REALbasic 2005 is a modern, object-oriented language and environment, so C++ developers feel right at home. Familiar concepts such as polymorphism, object references and exception handling are supported with a clean, modern syntax.
You can write bad code in any language. However, REALbasic fully supports good programming practices.
And, anyway, if he can't get sound and video to work on Linux, he's not all he's cracked up to be.
You are missing the point. He could make it work. But it's not worth his time to fiddle around and mess with it. It is far easier and more productive to simply buy a Mac and have a fully functional UNIX machine. The fact that it doesn't "just work" means that Linux isn't a viable desktop replacement for the ordinary computer user.
If he has indeed been messing around with Linux for long enough to be prominent in development/maintenance of xscreensaver (I haven't checked this) or XEmacs
jwz wrote xscreensaver, Lucid Emacs, Netscape Mail and News 2.0 to 3.0 and the original UNIX versions of Netscape Navigator.
yintercept is half right. Doubling the salary is a good rule of thumb of the total cost of the employee. But that cost should include equipment, office space, management overhead, etc.
But take some time tuning it, and your OS's TCP/IP stack, and you can easily outperform even Zeus.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Apache uses a single thread / process per connection. Zeus multiplexes all connections in a single (or multiple, one per CPU) process. Zeus and any similarly architected server will always outperform Apache.
Apache works well for a lot of things, but speed isn't one of them. Even if the test was fair, I wouldn't be surprised if IIS is faster than Apache. A comparison to Zeus or lighttpd would be better.
A good starting place to learn about server architecture is The C10k problem page.
A more important thing is to set cd aliased so it changes the window title of your terminal emulator.
If you are using bash, setting PROMPT_COMMAND might be better than aliasing cd. Personally, I only put the hostname in the window title. Having the path in there annoys me.
Recursive DNS servers are used to perform DNS lookups. These are the servers that you would configure in/etc/resolv.conf, in Windows networking settings, etc. A DNS client asks a recursive server about a name, say www.example.com. The recursive server asks a root server about com. It then asks a com about example.com. It then asks a example.com server about www.example.com. Finally, the recursive server returns the result to the client.
The recursive server caches these delegations along the way. This obviates the need to ask the root servers everytime a.com lookup is performed. This where TTL comes into play -- how often does it need to re-check these cached names?
aio is just an example. epoll doesn't appear in MacOS either.
aio is part of POSIX. epoll is Linux specific. In my opinion, Linux should have implemented kqueue, which is already on FreeBSD, NetBSD and Mac OS X, rather than creating a new API that does less.
They could have had their dhcp servers send out, at least temporarily, a good upstream DNS server, rather than piss off umpteen billion customers.
There is no such thing as a "good upstream DNS server". There are authoritative DNS servers and there are DNS caches (also called resolvers). The root DNS servers are authoritative only. You cannot use them to resolve DNS queries.
If you want to resolve queries you need to run a DNS cache, use your ISP's, or use one somewhere else that someone left open. Running a promiscuous DNS cache is a bad idea.
First, djbdns isn't Free Software, which means that a lot of us won't touch it with a ten-foot pole. See the recent BitKeeper debacle for reasons why that's the pragmatic rationale and not just an ideological decision.
There is a HUGE difference between BitKeeper and DJB's copyrighted software. DJB's software is distributed as source code without any "license". This means that you will always have the option of using, modifying and distributing patches for any released version. He can't suddenly take the software away from you.
I can't install rsync on them to support the functionality that Dan left out of djbdns.
In poker there is a concept called being "pot committed." If you have invested a large amount in a hand and then face the decision to call one more small bet in order to get a showdown, even if at this point you are pretty darn sure you have the worst hand, it is worth it because at this point you're getting a small price to potentially gain a lot.
No, it's called pot odds. Pot odds are the ratio of money already in the pot vs the cost of calling. Your odds of winning must match or exceed this ratio in order for it to be a good call. If you are certain you are going to lose, then it's a bad call, no matter how good the pot odds. That could be called "throwing good money after bad".
You missed copying the first sentence of that paragraph: "Some say that Windows NTFS does not really offer a journaled file system." Nice FUD there.
That might be trying to say that NTFS doesn't journal file data, which is the case for almost all journaling file systems (or alternatives such as FreeBSD's Soft Updates). Those that do have that feature never enable it by default: the cost is simply too great.
File system integrity (i.e. metadata) is the job of the OS and the filesystem. Data integrity is the job of the application (until it has told the OS to commit the data to the disk, i.e. fsync in POSIX or FlushFileBuffers in Win32). The OS can't attempt to do that on a general level without greatly inhibiting performance for everything. That said, it would be very useful to have a journaling API available that applications could use.
It's not that IE uses undocumented API calls; it just has its internals sprayed about through multiple DLLs and exported for all the world to use
No, it simply exports functions in DLLs for other parts of the program to use. Just because a DLL exports a function doesn't mean it's "exported for all the world to use". That is simply how DLLs work.
For example, say you have two different executables that share a large amount of code. You might split that code up into a separate DLL that both share. This saves disk space and cuts down on memory usage (since DLLs only need to be loaded once across multiple processes). The exported structures in the DLL might change between releases, but that doesn't matter because you control both executables and the DLL. The exported functions don't become "public to the world" simply because they exist.
To pay for the processing, and cover the rising cost of credit fraud (It's big) those who carry a balance and have the late mail once in a while get stuck with all the fees to pay for the system.
Wrong. Merchants pay transaction fees to accept credit card payments. Merchants also lose in cases of fraud. Chargebacks get deducted from the merchant, not the credit card issuer. Credit card networks would make money even if there was no credit.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice FUD:
You can write bad code in any language. However, REALbasic fully supports good programming practices.
And, anyway, if he can't get sound and video to work on Linux, he's not all he's cracked up to be.
You are missing the point. He could make it work. But it's not worth his time to fiddle around and mess with it. It is far easier and more productive to simply buy a Mac and have a fully functional UNIX machine. The fact that it doesn't "just work" means that Linux isn't a viable desktop replacement for the ordinary computer user.
If he has indeed been messing around with Linux for long enough to be prominent in development/maintenance of xscreensaver (I haven't checked this) or XEmacs
jwz wrote xscreensaver, Lucid Emacs, Netscape Mail and News 2.0 to 3.0 and the original UNIX versions of Netscape Navigator.
"hmm, how is the computer going to know how I labeled my CD?"
The CD burner could print the label on the CD.
Double your salary in benefits?
yintercept is half right. Doubling the salary is a good rule of thumb of the total cost of the employee. But that cost should include equipment, office space, management overhead, etc.
But take some time tuning it, and your OS's TCP/IP stack, and you can easily outperform even Zeus.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Apache uses a single thread / process per connection. Zeus multiplexes all connections in a single (or multiple, one per CPU) process. Zeus and any similarly architected server will always outperform Apache.
Apache works well for a lot of things, but speed isn't one of them. Even if the test was fair, I wouldn't be surprised if IIS is faster than Apache. A comparison to Zeus or lighttpd would be better.
A good starting place to learn about server architecture is The C10k problem page.
A more important thing is to set cd aliased so it changes the window title of your terminal emulator.
If you are using bash, setting PROMPT_COMMAND might be better than aliasing cd. Personally, I only put the hostname in the window title. Having the path in there annoys me.
declare -x PROMPT_COMMAND="echo -ne '\033]0;${HOSTNAME}\007'"
If anyne knows the API to create a symlink in Windows I'd love to see it!
m l#junction
http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/source/misc.sht
not sure what they mean by 'cached by recursion'
/etc/resolv.conf, in Windows networking settings, etc. A DNS client asks a recursive server about a name, say www.example.com. The recursive server asks a root server about com. It then asks a com about example.com. It then asks a example.com server about www.example.com. Finally, the recursive server returns the result to the client.
.com lookup is performed. This where TTL comes into play -- how often does it need to re-check these cached names?
Recursive DNS servers are used to perform DNS lookups. These are the servers that you would configure in
The recursive server caches these delegations along the way. This obviates the need to ask the root servers everytime a
Obvious answer is anyone doing web design.
Not really. Smart web designers simply change their browser size. WindowSizer from this page works nicely.
aio is just an example. epoll doesn't appear in MacOS either.
aio is part of POSIX. epoll is Linux specific. In my opinion, Linux should have implemented kqueue, which is already on FreeBSD, NetBSD and Mac OS X, rather than creating a new API that does less.
They could have had their dhcp servers send out, at least temporarily, a good upstream DNS server, rather than piss off umpteen billion customers.
There is no such thing as a "good upstream DNS server". There are authoritative DNS servers and there are DNS caches (also called resolvers). The root DNS servers are authoritative only. You cannot use them to resolve DNS queries.
If you want to resolve queries you need to run a DNS cache, use your ISP's, or use one somewhere else that someone left open. Running a promiscuous DNS cache is a bad idea.
qmail has a similar security guarantee. It was offered in 1997 and has never been claimed.
First, djbdns isn't Free Software, which means that a lot of us won't touch it with a ten-foot pole. See the recent BitKeeper debacle for reasons why that's the pragmatic rationale and not just an ideological decision.
There is a HUGE difference between BitKeeper and DJB's copyrighted software. DJB's software is distributed as source code without any "license". This means that you will always have the option of using, modifying and distributing patches for any released version. He can't suddenly take the software away from you.
I can't install rsync on them to support the functionality that Dan left out of djbdns.
djbdns includes an AXFR server.
In poker there is a concept called being "pot committed." If you have invested a large amount in a hand and then face the decision to call one more small bet in order to get a showdown, even if at this point you are pretty darn sure you have the worst hand, it is worth it because at this point you're getting a small price to potentially gain a lot.
No, it's called pot odds. Pot odds are the ratio of money already in the pot vs the cost of calling. Your odds of winning must match or exceed this ratio in order for it to be a good call. If you are certain you are going to lose, then it's a bad call, no matter how good the pot odds. That could be called "throwing good money after bad".
the execs start thinking that they can only design chips and let some other sucker incur the "costs" of manufacturing
That strategy has worked well for NVIDIA.
Now if I need anything I'll hit the local computer fair
You can get some good deals, but it's also a great way to get screwed by fly-by-night merchants.
You missed copying the first sentence of that paragraph: "Some say that Windows NTFS does not really offer a journaled file system." Nice FUD there.
i ty/centers/fileservices/fileservices_faq.mspx
That might be trying to say that NTFS doesn't journal file data, which is the case for almost all journaling file systems (or alternatives such as FreeBSD's Soft Updates). Those that do have that feature never enable it by default: the cost is simply too great.
File system integrity (i.e. metadata) is the job of the OS and the filesystem. Data integrity is the job of the application (until it has told the OS to commit the data to the disk, i.e. fsync in POSIX or FlushFileBuffers in Win32). The OS can't attempt to do that on a general level without greatly inhibiting performance for everything. That said, it would be very useful to have a journaling API available that applications could use.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/commun
It's not that IE uses undocumented API calls; it just has its internals sprayed about through multiple DLLs and exported for all the world to use
No, it simply exports functions in DLLs for other parts of the program to use. Just because a DLL exports a function doesn't mean it's "exported for all the world to use". That is simply how DLLs work.
For example, say you have two different executables that share a large amount of code. You might split that code up into a separate DLL that both share. This saves disk space and cuts down on memory usage (since DLLs only need to be loaded once across multiple processes). The exported structures in the DLL might change between releases, but that doesn't matter because you control both executables and the DLL. The exported functions don't become "public to the world" simply because they exist.
Or maybe write a journalled filesystem or something.
NTFS is a journaling file system. It was around years before any journaling file systems were available for Linux.
To pay for the processing, and cover the rising cost of credit fraud (It's big) those who carry a balance and have the late mail once in a while get stuck with all the fees to pay for the system.
Wrong. Merchants pay transaction fees to accept credit card payments. Merchants also lose in cases of fraud. Chargebacks get deducted from the merchant, not the credit card issuer. Credit card networks would make money even if there was no credit.
There would be no advantage to keeping your source code secret
The advantage is that your competitor couldn't take your source code, modify it a little and release it as their own product.
Well, you reverse the algo.
;P
You cannot reverse the algorithm -- that's the point. SHA-1 is a cryptographic hash algorithm.
Still, the message is a 1-1 as long as it's the SHA-1 signature size or less...
No, because the hash algorithm does not guarantee that two input values smaller than the output value do not produce the same output value.
I GUESS you could brute force it
There is no guarantee you will find the original input, only an input that produces the same output.
"Then why did Jobs want to hire him in the first place?"
Bouncing Pepsis
SHA-1 IS an encryption algo IF your message is the same size or smaller than the SHA-1 keysize.
How exactly do you decrypt it?