I wonder how many people have encountered the problem I have right now. I bought a Midiman Delta 1010LT, which the company claimed worked under Linux (through "third drivers", from ALSA). This was fine with me so I bought the card (which box had a nice linux sticker on it).
I then tried to make the card work under Linux, only to find out that it wasn't supported by ALSA and that though there were some efforts under way, AFAICT nobody has ever been able to output a single sound out of that card. I wonder how many companies use this kind of false publicity with Liunx.
My experience shows that in many situations, C++ can actually be much faster than C (not always of course). The reason: templates and inlining. With inlining, not only do you save function calls (which usually aren't that expensive), but the optimizer is free to use common sub-expression elimination across the "call". With templates, you can produce better generic code. Just compare the C qsort to the C++ sort algorithm. In the first case, you go through a function call by pointer (for the comparison operator) which is *very* expensive, while in the second case, the function will be optimized just for the type you need.
This is not Microsoft being malicious about the GPL. It's Microsoft following the CYA (Cover Your Ass) policy with their own intellectual property.
They are being malicious. Remember that they're not releasing source code, they're release specs, information. What "intellectual property" could they "lose". It's like telling you "the header to my proprietary format starts with an '%', now you're not allowed to write a GPL program that uses that precious information".
Can anybody explain to me how Microsoft can allow BSD software to use their license while forbiding GPL? Since BSD software can be re-licensed under any other license (the property that MS likes), why couldn't it be re-licensed under the GPL. In other words, what would prevent me from writing a very small BSD program that just used the MS doc but doesn't really do anything useful, and then re-license it under the GPL.
Or probably better, all the MS interoperation code could be put in a BSD library (since there'd be nothing innovative in that part, MS won't even bother) and then link all kinds of GPL programs to that library. Does that make sense?
If he had half the political clout you claim he had we'd all have DC power outlets in our homes instead of the AC Westinghouse pushed.
Not even Microsoft would have succeded in pushing DC instead of AC. There are limits to what marketing can do. MS might succeed in pushing Windows vs. Linux, but not MS-DOS vs. Linux.
This shows that it's really time for AMD to release Athlon XP's at.13 um before Intel are too much ahead of them. From what I understood,.18 Athlon are stuck at PR 2100+.
I think Scientology is smarter on one point: not to sue someone with 10 times more resources than you have. RAMBUS going after Infineon, Micron was a dumb idea.
That's not the issue. If I don't have the right to put my code in my LGPL library, then the library is broken so they cannot use it. If they want to put my code in the LGPL library, then they need to release that code under the LGPL. (By the way had my library been GPL, they could not have use it under any circumstance, period)
One thing I'm glad I was doing (though I never had to use it with my employer) is that I wasn't alone working on my (L)GPL project (see sig). That way, even if my company had tried to claim copyright, they would have had a copyright on only my code, which would make the code useless without the other contributions. It sorts of limits the incentive for a company when it knows that it can't gain much in the (potential) conflict.
Another thing that also helped is that since at one point a part of their software linked to my (LGPL) library, making it "illegal" would also have made their own product illegal.
You can always write bad LaTeX, but it's harder than to do it correctly. For example, most conferences provide a LaTeX stylesheet for the papers. You can write your whoole article without this stylesheet (which is usually what I do) and then at the last minute link to it in your.tex file and it looks exactly like it's supposed to look.
All LaTeX commands are "high-level". For example you tell latex that "Introduction" is the name of a section (and your stylesheet defines what a section name looks like). The same for figures, you just tell LaTeX if you prefer them as close as possible to the reference or on top of a page (if applicable).
I live in Canada, so I don't know american book stores. A while ago, I wanted to send a book to someone in the US. Had Amazon not sued B&N I would have bought the book from them as they were the only store I knew. With that suit, they drew my attention to the fact that B&N was also selling books online. So I just bought the book from B&N...
I wonder how many times this happens when the big bad company sues a little one (though I know in this case B&N is not really a small company...) and gets them some publicity as well as an incentive for people to buy from them.
Your only stealing if there is an actual loss from your efforts.
If you use a coil to pick up electricity from a high power line, you are in fact stealing power. Otherwise, there would be an energy conservation problem.
There are good points but I've got a problem with what looks like the unwritten assumptions that programs are all the same and are targetted at the same people. Let's see who uses:
-Word
-Matlab
-Apache
-Linux/Embedded
-AutoCAD
...
While you (should) want to make Word as simple as possible, you want to let Apache users configure everything, you want to let people modify the source to Linux(Embedded) to exactly fit their needs. AutoCAD needs lots of features, but not necessarly source code ('cuz there are less programmers in mec. eng. than ee)
So I'd add fallacy #11: Programs are all the same
-Software management should be done the same way, regardless of the software being produced
-All programs should focus on simplicity, not features
Once you give it the ability to offer a running process to hijack and potentially have a shell open, the read-only mount only lasts until the equivalent of mount -o remount rw is executed, and then all bets are off.
True... unless you write a small module that, when loaded, prevents and filesystem from being mounted read-write. That, plus a boot passwd to prevent reboots insures that nothing gets changed in case of attack.
"By buying this pack of cigarettes, you agree not to measure nicotine levels or any other compound. You also agree not no write unfavorable reviews or studies about cigarettes regarding possible diseases or addiction. In the event you become sick, you agree not to tell your doctor you are smoking cigarettes and you shall not accept any treatement for lung cancer or any other disease associated to smoking"
Re:Itanium at 1.6 GHz in 2003 ?
on
Intel's Big Chip
·
· Score: 2
AFAIK, current Itanium chips run around 1 GHz and are way faster than a P4 2.2 GHz. Did someone mention "clockspeed is not everything"? It you look at (non x86-based MPP) super-computers, I'd bet none of them runs with CPUS faster than 1 GHz, yet each processor is often an order (or two) of magnitude faster.
Aromatic polycyclic hydrocarbons (thanks Gromit#35) from wood combustion are almost as bad as the dioxines (sp?) from some pesticides. The fact that you don't die from them doesn't mean it's not toxic. The damage is done at a larger scale.
Don't know about coal, but burning wood sure isn't green... Of course it produces CO2, but it also releases SO2 (think acid rain) and (sorry I only know the french term, but it's probably just a word permutation for english) "Hydro-carbure aromatique polycycliques", which are toxic.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder how many people have encountered the problem I have right now. I bought a Midiman Delta 1010LT, which the company claimed worked under Linux (through "third drivers", from ALSA). This was fine with me so I bought the card (which box had a nice linux sticker on it).
I then tried to make the card work under Linux, only to find out that it wasn't supported by ALSA and that though there were some efforts under way, AFAICT nobody has ever been able to output a single sound out of that card. I wonder how many companies use this kind of false publicity with Liunx.
My experience shows that in many situations, C++ can actually be much faster than C (not always of course). The reason: templates and inlining. With inlining, not only do you save function calls (which usually aren't that expensive), but the optimizer is free to use common sub-expression elimination across the "call". With templates, you can produce better generic code. Just compare the C qsort to the C++ sort algorithm. In the first case, you go through a function call by pointer (for the comparison operator) which is *very* expensive, while in the second case, the function will be optimized just for the type you need.
This is not Microsoft being malicious about the GPL. It's Microsoft following the CYA (Cover Your Ass) policy with their own intellectual property.
They are being malicious. Remember that they're not releasing source code, they're release specs, information. What "intellectual property" could they "lose". It's like telling you "the header to my proprietary format starts with an '%', now you're not allowed to write a GPL program that uses that precious information".
Can anybody explain to me how Microsoft can allow BSD software to use their license while forbiding GPL? Since BSD software can be re-licensed under any other license (the property that MS likes), why couldn't it be re-licensed under the GPL. In other words, what would prevent me from writing a very small BSD program that just used the MS doc but doesn't really do anything useful, and then re-license it under the GPL.
Or probably better, all the MS interoperation code could be put in a BSD library (since there'd be nothing innovative in that part, MS won't even bother) and then link all kinds of GPL programs to that library. Does that make sense?
If he had half the political clout you claim he had we'd all have DC power outlets in our homes instead of the AC Westinghouse pushed.
Not even Microsoft would have succeded in pushing DC instead of AC. There are limits to what marketing can do. MS might succeed in pushing Windows vs. Linux, but not MS-DOS vs. Linux.
This shows that it's really time for AMD to release Athlon XP's at .13 um before Intel are too much ahead of them. From what I understood, .18 Athlon are stuck at PR 2100+.
I think Scientology is smarter on one point: not to sue someone with 10 times more resources than you have. RAMBUS going after Infineon, Micron was a dumb idea.
That's not the issue. If I don't have the right to put my code in my LGPL library, then the library is broken so they cannot use it. If they want to put my code in the LGPL library, then they need to release that code under the LGPL. (By the way had my library been GPL, they could not have use it under any circumstance, period)
One thing I'm glad I was doing (though I never had to use it with my employer) is that I wasn't alone working on my (L)GPL project (see sig). That way, even if my company had tried to claim copyright, they would have had a copyright on only my code, which would make the code useless without the other contributions. It sorts of limits the incentive for a company when it knows that it can't gain much in the (potential) conflict.
Another thing that also helped is that since at one point a part of their software linked to my (LGPL) library, making it "illegal" would also have made their own product illegal.
You can always write bad LaTeX, but it's harder than to do it correctly. For example, most conferences provide a LaTeX stylesheet for the papers. You can write your whoole article without this stylesheet (which is usually what I do) and then at the last minute link to it in your .tex file and it looks exactly like it's supposed to look.
All LaTeX commands are "high-level". For example you tell latex that "Introduction" is the name of a section (and your stylesheet defines what a section name looks like). The same for figures, you just tell LaTeX if you prefer them as close as possible to the reference or on top of a page (if applicable).
It all depends on how you write LaTeX. Normally, you should put all layout data in the .sty stylesheet.
He probably means the atomic number...
I live in Canada, so I don't know american book stores. A while ago, I wanted to send a book to someone in the US. Had Amazon not sued B&N I would have bought the book from them as they were the only store I knew. With that suit, they drew my attention to the fact that B&N was also selling books online. So I just bought the book from B&N...
I wonder how many times this happens when the big bad company sues a little one (though I know in this case B&N is not really a small company...) and gets them some publicity as well as an incentive for people to buy from them.
Does that mean that iPod and computer stores should be illegal as they both allow to steal software?
Not likely, it would take a couple of weeks max for the first compilers to appear.
Sure, but the problem is how long before there are good compilers? That's one of the main problems with architectures like Itanium.
Your only stealing if there is an actual loss from your efforts.
If you use a coil to pick up electricity from a high power line, you are in fact stealing power. Otherwise, there would be an energy conservation problem.
There are good points but I've got a problem with what looks like the unwritten assumptions that programs are all the same and are targetted at the same people. Let's see who uses:
-Word
-Matlab
-Apache
-Linux/Embedded
-AutoCAD
...
While you (should) want to make Word as simple as possible, you want to let Apache users configure everything, you want to let people modify the source to Linux(Embedded) to exactly fit their needs. AutoCAD needs lots of features, but not necessarly source code ('cuz there are less programmers in mec. eng. than ee)
So I'd add fallacy #11: Programs are all the same
-Software management should be done the same way, regardless of the software being produced
-All programs should focus on simplicity, not features
Well the first such a module does is preventing loading/unloading of modules...
Once you give it the ability to offer a running process to hijack and potentially have a shell open, the read-only mount only lasts until the equivalent of mount -o remount rw is executed, and then all bets are off.
True... unless you write a small module that, when loaded, prevents and filesystem from being mounted read-write. That, plus a boot passwd to prevent reboots insures that nothing gets changed in case of attack.
"By buying this pack of cigarettes, you agree not to measure nicotine levels or any other compound. You also agree not no write unfavorable reviews or studies about cigarettes regarding possible diseases or addiction. In the event you become sick, you agree not to tell your doctor you are smoking cigarettes and you shall not accept any treatement for lung cancer or any other disease associated to smoking"
AFAIK, current Itanium chips run around 1 GHz and are way faster than a P4 2.2 GHz. Did someone mention "clockspeed is not everything"? It you look at (non x86-based MPP) super-computers, I'd bet none of them runs with CPUS faster than 1 GHz, yet each processor is often an order (or two) of magnitude faster.
technology that allowed a monkey to control a mouse
You mean even G.W. Bush will be able to use a computer...
Aromatic polycyclic hydrocarbons (thanks Gromit#35) from wood combustion are almost as bad as the dioxines (sp?) from some pesticides. The fact that you don't die from them doesn't mean it's not toxic. The damage is done at a larger scale.
Burning wood is more "green" than burning coal.
Don't know about coal, but burning wood sure isn't green... Of course it produces CO2, but it also releases SO2 (think acid rain) and (sorry I only know the french term, but it's probably just a word permutation for english) "Hydro-carbure aromatique polycycliques", which are toxic.
Following a violent incident in California grocery stores, the state has issued a 60-day moratorium on eating.