Are/Were you using Win2K on a laptop? How did you overcome the lack of ClearType? In my case, the hardware support and software support was present, and the system did everything I needed to, but the lack of ClearType made it rather unpleasant.
I managed to trim XP down to a reasonable 150MB (on CD) and 350MB (installed - minus the pagefile) using nlite and am back to Win2K levels of performance (higher even!:) and all the features I need are present. (Plus a lot more of my RAM is free for caches or firefox).
Lots of hypervizors and VM kernels are vulnerable, and can allow guest OSes to inject code into the host OS.
See this for just a few examples: http://secunia.com/advisories/26890 I can easily find several implementations that cause DOS and escalation attacks on older versions (these are fixed in the current versions, but you can bet more flaws will be found).
Regardless of Theo's opinion of himself, he is right in that more complexity means more bugs.
That depends entirely on the use case for that swap. I run an app that use 5-8GB worth of temp files each run (and often more than one instance is running), on a system with only 16GB of ram, the extra swap space is used for backing a large tmpfs filesystem. This gets way better performance than running them on a real filesystem (we used to use ext3, then xfs).
We currently allocate ~80GB of swap for this machine (on a raid-1), and most of it gets used from time to time, and the kernel has a much easier time with mmap() on tmpfs than on any real fs.
1. Can I do it with Linux today (GPL2) and tomorrow (GPL3)? The license for the Linux kernel is not going to change (It requires the consent of many hundreds of contributors, many of which will decline. Some are dead, others are unreachable.)
2. Can I statically link the code with Linux libraries? (My own experience shows that dynamic linking is too much to bear.) You can statically link, but why avoid dynamic linking? glibc and libstd++ are LGPL, which permits binary only distribution.
3. Can I obfuscate my code (e.g. encode it)? Isn't compiling it enough? You can strip the compiled code or debugging symbols if you really want, but you only hurt your own ability to debug your users problems.
4. Could I be forced to publish this code by some 3-d party? Not if you avoid linking with code which has a license that require it.
5. Am I correct that programming in and selling BSD-based boxes won't raise any of the above problems? Linux and the various BSD flavours both allow this sort of use. See the various wifi-routers and tivo style devices. Hell even my digital picture frames run linux.
Last I used it, mysql never needed to use a cost-based optimizer simply because it never could do anything but nested-loop joins. Sadly this means that ANY non-trivial query can bring mysql to its knees for ALL users connected to that server instance.
Compared to PostgreSQL's optimizer, which tried very very hard to avoid nested loop joins, and can handle medium sized queries (upto around 16-table joins) with relative ease, its a real burden to port apps to work with mysql.
Erlang also has a huge amount of overhead, and due to immutable data structures, has to spend a lot of time copying data around.
This is the problem inherent with pure languages. Compilers/runtime systems are simply not sophisticated enough yet to reason about and perform as well as a human can with mutable data structures.
This is why C/C++ will dominate scalable applications for a at least few years more.
I have only every used AspectJ, not AspectC so take this with a grain of salt. AOP is basically the holy grail of design by contract. You can decide and implement powerful contracts and assertions and apply them at compile time or runtime with very little effort. They can be maintained with the code itself or as a separate aspect implemented at a higher level.
Best of all, you can use as little or as much as you want and it will not interfere with your current code.
Ever used xeyes? It even comes with the X distrbution, and is built and installed by default (in the monolithic package). It was written around 1988. I am not sure when the SHAPE extension came about but it has existed for at least 10 years now.
QT 3's internal data structures are quite bloated and require a lot of memory. In QT4 a lot of bloat has been removed or trimmed, and a number of things can now share memory where previously they had each their own copies.
Simply re-compiling a trivial GUI app from QT3 to QT4 will give noticable performance and memory usage improvement (even if you do not change the code at all).
Not to mention the other improvements in things like MOC which make debugging and testing easier.
This will mean an end to things like freeware/open drivers for virtual devices like virtual DVD drives (playing games without carrying CDs around), virtual sound cards (ripping audio from programs that try to prevent it), virtual graphics card drivers (using your laptop as a second or third monitor), virtual network cards (bridged networking with open source tools like qemu), etc.
Not to mention legitimate freeware projects like kqemu, the ext2fs windows driver, and so on.
The possibilities afforded by being able to run code in Kernel space should not be underestimated.
I still own copyright on the little pieces of the kernel that I wrote. The only rights anyone else has are those granted by the GPL 2.
Changing the kernel license is impossible. Many contributions have been made by people who are now unreachable, dead, or simply disagree with a license change.
I don't think that a merger like that would result in a name change.
Microsoft merging with Yahoo! is like me merging with pizza. It ends up with a slightly larger me.
Best looking 2D game ever...
on
5 Gorgeous 2D Games
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
has got to be the Worms series. Since Worms 2, the Worms series has been visually fantastic, and the gameplay is second to none. Its simply a great game, in every way.
Not to mention the fact that even years after its release lots of cool online matches can be found in minutes, since the gamer community likes it so much.
I would rather buy a dual-SLI system, with a pair of Quadros, which will set me back about $5000 to replace my aging FX4000. You buy what you want, I'll buy what I want.
For personal sites, I always go with the standard, and check everything including CSS and Javascript, and make sure that it degrades properly on lynx and alike.
But for sites I am being paid for, it is just too time consuming to be both W3C compliant and work in IE. Thus, unless I am specifically paid to do so, my pages will be tested on the major browsers and if they work perfectly across IE, Moz, Opera, Safari, and so on, damn the standard.
I moved my mothers computer to Linux (debian), and shes loving it. I set up XPde for her window manager, and crossover office to make sure that all the apps she is used to work flawlessly and look the same (including that pesky outlook plugin that her work needs).
Then add the fact that she can click an icon on her computer to do a simulated reboot whenever she installs something new and shes very very happy with it (she even bragged about it to her colleagues and some of her students).
This is the power of linux. Now that she is no longer on windows, I never get any calls out of the blue saying that her machine is hosed or that she lost some files because outlook crashed or got a virus. Everything just works, and work as well as it did the day I set it up.
Slashdot Mirror
Are/Were you using Win2K on a laptop? How did you overcome the lack of ClearType? In my case, the hardware support and software support was present, and the system did everything I needed to, but the lack of ClearType made it rather unpleasant.
:) and all the features I need are present. (Plus a lot more of my RAM is free for caches or firefox).
I managed to trim XP down to a reasonable 150MB (on CD) and 350MB (installed - minus the pagefile) using nlite and am back to Win2K levels of performance (higher even!
Anything inside a VM IS untrusted. Whether someone has root inside the VM or not should not make a difference.
Lots of hypervizors and VM kernels are vulnerable, and can allow guest OSes to inject code into the host OS.
See this for just a few examples: http://secunia.com/advisories/26890
I can easily find several implementations that cause DOS and escalation attacks on older versions (these are fixed in the current versions, but you can bet more flaws will be found).
Regardless of Theo's opinion of himself, he is right in that more complexity means more bugs.
So buy an electric radiator or two. They are cheap. No need to reduce the lifespan of your CPU and/or mobo just for heat.
That depends entirely on the use case for that swap. I run an app that use 5-8GB worth of temp files each run (and often more than one instance is running), on a system with only 16GB of ram, the extra swap space is used for backing a large tmpfs filesystem. This gets way better performance than running them on a real filesystem (we used to use ext3, then xfs).
We currently allocate ~80GB of swap for this machine (on a raid-1), and most of it gets used from time to time, and the kernel has a much easier time with mmap() on tmpfs than on any real fs.
1. Can I do it with Linux today (GPL2) and tomorrow (GPL3)?
The license for the Linux kernel is not going to change (It requires the consent of many hundreds of contributors, many of which will decline. Some are dead, others are unreachable.)
2. Can I statically link the code with Linux libraries? (My own experience shows that dynamic linking is too much to bear.)
You can statically link, but why avoid dynamic linking? glibc and libstd++ are LGPL, which permits binary only distribution.
3. Can I obfuscate my code (e.g. encode it)?
Isn't compiling it enough? You can strip the compiled code or debugging symbols if you really want, but you only hurt your own ability to debug your users problems.
4. Could I be forced to publish this code by some 3-d party?
Not if you avoid linking with code which has a license that require it.
5. Am I correct that programming in and selling BSD-based boxes won't raise any of the above problems?
Linux and the various BSD flavours both allow this sort of use. See the various wifi-routers and tivo style devices. Hell even my digital picture frames run linux.
Last I used it, mysql never needed to use a cost-based optimizer simply because it never could do anything but nested-loop joins. Sadly this means that ANY non-trivial query can bring mysql to its knees for ALL users connected to that server instance.
Compared to PostgreSQL's optimizer, which tried very very hard to avoid nested loop joins, and can handle medium sized queries (upto around 16-table joins) with relative ease, its a real burden to port apps to work with mysql.
My minions will ensure that they pay dearly for this oversight.
/Really! //Also have a cousin called Clark. ///Enough slashies; This is not fark!
*Evil laugh*
Regards,
Lex Luthor
Where can I buy some? Its still not on EBay!
My henchmen are already on their way to pay the scientists a visit.
I strongly suggest you look at coverity.
They have excellent checks as well as the best framework for creating custom tests that I have ever come across.
NOTE: I am not affiliated with coverity, just a very satisfied user.
Erlang also has a huge amount of overhead, and due to immutable data structures, has to spend a lot of time copying data around.
This is the problem inherent with pure languages. Compilers/runtime systems are simply not sophisticated enough yet to reason about and perform as well as a human can with mutable data structures.
This is why C/C++ will dominate scalable applications for a at least few years more.
I have only every used AspectJ, not AspectC so take this with a grain of salt. AOP is basically the holy grail of design by contract. You can decide and implement powerful contracts and assertions and apply them at compile time or runtime with very little effort. They can be maintained with the code itself or as a separate aspect implemented at a higher level.
Best of all, you can use as little or as much as you want and it will not interfere with your current code.
AspectC++
Ever used xeyes? It even comes with the X distrbution, and is built and installed by default (in the monolithic package). It was written around 1988. I am not sure when the SHAPE extension came about but it has existed for at least 10 years now.
And do what differently?
Care to point out some deficiency in the X codebase?
QT 3's internal data structures are quite bloated and require a lot of memory. In QT4 a lot of bloat has been removed or trimmed, and a number of things can now share memory where previously they had each their own copies.
Simply re-compiling a trivial GUI app from QT3 to QT4 will give noticable performance and memory usage improvement (even if you do not change the code at all).
Not to mention the other improvements in things like MOC which make debugging and testing easier.
This will mean an end to things like freeware/open drivers for virtual devices like virtual DVD drives (playing games without carrying CDs around), virtual sound cards (ripping audio from programs that try to prevent it), virtual graphics card drivers (using your laptop as a second or third monitor), virtual network cards (bridged networking with open source tools like qemu), etc.
Not to mention legitimate freeware projects like kqemu, the ext2fs windows driver, and so on.
The possibilities afforded by being able to run code in Kernel space should not be underestimated.
Nope.
I still own copyright on the little pieces of the kernel that I wrote.
The only rights anyone else has are those granted by the GPL 2.
Changing the kernel license is impossible. Many contributions have been made by people who are now unreachable, dead, or simply disagree with a license change.
/lib/ld-linux.so /home/me/whatever/binary
glibc needs a rewrite before noexec becomes useful.
I don't think that a merger like that would result in a name change.
Microsoft merging with Yahoo! is like me merging with pizza. It ends up with a slightly larger me.
has got to be the Worms series. Since Worms 2, the Worms series has been visually fantastic, and the gameplay is second to none. Its simply a great game, in every way.
Not to mention the fact that even years after its release lots of cool online matches can be found in minutes, since the gamer community likes it so much.
(Oh and, Worms 3D is even sexier)
I would rather buy a dual-SLI system, with a pair of Quadros, which will set me back about $5000 to replace my aging FX4000. You buy what you want, I'll buy what I want.
XSI on a pair of Quadros is worth the cost to me.
Hey now! Leave Alan Cox alone!
For personal sites, I always go with the standard, and check everything including CSS and Javascript, and make sure that it degrades properly on lynx and alike.
But for sites I am being paid for, it is just too time consuming to be both W3C compliant and work in IE. Thus, unless I am specifically paid to do so, my pages will be tested on the major browsers and if they work perfectly across IE, Moz, Opera, Safari, and so on, damn the standard.
Isn't that exactly why cross-over office exists?
I moved my mothers computer to Linux (debian), and shes loving it. I set up XPde for her window manager, and crossover office to make sure that all the apps she is used to work flawlessly and look the same (including that pesky outlook plugin that her work needs).
Then add the fact that she can click an icon on her computer to do a simulated reboot whenever she installs something new and shes very very happy with it (she even bragged about it to her colleagues and some of her students).
This is the power of linux. Now that she is no longer on windows, I never get any calls out of the blue saying that her machine is hosed or that she lost some files because outlook crashed or got a virus. Everything just works, and work as well as it did the day I set it up.
Yes, I have. A lots of things are enabled in the defconfig which you have to go through. It's faster to make allnoconfig and then tweak it from there.