served.
It does nothing to prevent this scenario, where a content provider offers a deal to the ISP, and the ISP takes it. Neutrality is not violated - the provider is not getting a better transfer rate. Yes consumers might not be able to get to that content (if the ISP doesn't "play ball") - but this is because the content provider does not give them a choice; and not because the ISP has taken choice away from them.
Unfortunately this makes perfect sense from a business perspective. ISPs can gain competitive advantage. Content providers don't have to deal with billing millions of customers and all the associated headache. The consumer is the only one who loses.
As long as we continue to insist on checklists as a means of determining what to buy, manufacturers are going to keep using tricks like overdrive to make their checklists look better and better.
What choice is there? "Get the NuWave LCD 20000! It just feels better!"
I don't know about you, but that's not going to convince me to buy - especially when I can't actually test drive something. Give me numbers, raw data - all I ask is that it be REAL, and measured in a standard fashion across manufacturers.
Now we're getting splitting into different subjects... I was speaking more of starting an application in .net by microsoft - there's no perceptable delay as it initializes. The same with java. If you had run a JVM or the CLR (Microsoft's) recently, you'd see the same.
Your code may or may not run slower - both platforms do JIT compilation so that it is actually running as native code; in some cases this means it will actually run faster. And in nearly all cases, you're not going to perceive the difference in an end-user application - this is especially true on the server side but is also increasingly correct on the client as well.
I also specifically addressed your statement about how mono should compile to native code - it does if you want it to.
Anyway... I used to agree with your position; but in recent years some research has shown me that native is not always guaranteed to be better. This doesn't even touch on how a well designed system that is purely interpreted (which java/.net are not) can run faster than a shoddily designed system in a native platform.
The point of this rambling: the differences you can get between running native and running in a VM are relatively minor and in some cases will favor the VM. Of all the reasons you could decide not to use these platforms (and there are many others), this should be the last of them.
Because... the people using your product clearly don't know what their security needs are? You realize that this fix was a good thing, preventing bypass of UAC by malicious applications - plugging a potential security hole on the basis of what the "community feedback" revealed.
Forgot to add: PTTL is pretty damned useful, it lets you select text and open it as a link (among other things). Great for those annoying situations where you come across a plain-text URL, such as in blog comments (or /. )
NoSquint: Firefox 3 actually remembers zoom per-site; zooming in is as simple as Ctrl-plus key, or Ctrl+Mousewheel.
Thanks for the info. Between your comments and FishWithAHammer, I may just have to give it another look.
Fair enough; it just seems like the focus of mono has a bit of a split personality issue. On the one hand I see "finally, write once, run anywhere!'... and on the other hand I see comments about how Mono is .net, but also /more/ than .net. The two seem to be complete opposites to me - and since my focus is more on cross platform systems, it's a bit offputting.
WinForms is most definitely NOT dead, it's not even dying. If it were dying, it would be a very slown drawn out death taking at least another 10 years.
Translation: I'm still using it.
Isn't that what Java does, without the odd precompiler psuedo-language structures of Qt? (Unless Qt has improved in hte last couple of years since I looked at it...)
I have much better things to do than wait for Java AND your app to initialise. Furthermore, I have better things to do than wait for Java AND your app to de-initialise at exit. Same goes for .NET and Mono.
Spoken like somebody who hasn't actually attempt to RUN a java or .net application in the last 5 years.
Mono should do this with C# and the like.
Spoken like somebody who hasn't looked at Mono in the last couple of years ;)
I guess all that stuff in the Mono.* namespace that Microsoft's release of their framework doesn't support is just following right along. Like Mono.SIMD. Or Mono.CSharp, which (unlike Microsoft's libraries) contains a fully featured compiler service and runtime evaluat
Doesn't this defeat the 'cross platform' concept? Now if I want to run (or distribute) my apps on Windows, I can't rely on the ubiquitous .Net runtime that the majority of users already have...
Because the Unity platform uses Mono technology under the hood, developers can code their game once and then target Windows and Mac OS X simultaneously.
Yet the tools themselves only run on Mac...
For starters, unlike Microsoft .Net, Mono is cross-platform. It runs not only on Linux but on other Unix-like operating systems as well -- including Mac OS X. It even runs on Windows.
Shouldn't mono be completely irrelevant if done correctly? That is to say - if I can't compile a .net app of any complexity on Windows with Microsoft's tools, then run it on Linux under Mono; or vice-versa , then it's failed at being cross-platform.
The man is/was a figurehead, not a mad genius.
The list of crap is definitely valid (except for 13 - billions of dollars is still billions of dollars, regardless of what it amounts to relative to his income or his company's), I simply question his personal involvement with these things.
D'oh. Yes, that is indeed what I was thinking of. Thanks.
Yep, been using KVM myself recently. I never looked closely at Xen after I saw the hoops I'd have to jump through, but KVM and the third party tools that support it (also OSS) make it simple to provision and administer new VMs.
Aw, crap. Yes dear.
But, meh. Easier to blame the users, yes?
Pick apart the examples all you want... but GP has a very valid point: it's far from rare that a company has a very narrow set of 'core competencies' without which they would fail.
This would be good for girlfriends wanting to know where their boyfriends are or for parents wanting to know where their children are at all times.
Because we ALL know there are no obsessive, jealous, and insecure males of the species, right?
Not to mention the cost, free with a Windows Server 2008 license.
That's not very free...
Microsoft offers Virtual Server for free as a standalone download. My understanding is that it's a minimal Windows Server OS as the hypervisor.
The same Xen that has somehow managed to get blacklisted by recent version of nearly all major distributions except Novell's? I still haven't been able to figure out why, but practically every distro has quietly dropped Xen support over the last year.