3dfx drivers are among the best drivers I've seen, maybe not as good as the drivers 3dlabs makes, but other than that they've been rock solid, running on whatever chipset I throw at it.
most distributions do not even care to tell you what are installed. e.g. vi. It gets installed by all distribs. Yet no installer tells me it is installed. Without this knowledge, I'm going to install another editor.
That's where all the bloat comes from.
If I'm told exactly what software are installed by default, are compulsory and stuffs, and what exactly goes in a package, I can choose what to install more precisely - thus preventing bloat.
Also. The way Linux distributions group the apps in their installer does not make much sense. I'd hail the Windows way here - divide the applications into groups and groups of groups. So, e.g. all text editors would go to the same group. All mail clients would go to the same subgroup of "internet apps". All browsers would go to the same group, etc.
AFAIK no distribution so far does this for me. That's why I'm forced to install stuffs that I don't need.
While I agree with you that choice is good, but this choice SHOULD be given WHILE you're installing, NOT AFTER you've installed everything.
>But to say C supports inheritance is too much of
>a stretch
One way, although incomplete, is inheritance through delegation. Using "has-a" relationship to similate "is-a" relationship.
>Finally, the original poster is right. People do
>look at a program and go "well this is all
>abstracted and uses OO philosphy so it's OO".
>Well it ain't. Because in C I can take your
>struct and route through its insides
In Java I can take your class and read through its inside too. See. Even if you cannot programmatically access the inside of a class, if you let others *read* the class content, non-functional dependencies can be introduced. (e.g. assumption of time complexity)
I maintain, that OO is language-independent. You could be right. But there are two schools of views and no superior one yet.
>we eliminated C++, COBOL, and a few other
>languages all together in favor of JAVA.
Choose the right tool for the right job. Getting rid of all other languages - closing up all diversities - only your teaching staffs, not the students are going to benefit. Even if you want to go the "one single language" way, Java is far from being the conceptual best. Try Ruby.
>C++ is simply a pain in the ass and it's OO
>design is crap
How is Java's OO design better than that of C++'s? Both aren't pure OO.
C++ does not hide your data very well, but at least it gives you an easy way to separate the interface of a class from its implementation -.cpp and.h. With Java, you can often do so only by subclassing. Compiling stuffs into a.class doesn't count.
>Java is NOT bad and it's debugging is extremely
>more Verbose that most C++ compilers I have had
>the unfortunate time to use
Debugging facility is VM-specific for Java. Java VM does not guarantee anything except maybe reliably running your code. That of C++ aren't bad either. For example, there are lots of good C++ ASSERT libraries out there, and they can be very useful in good hands.
>Java has the best networking API on the planet
...only if Java is the only language on the planet. Perl, Python, Ruby, Delphi and even C++ have networking libraries at least as good as Java's.
>Java has been a wonderful language to program in
>and learn what OO programming is supposed to be
>about. C++ is crap for OO
OO is a *concept*. A *mindset*. Is *language independent*. To learn what OO is supposed to be, the best tool is NOT a programming language.
A better try would be UML, then Design Patterns. Then you can implement your OO concept in any language you wish. Even in QBasic if one's dedicated enough.
>and to have a student learn it would be far more
>beneficial as a later course in his/her career.
It just happens that Java is one of the hot languages right now. What if the ship sinks in 3 years?
Nothing absolute guarantees you a better career, except your brain and how you adapt things. That's why many universities teach their courses in many languages.
>If true OO design philosophies are held so
>highly by all of the geniuses on Slashdot why
>do programmers for Linux make EVERYHING in C and
>then try to fool themselves and their programs
>into thinking they are actually OO when they are
>not?
OO is a *language-independent concept*. You can implement a program using the OO philosophies in C. Please do some research before you post.
>Maybe if people learned OO programming,
>philosophy and used decent OO languages before
>trying to do everything in C and half attempts
>at C++ then we would have a better Linux/Unix
>today.
First, OO is not the only nor the best design concept for all applications. Using and applying the best OO concepts does not automagically give you good programs, if you applied the OO concepts in the wrong problem domain.
Second, "learning OO programing and philosophy" has nothing to do with "use decent OO language".
I have said it, and I'll say it again. OO is language independent.
Not Junkbuster - The Proxomitron is a million times more powerful than that.
Is there a proxy for Unix that works in a similar fashion as the Proxomitron, i.e. let's you match and replace web page contents and HTTP header contents using regular expressions?
I heard of webfilter, but it is just too old, unmaintained and contains too many vestigial CERN code in it.
Maybe it's just me. I've seen enough "child prodigies" who *also happens* to have an excellent social life within their peer groups, sports-loving etc.
It is not like - uh, if he's that intelligent, he must be some inert kid sitting alone in his room doing weird experiments or something.
The assumptions you people are making is stereotypical and very unfair. Please. Being extremely good at one aspect of life does not necessarily mean failures elsewhere.
Almost all progresses in the field can attribute to the "obscure, academic tools". And, the use of a diversity of tools frees students from the mindset of always using the favorite tool of the year, and can make them more flexible on changes.
In Waterloo, our first year CS courses used to be in Pascal when I took it. Now they're in Java. Onto the second year stuffs - used to be Modula-3 only. Now people can choose to work on M-3 or Java (M-3 is superior language-wise, thus more suitable for teaching). 3rd-4th year courses use C, C++, Java, Scheme, Tcl...and, in some courses you are free to choose your tools. Perl, Python, Matlab, Ruby aren't uncommon.
What if 6 years from now C++ isn't the tool of choice anymore? People using a variety of tools tend to switch faster. And, C++ is not a good OO language -.h files exposes too much of the object internals.
And Java? Hm...I haven't seen a fast and stable JVM yet. There aren't many good native Java compilers either. And we're talking about microkernels here...do you think Java is the right tool for an OS kernel, before a good native compiler exists?
Well, everything said, you've made your own choice. So all the best with it.
I do not know how exactly it can be carried out, BUT, if we can get our acts together and find one instance we can sue the MPAA using its own weapon, they may back off a bit.
To me it seems the most effective way of dealing this, if it can be done easily. Any ideas?
From now on don't carry AOL CDs!!! They already have their distribution channels!!!
That's my concern. Problem is, T-W is a *media* company. It does not matter if it adheres to the FTC promises, just a lethal dose of free advertising from all the T-W media can flood consumers into ignorance, rendering the FTC and its rules useless.
Of course the Modula-2 program would contain at
least twice as many lines of code. Hell, a
decent printf() statement in C ends up as 5
lines of Modula-2!
If you think less lines are always better, you'll love this language. You'll realize what you miss when you go from C to it. The same can apply for the Modula-2 to C comparison.
I have been able to kick ass upon the majority of CS guys that I've met.
I'm not questioning your ability to kick ass, but are you sure it is a good estimator of what the college offers compares to what a full degree does?
Let's try this question: Would you be able to kick the ass of your present self if you went thru a full CS curriculum?
The following is my logic. I'm not sure if it is right, but it can make sense.
How many % of (let's say) US citizens are criminals?
(From now on, I'm assuming the answer to the above question is less than a few percent)
If this % is small, how economic is building jails, hiring polices, putting people on trial, etc. to just correct this minority?
Does the correction of this 2-5% of the whole population actually make a significant difference to the sanity of the society?
On the other hand, the system as a prevention tool makes economical sense, because it purports to keep the rest (i.e. 90% or more) of the population from committing crimes.
A thought experiment: imagine that, you see the news on your local TV channel that "for the next 3 days our local police department is going on a strike. There'll be no street patrol..."
Will you get nervous about the news? Then, think about *why* think you'll get nervous. It likely will point to the crime prevention function of the system.
>Reduce the incentive for murder. Why are people
>murdered? There are many social ills that drive
>people to kill. Try to correct these things, and
>you've prevented more murders than sending >someone to jail--where they get angry, lift
>weights, and prepare for their next crime spree
Yes. Sound in theory. Extremely difficult for practice. Murderers kill people for various reasons, some of which totally out of any stretch of our imagination.
It is not possible to make everyone happy at the same time over a series of many government decisions. Some must be upset, for individual reasons. If we cannot take care of each of them, there're bound to be criminals.
e.g. free food for everybody would definitely make a lot of people happy, and prevents helluva lot of crimes. However, it may create a riot among shareholders of big food companies.
>heady enjoyment of corrupting spammers'
>databases
Yeah. Damaging their databases unknowingly. Go to their site, manually edit the cookies. Let them retrieve them and corrupt their databases by their own hands.
If there's a software that does this for you. I'll pay for it.
>This is evidence of a judicial system that is
>more about revenge than correction
You're mislead. It is not about revenge. It is about PREVENTION.
If murderers are just "corrected" without lowering their overall happiness, hell sure many more people will get killed everyday.
There are basically two ways to induce incentive for people so that they won't commit crimes:
1. prize for being good - it would vastly be uneconomical. And you should be good only to get something in return?
2. punishment - it is the present system. Heck. If I want to stay out of jail, I'd better be good. Also, correction comes as a nice *SIDE-EFFECT* when criminal serve their years.
"the system is about correction" is bull. Show me how you can make correction on some dedicated criminals without making them suffer, either monetarily, physically or mentally.
Well, I went to Japan in August, and happened to had some Fugu sashimi. It obviously didn't kill me, but it does not taste THAT better than other fish. I'd still prefer salmons.:)
In addition, there are processed dried fugus that isn't poisonous - but of course, it does not taste like the fish itself but rather like dried squid snack.
Talking about genome similarities here, why fugu but not any other simpler fish? I mean, the genome makeup of fugu must look more like that of an eel or a shark than....ur...humans.
Does it mean that it is the simplest fish in terms of genome complexity? Or is it the missing link? Just kidding about the second one...
Falling back to an i386 without FPU should work, all the time. CPU-specific informations (e.g. MTRR) are for optimizations only. If the cpuid database does not match the CPU, it is the kernel's best interest behave like an ad hoc i386 kernel - working slowly is better than not working at all.
What if the CPU is not x86? Then it is highly unlikely that the kernel even runs to that point thus far. Not impossible, but almost - like changing a few random bytes of a file and still getting the same MD5 checksum.
Slashdot Mirror
How about those puppies? Anyone still making synths with them?
I've seen motion blur being used in an arcade. It is a tennis game and I believe it was Atari's.
The motion blur effect is breathtaking, even at about on 30 fps. I doubt it is produced by a Voodoo though.
I dunno, basically tho I can do ALT-TABBING and everything with my 3dfx driver.
Good for Nvidia if theirs has also improved.
Poor driver quality?
3dfx drivers are among the best drivers I've seen, maybe not as good as the drivers 3dlabs makes, but other than that they've been rock solid, running on whatever chipset I throw at it.
Wonder where you get this from.
Yeah, but...
most distributions do not even care to tell you what are installed. e.g. vi. It gets installed by all distribs. Yet no installer tells me it is installed. Without this knowledge, I'm going to install another editor.
That's where all the bloat comes from.
If I'm told exactly what software are installed by default, are compulsory and stuffs, and what exactly goes in a package, I can choose what to install more precisely - thus preventing bloat.
Also. The way Linux distributions group the apps in their installer does not make much sense. I'd hail the Windows way here - divide the applications into groups and groups of groups. So, e.g. all text editors would go to the same group. All mail clients would go to the same subgroup of "internet apps". All browsers would go to the same group, etc.
AFAIK no distribution so far does this for me. That's why I'm forced to install stuffs that I don't need.
While I agree with you that choice is good, but this choice SHOULD be given WHILE you're installing, NOT AFTER you've installed everything.
three-vicks probably fits....
>But to say C supports inheritance is too much of
>a stretch
One way, although incomplete, is inheritance through delegation. Using "has-a" relationship to similate "is-a" relationship.
>Finally, the original poster is right. People do
>look at a program and go "well this is all
>abstracted and uses OO philosphy so it's OO".
>Well it ain't. Because in C I can take your
>struct and route through its insides
In Java I can take your class and read through its inside too. See. Even if you cannot programmatically access the inside of a class, if you let others *read* the class content, non-functional dependencies can be introduced. (e.g. assumption of time complexity)
I maintain, that OO is language-independent. You could be right. But there are two schools of views and no superior one yet.
>we eliminated C++, COBOL, and a few other
.cpp and .h. With Java, you can often do so only by subclassing. Compiling stuffs into a .class doesn't count.
>languages all together in favor of JAVA.
Choose the right tool for the right job. Getting rid of all other languages - closing up all diversities - only your teaching staffs, not the students are going to benefit. Even if you want to go the "one single language" way, Java is far from being the conceptual best. Try Ruby.
>C++ is simply a pain in the ass and it's OO
>design is crap
How is Java's OO design better than that of C++'s? Both aren't pure OO.
C++ does not hide your data very well, but at least it gives you an easy way to separate the interface of a class from its implementation -
>Java is NOT bad and it's debugging is extremely
>more Verbose that most C++ compilers I have had
>the unfortunate time to use
Debugging facility is VM-specific for Java. Java VM does not guarantee anything except maybe reliably running your code. That of C++ aren't bad either. For example, there are lots of good C++ ASSERT libraries out there, and they can be very useful in good hands.
>Java has the best networking API on the planet
...only if Java is the only language on the planet. Perl, Python, Ruby, Delphi and even C++ have networking libraries at least as good as Java's.
>Java has been a wonderful language to program in
>and learn what OO programming is supposed to be
>about. C++ is crap for OO
OO is a *concept*. A *mindset*. Is *language independent*. To learn what OO is supposed to be, the best tool is NOT a programming language.
A better try would be UML, then Design Patterns. Then you can implement your OO concept in any language you wish. Even in QBasic if one's dedicated enough.
>and to have a student learn it would be far more
>beneficial as a later course in his/her career.
It just happens that Java is one of the hot languages right now. What if the ship sinks in 3 years?
Nothing absolute guarantees you a better career, except your brain and how you adapt things. That's why many universities teach their courses in many languages.
>If true OO design philosophies are held so
>highly by all of the geniuses on Slashdot why
>do programmers for Linux make EVERYHING in C and
>then try to fool themselves and their programs
>into thinking they are actually OO when they are
>not?
OO is a *language-independent concept*. You can implement a program using the OO philosophies in C. Please do some research before you post.
>Maybe if people learned OO programming,
>philosophy and used decent OO languages before
>trying to do everything in C and half attempts
>at C++ then we would have a better Linux/Unix
>today.
First, OO is not the only nor the best design concept for all applications. Using and applying the best OO concepts does not automagically give you good programs, if you applied the OO concepts in the wrong problem domain.
Second, "learning OO programing and philosophy" has nothing to do with "use decent OO language".
I have said it, and I'll say it again. OO is language independent.
Okay. You maintain. Your opinion. Your requirements. Your classification.
Not Junkbuster - The Proxomitron is a million times more powerful than that.
Is there a proxy for Unix that works in a similar fashion as the Proxomitron, i.e. let's you match and replace web page contents and HTTP header contents using regular expressions?
I heard of webfilter, but it is just too old, unmaintained and contains too many vestigial CERN code in it.
Maybe it's just me. I've seen enough "child prodigies" who *also happens* to have an excellent social life within their peer groups, sports-loving etc.
It is not like - uh, if he's that intelligent, he must be some inert kid sitting alone in his room doing weird experiments or something.
The assumptions you people are making is stereotypical and very unfair. Please. Being extremely good at one aspect of life does not necessarily mean failures elsewhere.
Everyone knows the Radeon blows any Voodoo 5 out the water.
Almost all progresses in the field can attribute to the "obscure, academic tools". And, the use of a diversity of tools frees students from the mindset of always using the favorite tool of the year, and can make them more flexible on changes.
.h files exposes too much of the object internals.
In Waterloo, our first year CS courses used to be in Pascal when I took it. Now they're in Java. Onto the second year stuffs - used to be Modula-3 only. Now people can choose to work on M-3 or Java (M-3 is superior language-wise, thus more suitable for teaching). 3rd-4th year courses use C, C++, Java, Scheme, Tcl...and, in some courses you are free to choose your tools. Perl, Python, Matlab, Ruby aren't uncommon.
What if 6 years from now C++ isn't the tool of choice anymore? People using a variety of tools tend to switch faster. And, C++ is not a good OO language -
And Java? Hm...I haven't seen a fast and stable JVM yet. There aren't many good native Java compilers either. And we're talking about microkernels here...do you think Java is the right tool for an OS kernel, before a good native compiler exists?
Well, everything said, you've made your own choice. So all the best with it.
This nut was the culprit for the fall of Corel. Now they have a new CEO. I think things will get better.
I do not know how exactly it can be carried out, BUT, if we can get our acts together and find one instance we can sue the MPAA using its own weapon, they may back off a bit.
To me it seems the most effective way of dealing this, if it can be done easily. Any ideas?
From now on don't carry AOL CDs!!! They already have their distribution channels!!!
That's my concern. Problem is, T-W is a *media* company. It does not matter if it adheres to the FTC promises, just a lethal dose of free advertising from all the T-W media can flood consumers into ignorance, rendering the FTC and its rules useless.
Let's try this question: Would you be able to kick the ass of your present self if you went thru a full CS curriculum?
The following is my logic. I'm not sure if it is right, but it can make sense.
How many % of (let's say) US citizens are criminals?
(From now on, I'm assuming the answer to the above question is less than a few percent)
If this % is small, how economic is building jails, hiring polices, putting people on trial, etc. to just correct this minority?
Does the correction of this 2-5% of the whole population actually make a significant difference to the sanity of the society?
On the other hand, the system as a prevention tool makes economical sense, because it purports to keep the rest (i.e. 90% or more) of the population from committing crimes.
A thought experiment: imagine that, you see the news on your local TV channel that "for the next 3 days our local police department is going on a strike. There'll be no street patrol..."
Will you get nervous about the news? Then, think about *why* think you'll get nervous. It likely will point to the crime prevention function of the system.
>Reduce the incentive for murder. Why are people
>murdered? There are many social ills that drive
>people to kill. Try to correct these things, and
>you've prevented more murders than sending >someone to jail--where they get angry, lift
>weights, and prepare for their next crime spree
Yes. Sound in theory. Extremely difficult for practice. Murderers kill people for various reasons, some of which totally out of any stretch of our imagination.
It is not possible to make everyone happy at the same time over a series of many government decisions. Some must be upset, for individual reasons. If we cannot take care of each of them, there're bound to be criminals.
e.g. free food for everybody would definitely make a lot of people happy, and prevents helluva lot of crimes. However, it may create a riot among shareholders of big food companies.
>heady enjoyment of corrupting spammers'
>databases
Yeah. Damaging their databases unknowingly. Go to their site, manually edit the cookies. Let them retrieve them and corrupt their databases by their own hands.
If there's a software that does this for you. I'll pay for it.
Now is there any?
>This is evidence of a judicial system that is
>more about revenge than correction
You're mislead. It is not about revenge. It is about PREVENTION.
If murderers are just "corrected" without lowering their overall happiness, hell sure many more people will get killed everyday.
There are basically two ways to induce incentive for people so that they won't commit crimes:
1. prize for being good - it would vastly be uneconomical. And you should be good only to get something in return?
2. punishment - it is the present system. Heck. If I want to stay out of jail, I'd better be good. Also, correction comes as a nice *SIDE-EFFECT* when criminal serve their years.
"the system is about correction" is bull. Show me how you can make correction on some dedicated criminals without making them suffer, either monetarily, physically or mentally.
It is the most informative and insightful post about spam I've read in months. Good job on explaining the situation.
Yes. It has the color of hamachi, just a bit paler. And it usually is cut to much thinner pieces than other sashimi.
Looks like fresh eel meat at the first sight. But the texture is between that of the eel and the salmon.
Overall it tastes good. I recommend having it once, in a famous restaurant in Japan. Fugu poisoning only kills about 100 people a year.
Also there's an alternative type of fugu or so I've heard, cultivated not caught. And is much less poisonous. I'm not sure about that tho.
Study which gene makes the fugu poisonous, h4x0r it with something else.
The day before we have GM fugu isn't far away - same great taste, without the risk!!
Well, I went to Japan in August, and happened to had some Fugu sashimi. It obviously didn't kill me, but it does not taste THAT better than other fish. I'd still prefer salmons. :)
In addition, there are processed dried fugus that isn't poisonous - but of course, it does not taste like the fish itself but rather like dried squid snack.
Talking about genome similarities here, why fugu but not any other simpler fish? I mean, the genome makeup of fugu must look more like that of an eel or a shark than....ur...humans.
Does it mean that it is the simplest fish in terms of genome complexity? Or is it the missing link? Just kidding about the second one...
Falling back to an i386 without FPU should work, all the time. CPU-specific informations (e.g. MTRR) are for optimizations only. If the cpuid database does not match the CPU, it is the kernel's best interest behave like an ad hoc i386 kernel - working slowly is better than not working at all.
What if the CPU is not x86? Then it is highly unlikely that the kernel even runs to that point thus far. Not impossible, but almost - like changing a few random bytes of a file and still getting the same MD5 checksum.