I'm glad somebody likes it. The rest of the world uses bash.
gmake and make are different, yet make is not primitive.
If you've tried to make a complex makefile, you'd see that gmake has many features that make make a lot easier. Once you've used it, going back to bsd make is a real pain.
gcc is almost 25 years old. please answer why you are using something so old when Clang is available.
Because gcc generates better code than clang does. My projects compile ~10% larger with clang. Clang is also still lagging in C++11 support. While I do not rule out switching in the future, at this time gcc is still the better choice.
It is bad to be compatible?!? Are you saying different systems need to be incompatible else you would not use them?
I'm saying that software has changed since the 70s, and, in my opinion, for the better. If you like your old "compatible" systems, by all means, run BSD. It will likely stay just the way it is forever. I prefer progress, even if it you can't work on it exactly the same way your grandpa did.
The fact that BSD is released under the BSD license is of no interest to anybody except BSD developers. Real users don't use BSD for an entirely different reason: it's stuck in the 70s. To make a usable system you have to install all that modern day software written for Linux, gmake, gcc, bash, fileutils, unix-utils, xfce or whatever desktop you're using, because the BSD equivalents are too primitive. Once you install all of those, you may as well just use Linux in the first place. Yes, most of those new things are GPL-licensed, but that's not why they are not on BSD. They are not on BSD because BSD developers want to keep the system exactly the way it was 30 years ago. They worship stability and will not make a single incompatible change, no matter how much it would improve usability. Well, they can keep their stability; instead of installing Linux over BSD, I'll just use Linux. And no, ZFS is not a sufficient reason to go through all that pain.
College students eventually figure out that it is completely unnecessary to carry textbooks to class. It does, however, take time, so most go through the same progression: freshmen carry EVERYTHING and need to wear both straps of their backpack. Sophomores lighten the load and can use just one strap. Juniors carry a notebook. Seniors carry beer.
We used to have workers like that in the South before the civil war. They were called slaves, and boy were they ever the backbone of the cotton economy!
Would somebody please think of the poor terrorists? Everybody knows they are not smart enough to do this sort of research on their own. Without real scientists helping them create doomsday weapons like this one, how will they ever take over the world?
If this planet were a hot car driving down the highway, the boiling mass would be about a 100 bacteria falling off it every second. And each and every one of them is of the very finest British manufacture.
These are topics that MOST people - men and women both - don't give a shit about.
Yes, thank you for pointing this out. Most men are just as boring as most women are. Why would anybody sane care about watching football?
Yes, you'll need to develop some interests outside of code optimization if you want to socialize with people. I'm a software engineer. I also play music. I also do a lot of reading. I also enjoy rock climbing, mountain biking, playing hockey, traveling, cooking, and studying languages.
Oh, so what you're saying is that playing music, reading Shakespeare, rock climbing, and traveling are more valuable hobbies than programming is? Well, I've got news for you: they aren't. They merely have the distinction of requiring less mental effort to understand and talk about, which in most circles is a huge advantage. It is, after all, unpopular to display any sign of intelligence in polite company. We have our culture to thank for that, and for the subsequent decline in science education such an attitude brings. If this continues, we'll soon all live in the stone age, and rock climbing will be the only hobby you'll be able to have.
It seems relevant to mention The King James Version of the bible, completed in 1611, whose copyright, still in force after 400 years, is held by the British Crown.
Challenging the data collection is challenging the data. The data is only as trustworthy as the researcher who collected it, and the sort of people who go into climate science research are precisely the sort of environmentalists who are looking for any excuse to take us all back to stone age. Not that this automatically invalidates the data, but it sure does increase the burden of proof required to believe it is genuine.
they're turned off by you because you're an aspie bore who fixates on topics of interest to you with no understanding or awareness of how uninterested in that topic they really are. It's not because you work with computers, it's because you don't know when the fuck to shut up about computers.
And this is precisely the problem: they are not interested in anything that we're interested in. If I talk about computers, it's because I find it an exciting subject. Yes, I am excited about other things too, but all of those are equally technical or scientific, and therefore unintersting to women. The only thing they are interested in is people, and that is a subject that I find excruciatingly dull. To a nerd, acquiring social skills merely means learning that he can never mention anything he really cares about, and that he must learn to politely endure other people's boring rants without showing it. And then people wonder why he dislikes socializing.
Well, I'm not going to say "turnabout is fair play", but before you heap too much criticism on socially inept nerds, consider that one reason they are that way is that women universally reject them. Tell a woman you're a computer programmer, and her eyes glaze over. Tell her you like playing computer games, and she leaves. Tell her you like her, and she'll say "ugh". And now other women want to come to communities dominated by these kinds of men, who have been despised by women since the day they were old enough to be, and then wonder why they are not made as welcome as they'd like to be? Who is really the problem here, the nerds, or the culture that inculcates contempt for them?
The Great Ethanol Scam
on
Is E85 Dead Now?
·
· Score: 1, Informative
Let's not forget that ethanol fuels destroy engines, lower gas mileage, and drive farmers into bankrupcy.
I would instead say that an introvert defines himself through what he does. An extrovert defines himself through what other people think of what he does. An introvert thus always wants to do the right (as in, rationally correct) thing, because competence increases his self worth. An extrovert does not want to be competent; he merely wants to be thought competent. The easiest way to achieve that is to find some introvert underlings to do the actual work for which he can then take credit, and increase his self worth. Because having people do as they are told makes this easier, he tends to like conformity and obedience. Conversely, he assumes that being conformant and obedient makes others like him, because such behaviour improves their self worth.
When socializing in a group, extroverts brag to each other about their accomplishments in order to "purchase" the group's higher opinion, and through it a higher self worth. Listening is a valued skill because those who listen politely, increase the braggart's self value.
When socializing in a group of introverts, introverts exchange information that helps them become more competent. Intelligence is a valued attribute because it helps others raise their own competence, increasing the listener's self value.
When an introvert is in a group of extroverts, he tries to "help" them by giving out useful information. They don't understand why he does that, since useful information does not increase their self worth. Only positive opinions do that, and the introvert can't offer those because he values real competence, which they don't have. So, after a few minutes of unsucessfully trying to get some mutual back-patting going on, the extroverts move on, making a note never to promote this ungrateful SOB.
Extroverts try to "help" the introvert by telling him how smart he is, which frustrates him because he does not understand why they consider this information valuable enough to communicate. After a few hours of trying to find something valuable in the extroverts' small talk, he is stressed out from the intense concentration because he thinks he's not competent enough to find it, which then decreases his self worth. At that point the poor guy has to relax for a while or go insane.
For this reason, socialization can only work on homogenous groups, and hiring an introvert into an extrovert environment really messes things up for everybody.
it is extremely unlikely that two species that come in contact would have anything that both were interested in, but that one had an abundance and the other a paucity of
On the contrary, there is one resource that all species are competing for: habitable space. Unless you learn to live in bubble habitats on asteroids, most people would want a planet. The number of usable planets (decent temperatures, liquid water, mineral resources, etc.) is limited, so any species would want all they can find. Also, all species are competetive (those that aren't, don't survive long), and will likely not stand for some aliens squatting on a perfectly usable planet. I am sure that if we were ever to find an alien world, we'd just exterminate any life on it that can compete with us. We did that on our planet; and here we're just competing with others of our own kind. Why would anybody care about the lives of aliens, when we don't even care about some members of our own species?
The only people bashing CISC are sheltered academics who have never been out in the real world or have heard of benchmarks. On my Core i7, for example, the benchmarks show that string instructions usually are the fastest way to do things.
A basic rep stos yields 25 GBps. So does the fastest recommended SSE method using movntps and prefetch. A RISC-style fill loop only manages 12 GBps. You can improve its performance by unrolling the loop four times, getting the same 25 GBps as a string instruction with a lot more code.
With a copy, rep movsl and movsq gives 3.2 GBps. movsb gives 2.5. A RISC-style copy loop gives 3.2 GBps. The fastest SSE copy loop with movntps and prefetch gives 6.4 GBps, at the expense of code size.
As you can see, for most applications it is a very good idea to use the string instructions. An SSE optimized copy may be useful if you're copying large blocks somewhere; otherwise don't bother. Outside tight loops, reducing code size will improve performance much more than directly trying to make it fast.
I wonder why they aren't putting network satellites in LEO instead of geostationary. Just how hard would it be to use a phased array antenna instead of a dish and track the orbit? Would that negate the lower cost of only going to LEO? After all, with the satellites in lower orbit you could launch more of them, which ought to improve bandwidth. And the improvement in latency would make this arrangement competetive with any other broadband offering.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm glad somebody likes it. The rest of the world uses bash.
If you've tried to make a complex makefile, you'd see that gmake has many features that make make a lot easier. Once you've used it, going back to bsd make is a real pain.
Because gcc generates better code than clang does. My projects compile ~10% larger with clang. Clang is also still lagging in C++11 support. While I do not rule out switching in the future, at this time gcc is still the better choice.
I'm saying that software has changed since the 70s, and, in my opinion, for the better. If you like your old "compatible" systems, by all means, run BSD. It will likely stay just the way it is forever. I prefer progress, even if it you can't work on it exactly the same way your grandpa did.
Yet another solution in search of a problem.
The fact that BSD is released under the BSD license is of no interest to anybody except BSD developers. Real users don't use BSD for an entirely different reason: it's stuck in the 70s. To make a usable system you have to install all that modern day software written for Linux, gmake, gcc, bash, fileutils, unix-utils, xfce or whatever desktop you're using, because the BSD equivalents are too primitive. Once you install all of those, you may as well just use Linux in the first place. Yes, most of those new things are GPL-licensed, but that's not why they are not on BSD. They are not on BSD because BSD developers want to keep the system exactly the way it was 30 years ago. They worship stability and will not make a single incompatible change, no matter how much it would improve usability. Well, they can keep their stability; instead of installing Linux over BSD, I'll just use Linux. And no, ZFS is not a sufficient reason to go through all that pain.
Droids-R-Us, of course. Save your buckazoids!
College students eventually figure out that it is completely unnecessary to carry textbooks to class. It does, however, take time, so most go through the same progression: freshmen carry EVERYTHING and need to wear both straps of their backpack. Sophomores lighten the load and can use just one strap. Juniors carry a notebook. Seniors carry beer.
We used to have workers like that in the South before the civil war. They were called slaves, and boy were they ever the backbone of the cotton economy!
Those who do not understand mainframes are bound to reinvent them. Poorly.
> monitor standard that sets your house on fire
Funny, my printer port already has that feature.
Would somebody please think of the poor terrorists? Everybody knows they are not smart enough to do this sort of research on their own. Without real scientists helping them create doomsday weapons like this one, how will they ever take over the world?
If this planet were a hot car driving down the highway, the boiling mass would be about a 100 bacteria falling off it every second. And each and every one of them is of the very finest British manufacture.
Yes, thank you for pointing this out. Most men are just as boring as most women are. Why would anybody sane care about watching football?
Oh, so what you're saying is that playing music, reading Shakespeare, rock climbing, and traveling are more valuable hobbies than programming is? Well, I've got news for you: they aren't. They merely have the distinction of requiring less mental effort to understand and talk about, which in most circles is a huge advantage. It is, after all, unpopular to display any sign of intelligence in polite company. We have our culture to thank for that, and for the subsequent decline in science education such an attitude brings. If this continues, we'll soon all live in the stone age, and rock climbing will be the only hobby you'll be able to have.
It seems relevant to mention The King James Version of the bible, completed in 1611, whose copyright, still in force after 400 years, is held by the British Crown.
Challenging the data collection is challenging the data. The data is only as trustworthy as the researcher who collected it, and the sort of people who go into climate science research are precisely the sort of environmentalists who are looking for any excuse to take us all back to stone age. Not that this automatically invalidates the data, but it sure does increase the burden of proof required to believe it is genuine.
And this is precisely the problem: they are not interested in anything that we're interested in. If I talk about computers, it's because I find it an exciting subject. Yes, I am excited about other things too, but all of those are equally technical or scientific, and therefore unintersting to women. The only thing they are interested in is people, and that is a subject that I find excruciatingly dull. To a nerd, acquiring social skills merely means learning that he can never mention anything he really cares about, and that he must learn to politely endure other people's boring rants without showing it. And then people wonder why he dislikes socializing.
Well, I'm not going to say "turnabout is fair play", but before you heap too much criticism on socially inept nerds, consider that one reason they are that way is that women universally reject them. Tell a woman you're a computer programmer, and her eyes glaze over. Tell her you like playing computer games, and she leaves. Tell her you like her, and she'll say "ugh". And now other women want to come to communities dominated by these kinds of men, who have been despised by women since the day they were old enough to be, and then wonder why they are not made as welcome as they'd like to be? Who is really the problem here, the nerds, or the culture that inculcates contempt for them?
Let's not forget that ethanol fuels destroy engines, lower gas mileage, and drive farmers into bankrupcy.
That's why they call it P(olitically)C(orrect)-BSD
I would instead say that an introvert defines himself through what he does. An extrovert defines himself through what other people think of what he does. An introvert thus always wants to do the right (as in, rationally correct) thing, because competence increases his self worth. An extrovert does not want to be competent; he merely wants to be thought competent. The easiest way to achieve that is to find some introvert underlings to do the actual work for which he can then take credit, and increase his self worth. Because having people do as they are told makes this easier, he tends to like conformity and obedience. Conversely, he assumes that being conformant and obedient makes others like him, because such behaviour improves their self worth.
When socializing in a group, extroverts brag to each other about their accomplishments in order to "purchase" the group's higher opinion, and through it a higher self worth. Listening is a valued skill because those who listen politely, increase the braggart's self value.
When socializing in a group of introverts, introverts exchange information that helps them become more competent. Intelligence is a valued attribute because it helps others raise their own competence, increasing the listener's self value.
When an introvert is in a group of extroverts, he tries to "help" them by giving out useful information. They don't understand why he does that, since useful information does not increase their self worth. Only positive opinions do that, and the introvert can't offer those because he values real competence, which they don't have. So, after a few minutes of unsucessfully trying to get some mutual back-patting going on, the extroverts move on, making a note never to promote this ungrateful SOB.
Extroverts try to "help" the introvert by telling him how smart he is, which frustrates him because he does not understand why they consider this information valuable enough to communicate. After a few hours of trying to find something valuable in the extroverts' small talk, he is stressed out from the intense concentration because he thinks he's not competent enough to find it, which then decreases his self worth. At that point the poor guy has to relax for a while or go insane.
For this reason, socialization can only work on homogenous groups, and hiring an introvert into an extrovert environment really messes things up for everybody.
On the contrary, there is one resource that all species are competing for: habitable space. Unless you learn to live in bubble habitats on asteroids, most people would want a planet. The number of usable planets (decent temperatures, liquid water, mineral resources, etc.) is limited, so any species would want all they can find. Also, all species are competetive (those that aren't, don't survive long), and will likely not stand for some aliens squatting on a perfectly usable planet. I am sure that if we were ever to find an alien world, we'd just exterminate any life on it that can compete with us. We did that on our planet; and here we're just competing with others of our own kind. Why would anybody care about the lives of aliens, when we don't even care about some members of our own species?
In any project, 90% of code can be removed with no loss of functionality.
The only people bashing CISC are sheltered academics who have never been out in the real world or have heard of benchmarks. On my Core i7, for example, the benchmarks show that string instructions usually are the fastest way to do things.
A basic rep stos yields 25 GBps. So does the fastest recommended SSE method using movntps and prefetch. A RISC-style fill loop only manages 12 GBps. You can improve its performance by unrolling the loop four times, getting the same 25 GBps as a string instruction with a lot more code.
With a copy, rep movsl and movsq gives 3.2 GBps. movsb gives 2.5. A RISC-style copy loop gives 3.2 GBps. The fastest SSE copy loop with movntps and prefetch gives 6.4 GBps, at the expense of code size.
As you can see, for most applications it is a very good idea to use the string instructions. An SSE optimized copy may be useful if you're copying large blocks somewhere; otherwise don't bother. Outside tight loops, reducing code size will improve performance much more than directly trying to make it fast.
Third time's the charm.
If programmers designed eBook formats, they'd have vector graphics support.
I wonder why they aren't putting network satellites in LEO instead of geostationary. Just how hard would it be to use a phased array antenna instead of a dish and track the orbit? Would that negate the lower cost of only going to LEO? After all, with the satellites in lower orbit you could launch more of them, which ought to improve bandwidth. And the improvement in latency would make this arrangement competetive with any other broadband offering.