Saturated with garbage? We run antivirus, block the obviously bad sites by using the antivirus' and OpenDNS as blacklists and I haven't needed to fix a computer in weeks. If Ubuntu had enough marketshare, are you saying spyware/grayware/malware/etc wouldn't be prevalent and made easy to install with debian packages and all?
If Windows fails to install it rolls back to the state before installation, and can do this for even the most trivial updates, and anything up to and including a new OS install. I don't know if Mac OSX has similar capabilities.
Something is wrong with your hardware, or as you guessed, it is not supported in Win7 by default. I not only installed SATA not in IDE mode, but on a RAID controller with AHCI/hotswap enabled.
I like how jumped from "it doesn't work on MY hardware with these settings" to "it can't POSSIBLY work on anyone else's with these settings". Stay classy, Slashdot anecdotes.
That's what you call working flawlessly? When it kicks you into an emergency console in which you had to remount your hard disks manually in read-write mode and run the package reconfigure command?
Clearly 2009 is not yet the year of Linux on the desktop.
My post was in reply to running Software-That-Does-Not-Exist-For-Linux with Wine, and trying to get application support for that solution. For example, switching to running AutoCAD on Wine.
But if it breaks, or doesn't work, or you've hit a deadline on a project and can't deliver because Wine or the application broke, who are you going to call for support exactly? Not the people who made the software. Are you going to email the Wine mailing list and then, when they fail to deliver a timely solution for free, tell the client that open source is to blame?
At least when I buy software, or make purchasing decisions from a business standpoint, knowing that the company will stand behind the product and our implementation of it is more important than that trying to pursue some ideal about information and it's anthropomorphized desire to be free.
You can. Reverse engineering is explicitly allowed. Distributing a program for the purpose of circumventing copy protection, even if it was found through reverse engineering... is not.
So if a large corporation wanted to put Mac OSX on all their internal computers, and was OK with doing internal support on non-Apple hardware, they could modify the distribution and use it internally, but it'd have to be for internal use only, and telling someone else how to do it, selling the software to do it, etc, might run afoul of the law.
For better and worse.
Note: I am not a lawyer, but this is what I've gleaned from the DMCA. My advice is not legal advice and I am not liable for it.
Seems like you're guilty of the same thing. He doesn't do anything overtly technological anymore, merely spending his days doing philanthropy with his billions of dollars, and that means he's not a geek. Never mind that you have no idea what he does in his spare, private time. Never mind his geeky, green house. Never mind his previous efforts.
If he's not publicly geeky, according to you, there's no shade of gray, and he must not be a geek.
Four dimensional? So they've not only figured out how to make silicon substrates grow vertically and interconnect, but it can communicate with an extra-dimensional extant of itself?
Isn't that their choice though? They don't have to write code to support things like mods and stand-alone servers, which, despite your inference otherwise, can be fairly difficult things to test and support.
Microsoft is often the first guinea pig for Microsoft software, and frankly, isn't that how it should be? If they aren't willing to run IIS 7.5 on their homepage, why should anyone else? If they aren't using SQL Server as their data warehouse application, why should anyone else? If they don't trust Hyper-V R2 to run virtual machines...
It takes a heatsink the size of a small house to deal with current overclocked CPUs and that's on a single plane. The more layers you put between your heatsink and the bottom-most layer of your CPU, the poorer the conduction of heat away from it and the worse off you'll be.
He's quite right, without a heatsink the latest CPUs instantly rise to over 90C and then reset or throttle themselves down to unusable levels.
.NET allows developers to use ngen.exe, which generates and caches the executable in native code targeted and optimized to the current hardware (SSE1, SSE2, SSE3...). The only requirement is that the executable strongly named (similar to PKI, but for a different purpose) and when the.NET exe starts, the cache is checked for identically executables and libraries.
So it is very, very likely that as far as this trading application was concerned, it was probably written in C# or Visual Basic, compiled with a.NET/MSIL target of x64 and then a native code assembly generated and cached for the servers as x64 machine code. Given that for an application of this magnitude there would be a significant audit process of all the.NET technologies involved, I suspect they stuck to a simple subset of C#, and I more strongly suspect that they would avoid any reflection or anything that, at runtime, might incur a call to the JIT.
This was a huge win for marketing, just like it was last time they changed architectures. I think the only difference between this time and last is Slashdot's collective response.
I'd like to say one last thing, and that is that C# is a lot like C++, but with a saner syntax and an implementation of generics (templates) that makes sense. Not only that, but C# seems to have a future while C++ seems dead in the water, and frankly the syntax seems to be getting worse, not better. C++0x looks like Perl, and not in a good way. And just like C++, coding C# is not just about using the latest language features, but sticking to what you know and understanding what you're doing. Just because there are a lot of things you can do in C#, doesn't mean you should do it, or that it's the best way to do it. The way I've seen people get around this in C++ is to simply avoid complex language features, because they tend to be non-portable with the existing libraries that may be compiled with different compilers, or because it's just too easy to shoot yourself in the foot. There are just too many odd quirks in a language with increasingly complex and difficult syntax, and an increasingly complex preprocessor that is, apparently, turing complete on most machines. So, I'd say C# is a better C++, a saner C++, and one that's more likely to have a future.
There's a reason Linus Torvalds and I agree on one thing, the best way to use C++ is to limit yourself to things that look a heck of a lot like C, or to use the syntactic sugar sparingly.
My father, also in IT, has the theory that Symantec's goal is to consume your computer's resources to the point where a virus would give up and realize that your computer isn't worth being used in a botnet or for extortion.
I see. So you want to explain to my parents why their data went away and, no, I can't get it back without spending a few hours implementing a rigorous and thorough virtual infrastructure on their home computer?
On the other hand, some problems like collision testing are really just pattern matching or search functions, and that has a huge amount of applicability to game design. There are many other similar problems that, at first blush, sound easy, but turn out to be quite difficult, and I've yet to see a modern game with physics that doesn't somehow manage to get objects stuck in floors or falling through levels.
The reason you would keep it private is to avoid one site from being overly abusive to that information. For the same reason we worry about facebook having too much data on their users, or google having this massive profile...
That is why the associated data would be opt-in for user -> site, and site -> site. It allows the potential benefactor of that information to make the decision. Whether they make it well or not, we cannot decide in advance.
None of this, by the way, is in the specification. As far as I know, the OpenID spec only outlines authentication, not storage of user data. Building the ability to store data across sites and providers into the specification, rather than creating a third party service, will increase adoption and therefore utility.
Basic network effect stuff. If a service is only available to 1% of users, and it doesn't grow well, then no one uses it even though it may have enormous utility when the service is 80% available.
Slashdot Mirror
Saturated with garbage? We run antivirus, block the obviously bad sites by using the antivirus' and OpenDNS as blacklists and I haven't needed to fix a computer in weeks. If Ubuntu had enough marketshare, are you saying spyware/grayware/malware/etc wouldn't be prevalent and made easy to install with debian packages and all?
If Windows fails to install it rolls back to the state before installation, and can do this for even the most trivial updates, and anything up to and including a new OS install. I don't know if Mac OSX has similar capabilities.
Something is wrong with your hardware, or as you guessed, it is not supported in Win7 by default. I not only installed SATA not in IDE mode, but on a RAID controller with AHCI/hotswap enabled.
I like how jumped from "it doesn't work on MY hardware with these settings" to "it can't POSSIBLY work on anyone else's with these settings". Stay classy, Slashdot anecdotes.
That's what you call working flawlessly? When it kicks you into an emergency console in which you had to remount your hard disks manually in read-write mode and run the package reconfigure command?
Clearly 2009 is not yet the year of Linux on the desktop.
My post was in reply to running Software-That-Does-Not-Exist-For-Linux with Wine, and trying to get application support for that solution. For example, switching to running AutoCAD on Wine.
But if it breaks, or doesn't work, or you've hit a deadline on a project and can't deliver because Wine or the application broke, who are you going to call for support exactly? Not the people who made the software. Are you going to email the Wine mailing list and then, when they fail to deliver a timely solution for free, tell the client that open source is to blame?
At least when I buy software, or make purchasing decisions from a business standpoint, knowing that the company will stand behind the product and our implementation of it is more important than that trying to pursue some ideal about information and it's anthropomorphized desire to be free.
You can. Reverse engineering is explicitly allowed. Distributing a program for the purpose of circumventing copy protection, even if it was found through reverse engineering... is not.
So if a large corporation wanted to put Mac OSX on all their internal computers, and was OK with doing internal support on non-Apple hardware, they could modify the distribution and use it internally, but it'd have to be for internal use only, and telling someone else how to do it, selling the software to do it, etc, might run afoul of the law.
For better and worse.
Note: I am not a lawyer, but this is what I've gleaned from the DMCA. My advice is not legal advice and I am not liable for it.
Seems like you're guilty of the same thing. He doesn't do anything overtly technological anymore, merely spending his days doing philanthropy with his billions of dollars, and that means he's not a geek. Never mind that you have no idea what he does in his spare, private time. Never mind his geeky, green house. Never mind his previous efforts.
If he's not publicly geeky, according to you, there's no shade of gray, and he must not be a geek.
Mod parent up confused.
Four dimensional? So they've not only figured out how to make silicon substrates grow vertically and interconnect, but it can communicate with an extra-dimensional extant of itself?
Isn't that their choice though? They don't have to write code to support things like mods and stand-alone servers, which, despite your inference otherwise, can be fairly difficult things to test and support.
But how much execution? .NET supports sandboxed/isolated app domains.
Saying .NET has remote code execution is like saying Java and Flash do, unless you're specific.
I don't know yet what vulnerability, if any, existed, except that Firefox developers were annoyed Microsoft added another addon.
Maybe the company in question is licensing a pre-made design and schematics?
I think it's worth many lulz that you automatically assumed it was a patent license and thus a crime against humanity.
Microsoft is often the first guinea pig for Microsoft software, and frankly, isn't that how it should be? If they aren't willing to run IIS 7.5 on their homepage, why should anyone else? If they aren't using SQL Server as their data warehouse application, why should anyone else? If they don't trust Hyper-V R2 to run virtual machines...
But what's his name? His story? Did he survive hardship to get to where he is today?
It takes a heatsink the size of a small house to deal with current overclocked CPUs and that's on a single plane. The more layers you put between your heatsink and the bottom-most layer of your CPU, the poorer the conduction of heat away from it and the worse off you'll be.
He's quite right, without a heatsink the latest CPUs instantly rise to over 90C and then reset or throttle themselves down to unusable levels.
Here's a carp, I couldn't be bothered to teach you how to fish, so I leave it as an exercise to the eater.
It's all part of Microsoft's insidious plan to make you unsure of who you really should trust.
The real secret is that PJ at Groklaw is actually the Microsoft shill.
.NET allows developers to use ngen.exe, which generates and caches the executable in native code targeted and optimized to the current hardware (SSE1, SSE2, SSE3...). The only requirement is that the executable strongly named (similar to PKI, but for a different purpose) and when the .NET exe starts, the cache is checked for identically executables and libraries.
So it is very, very likely that as far as this trading application was concerned, it was probably written in C# or Visual Basic, compiled with a .NET/MSIL target of x64 and then a native code assembly generated and cached for the servers as x64 machine code. Given that for an application of this magnitude there would be a significant audit process of all the .NET technologies involved, I suspect they stuck to a simple subset of C#, and I more strongly suspect that they would avoid any reflection or anything that, at runtime, might incur a call to the JIT.
This was a huge win for marketing, just like it was last time they changed architectures. I think the only difference between this time and last is Slashdot's collective response.
I'd like to say one last thing, and that is that C# is a lot like C++, but with a saner syntax and an implementation of generics (templates) that makes sense. Not only that, but C# seems to have a future while C++ seems dead in the water, and frankly the syntax seems to be getting worse, not better. C++0x looks like Perl, and not in a good way. And just like C++, coding C# is not just about using the latest language features, but sticking to what you know and understanding what you're doing. Just because there are a lot of things you can do in C#, doesn't mean you should do it, or that it's the best way to do it. The way I've seen people get around this in C++ is to simply avoid complex language features, because they tend to be non-portable with the existing libraries that may be compiled with different compilers, or because it's just too easy to shoot yourself in the foot. There are just too many odd quirks in a language with increasingly complex and difficult syntax, and an increasingly complex preprocessor that is, apparently, turing complete on most machines. So, I'd say C# is a better C++, a saner C++, and one that's more likely to have a future.
There's a reason Linus Torvalds and I agree on one thing, the best way to use C++ is to limit yourself to things that look a heck of a lot like C, or to use the syntactic sugar sparingly.
My father, also in IT, has the theory that Symantec's goal is to consume your computer's resources to the point where a virus would give up and realize that your computer isn't worth being used in a botnet or for extortion.
I see. So you want to explain to my parents why their data went away and, no, I can't get it back without spending a few hours implementing a rigorous and thorough virtual infrastructure on their home computer?
I for one welcome our new alien paleontologist overlords and their "history probes."
Really? Being on the phone impairs someone as much as being wasted, sloshed, trashed, or however they call it in your neck of the woods?
Because I sincerely would like to see this study. Really.
Why? They work great as the "meta" key in Linux, at least for the US keyboard layout I end up getting.
On the other hand, some problems like collision testing are really just pattern matching or search functions, and that has a huge amount of applicability to game design. There are many other similar problems that, at first blush, sound easy, but turn out to be quite difficult, and I've yet to see a modern game with physics that doesn't somehow manage to get objects stuck in floors or falling through levels.
The reason you would keep it private is to avoid one site from being overly abusive to that information. For the same reason we worry about facebook having too much data on their users, or google having this massive profile...
That is why the associated data would be opt-in for user -> site, and site -> site. It allows the potential benefactor of that information to make the decision. Whether they make it well or not, we cannot decide in advance.
None of this, by the way, is in the specification. As far as I know, the OpenID spec only outlines authentication, not storage of user data. Building the ability to store data across sites and providers into the specification, rather than creating a third party service, will increase adoption and therefore utility.
Basic network effect stuff. If a service is only available to 1% of users, and it doesn't grow well, then no one uses it even though it may have enormous utility when the service is 80% available.