How do you define a background tab? I (and I suspect many others) have spotify or youtube or netflix or some other media playing in the b/g. Allocating CPU cycles to threads and processes is the job of the OS, not the browser.
I wanted to point out that there is a diverse set of opinions. "Democrats" say X and "Republicans" say Y is a gross generalization. Also, you have to put everything in context. The GOP doesn't simply say illegal immigrants are bad so lets have a scholarly debate. They make vile disgusting political ads specifically designed to rile up people with their propaganda.
You're assuming that reactionary extreme viewpoints are the only ones. Use your head dude.. Many people have said many things. How ironic that your response about false generalizations ended up with you generalizing all Democrats.
Actually, it isn't. Software developers are not interchangeable cogs in a machine. Each project has unique considerations, unique requirements, unique properties all of which makes it pretty much impossible to apply broad generalizations. What stage is the project in? How tightly defined are the requirements? How experienced are the people managing it? Have they ever managed a remote team before? How flexible is the design? Does it even make sense to use this technology? etc etc etc. Its typically "MBA style thinking" to lump us engineers into one giant bucket of nerds - which ironically leads to _more_ outsourcing because all they see is a cost center.
The CTO eventually told them to fuck off, we hired 4 more developers inhouse, and got the entire project completed in 6 months alongside our other duties.
Then it sounds like you guys are incompetent at evaluating whether a company is capable of servicing your needs.
This is backed up by evidence of companies that started on the outsourcing fad and had to pull things back to America to get the quality back up to what they wanted. Again it is not bashing the Indians, but the skill level of the specific subset of people getting into that line of work.
Wow, That is complete marketing bullshit. The only way it makes sense is if those were two separate sentences.
"This enables us to focus on deep integration between Windows and the silicon, while maintaining maximum reliability" -- No Win10, no shiny CPU for you. + "compatibility with previous generations of platform and silicon" -- non-shiny CPUs continue to work with Win10.
I don't have an ISO because this is an upgraded system from Win8. I don't know what your point is, or if you even have one. But it doesn't take a genius to disprove the GP's absurd claims. If you understand basic OS architecture, you'd know that the hard limit on the number of threads is the size of the stack (approximately, because you have other associated bookkeeping data structuresm but they are usually very tiny) , which ultimately means you're limited by the physical memory, paged pool and virtual memory. So creating 100,000 or even 200,000 threads is not a big deal. Threads are the "basic unit" of work in the NT design. Now as far as the scheduler goes, threads have discrete priority levels, thread quantums, as well as numerous strategies like temporary bumps and downgrades in priority/quantum lengths (esp on desktop workloads) so that for e.g. the UI threads dont get starved. (The balance set manager prevents priority inversion) So not only can you schedule a large number of threads, you can do so without locking up the system. Obviously this is a simplistic explanation but it was part of the NT kernel's original design 20 years ago. The idea that NT can't schedule a measly 2000 threads is not really tenable (with the caveat that you have enough memory for the stacks). Since then there have obviously been lots of additions like NUMA support to schedule threads optimally per-processor, etc, etc, etc
There isn't one. For any small entity, funding the production of a generic item that works in every case is not possible in most situations. And that's not a bad thing, necessarily. It fosters alternatives. Why is software development special than say.. a small tire manufacturer unable to make a snow tire for every SUV or a small smartphone case manufacturer unable to make cases for every kind of phone, etc etc. Monoculture often produces strong network effects that aren't always pleasant. But like anything else, you could find certain exceptions. Certainly, having agreed-upon ways to store data or other inter-op protocols/services can be beneficial, etc. But I don't agree that we need a single development platform. This forces the feature-set to be this abstract commonality between wildly different OSs. Historically this has always produces platforms that totally suck, are inefficient (simply owning to the fact that abstraction always has a cost) and are resistant to innovation because of the forced requirement of compatibility.
Do you think that "debug performance telemetry" should be in a mission critical embedded application build in release mode? Do you?
Did you also throw a hissy fit when they added dtrace to the kernel? Did you?
I await your answer.
You people are really dumb. I mean, I get it, you're clearly an anti-ms troll and a Linux cheerleader, but you should know when you're getting fucked and when you're just masturbating.
With 2GB.. you could ship an entire operating system 100 times over that could run applications, far richer and far more responsive, than any web page. I don't see why its acceptable for a web browser to take up that much memory.
also, if a MBA wants to shoot their company in the foot, the company should do something about it. if all the MBAs in the company wan to shoot their company in the foot, that's darwinism.
You might find it hard to convince a successful business that they were wrong to go with closed source software, or not pay extra money for the source code.
Software does not spontaneously come into existence. If a business wants software written, they have to contract a vendor to do it. Try convincing a business to pay extra for the source code as well.
Yeah yeah yeah, all those things look good on some power-point slides. Knowing how shitty human programmers are, and given that the company driving this is Google, which is known to release constant patches to fix bugs in their products. Their crowning achievement, algorithmic data mining/analysis is so terrible that it can't even prevent outright fraudulent and spammy links from showing up in search results. I hear this awesome algorithm is worth "billions". Hell they practically invented the browser-bug-patch treadmill.
So yeah, you'll have to excuse us for not being thrilled at the possibility of a computer algorithm being more accurate than a human. The reality is you're going to have some shitty phone-home internet-of-things type shit-show where you have to reboot your car in order to get to work on time. And this is right after you insert your credit card to download the new CarOS 2.3 which will eventually overload the shitty ass under-powered CPU that they choose to use in order to save $5.40 on the BOM.
Technically speaking, anything that requires finite resources to operate cannot be "unlimited". Also, "unlimited, within reason" works quite well. You can't eat all the food at a buffet either. People like pooling in together to receive a group benefit. If one person starts making extra demands then obviously there is not going to be agreement among the parties and the deal is off.
The big promise of Google was algorithmic processing. You can't be accused of being partial if the algorithms decide who gets to be on top. Well over time people have learned how to game those algorithms. The first links on the results page are often ad infested hellholes, spyware bundling download websites, etc.
I refuse to believe that Google is not aware of it. Why aren't they doing anything about it? I don't know.
Slashdot Mirror
How do you define a background tab? I (and I suspect many others) have spotify or youtube or netflix or some other media playing in the b/g. Allocating CPU cycles to threads and processes is the job of the OS, not the browser.
I wanted to point out that there is a diverse set of opinions. "Democrats" say X and "Republicans" say Y is a gross generalization. Also, you have to put everything in context. The GOP doesn't simply say illegal immigrants are bad so lets have a scholarly debate. They make vile disgusting political ads specifically designed to rile up people with their propaganda.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballo...
So, if you could spare us your sanctimonious bullshit about having a proper discourse it would be nice.
You're assuming that reactionary extreme viewpoints are the only ones. Use your head dude.. Many people have said many things. How ironic that your response about false generalizations ended up with you generalizing all Democrats.
No, it's valuable experience
Actually, it isn't. Software developers are not interchangeable cogs in a machine. Each project has unique considerations, unique requirements, unique properties all of which makes it pretty much impossible to apply broad generalizations. What stage is the project in? How tightly defined are the requirements? How experienced are the people managing it? Have they ever managed a remote team before? How flexible is the design? Does it even make sense to use this technology? etc etc etc. Its typically "MBA style thinking" to lump us engineers into one giant bucket of nerds - which ironically leads to _more_ outsourcing because all they see is a cost center.
The CTO eventually told them to fuck off, we hired 4 more developers inhouse, and got the entire project completed in 6 months alongside our other duties.
Then it sounds like you guys are incompetent at evaluating whether a company is capable of servicing your needs.
Regardless of what you think or feel, it isn't "general consensus" till you demonstrate that it is.
This is backed up by evidence of companies that started on the outsourcing fad and had to pull things back to America to get the quality back up to what they wanted. Again it is not bashing the Indians, but the skill level of the specific subset of people getting into that line of work.
The plural of anecdote is not data.
Wow, That is complete marketing bullshit. The only way it makes sense is if those were two separate sentences.
"This enables us to focus on deep integration between Windows and the silicon, while maintaining maximum reliability" -- No Win10, no shiny CPU for you.
+
"compatibility with previous generations of platform and silicon" -- non-shiny CPUs continue to work with Win10.
I don't have an ISO because this is an upgraded system from Win8. I don't know what your point is, or if you even have one. But it doesn't take a genius to disprove the GP's absurd claims. If you understand basic OS architecture, you'd know that the hard limit on the number of threads is the size of the stack (approximately, because you have other associated bookkeeping data structuresm but they are usually very tiny) , which ultimately means you're limited by the physical memory, paged pool and virtual memory. So creating 100,000 or even 200,000 threads is not a big deal. Threads are the "basic unit" of work in the NT design. Now as far as the scheduler goes, threads have discrete priority levels, thread quantums, as well as numerous strategies like temporary bumps and downgrades in priority/quantum lengths (esp on desktop workloads) so that for e.g. the UI threads dont get starved. (The balance set manager prevents priority inversion) So not only can you schedule a large number of threads, you can do so without locking up the system. Obviously this is a simplistic explanation but it was part of the NT kernel's original design 20 years ago. The idea that NT can't schedule a measly 2000 threads is not really tenable (with the caveat that you have enough memory for the stacks). Since then there have obviously been lots of additions like NUMA support to schedule threads optimally per-processor, etc, etc, etc
Is there a (legal) service that I can ship old audio/video CDs DVDs to and they could just rip it for me in bulk?
Well I must be using some alien version of Windows. I just created 100,000 threads on Windows as I'm typing this comment. Seems to work just fine.
http://imgur.com/a/sBK5M
There isn't one. For any small entity, funding the production of a generic item that works in every case is not possible in most situations. And that's not a bad thing, necessarily. It fosters alternatives. Why is software development special than say.. a small tire manufacturer unable to make a snow tire for every SUV or a small smartphone case manufacturer unable to make cases for every kind of phone, etc etc. Monoculture often produces strong network effects that aren't always pleasant. But like anything else, you could find certain exceptions. Certainly, having agreed-upon ways to store data or other inter-op protocols/services can be beneficial, etc. But I don't agree that we need a single development platform. This forces the feature-set to be this abstract commonality between wildly different OSs. Historically this has always produces platforms that totally suck, are inefficient (simply owning to the fact that abstraction always has a cost) and are resistant to innovation because of the forced requirement of compatibility.
Developing for one platform is less expensive than developing for five.
A monoculture is bad. Its bad when its a single OS, its bad when its a single development platform.
We need a new startup that creates fake profiles for everyone to use for this purpose.
Yeah, also, how is this a cover up? You have to first prove that it was negligence on their part.
Well, it will continue to work, I doubt you're going to be at that much risk anyway.
Do you think that "debug performance telemetry" should be in a mission critical embedded application build in release mode? Do you?
Did you also throw a hissy fit when they added dtrace to the kernel? Did you?
I await your answer.
You people are really dumb. I mean, I get it, you're clearly an anti-ms troll and a Linux cheerleader, but you should know when you're getting fucked and when you're just masturbating.
With 2GB.. you could ship an entire operating system 100 times over that could run applications, far richer and far more responsive, than any web page. I don't see why its acceptable for a web browser to take up that much memory.
also, if a MBA wants to shoot their company in the foot, the company should do something about it. if all the MBAs in the company wan to shoot their company in the foot, that's darwinism.
You might find it hard to convince a successful business that they were wrong to go with closed source software, or not pay extra money for the source code.
Software does not spontaneously come into existence. If a business wants software written, they have to contract a vendor to do it. Try convincing a business to pay extra for the source code as well.
easy fix: just recompile.
So your solution is that a business should purchase that source code from the vendor, hire developers and testers to fix, test and maintain the code?
Have you, you know, actually tried doing what you're suggesting?
Yeah yeah yeah, all those things look good on some power-point slides. Knowing how shitty human programmers are, and given that the company driving this is Google, which is known to release constant patches to fix bugs in their products. Their crowning achievement, algorithmic data mining/analysis is so terrible that it can't even prevent outright fraudulent and spammy links from showing up in search results. I hear this awesome algorithm is worth "billions". Hell they practically invented the browser-bug-patch treadmill.
So yeah, you'll have to excuse us for not being thrilled at the possibility of a computer algorithm being more accurate than a human. The reality is you're going to have some shitty phone-home internet-of-things type shit-show where you have to reboot your car in order to get to work on time. And this is right after you insert your credit card to download the new CarOS 2.3 which will eventually overload the shitty ass under-powered CPU that they choose to use in order to save $5.40 on the BOM.
Technically speaking, anything that requires finite resources to operate cannot be "unlimited". Also, "unlimited, within reason" works quite well. You can't eat all the food at a buffet either. People like pooling in together to receive a group benefit. If one person starts making extra demands then obviously there is not going to be agreement among the parties and the deal is off.
If someone has local access, they OWN the machine already.
Using that logic, nobody should be required to enter a password at a local console.
This is a minor inconvenience as zero security is given with a grub password anyways.
"Hey guys we have this new password feature, but its completely useless so don't use it or ever rely on it."
Both?
The big promise of Google was algorithmic processing. You can't be accused of being partial if the algorithms decide who gets to be on top. Well over time people have learned how to game those algorithms. The first links on the results page are often ad infested hellholes, spyware bundling download websites, etc.
I refuse to believe that Google is not aware of it. Why aren't they doing anything about it? I don't know.