I'm not running preload. I've never found it to be worth it. Things load fast enough already anyway.
I booted back into Gentoo again last night and the numbers are more like this: starts off around 200 MB once I get into KDE. After doing things for a bit, but then closing all programs, it's more around 400 MB. I presume more code paths get touched by KDE and other libs and those get pulled into active RAM. But that's still considerably less than Winodws 7 is using.
Yeah, I'm thinking I might need to do a clean install. I find 1.7 GB with just Chrome open to be appalling. I do have a full-blown KDE running, but KDE really isn't that heavy, despite what the GNOME-tards say.
It's only 200 MB when first started up and with no apps running. It does get bigger, but it usually stays between 250 MB and 400 MB when idling.
I know how to read memory reports, you dolt. Right now, I have 1762 MB in use, 2158 it Standby (cache) and 13 MB free. I compare that with Linux, which uses pretty much the same virtual memory model as Windows (aside from the global vs. local working set deal and a few other things of no importance here) and I see that Windows uses three times as much memory as Linux does running basically the same programs -- services excluded.
What did I build with Gentoo? I installed KDE and I have a KDE desktop. It works, it's snappy and uses a lot less memory than Windows 7. I can compare it with Windows because at the end of the day, it's still a monolithic OS kernel, system libraries, system software/desktop environment plus user applications. I can't think of a single reason why my Gentoo w/KDE is not comparable to Windows 7 with Explorer.
I doubt those things have anything to do with C vs. C++ and have more to do with fallbacks, GL API usage and graphics driver support. Those are the bottlenecks, not the language.
Well, I know OpenGL performance on Linux is sucky, but Windows 7 is definitely using more RAM. That's what task manager shows. And yes, I know how to read the various dials on there.
I don't know what your 3rd question is supposed to mean.
Yes, if you don't do things right, they won't work right. Wow, you are a genius. Perhaps bash is less forgiving than Windows crap, but I'd call that a feature, not a bug. The main problem with Windows is that it is so damn forgiving in every area that people can do stupid things and then require the OS to support them for years/decades to come, fucking everyone else over in the meantime.
Windows shell scripting still works from release to release because they simply don't change anything because it is simply no longer under development and is deprecated.
Linux file managers can read that data just fine and display. Maybe they don't have it by default for whatever reason. I'm sure you can just select the columns you want, such as "picture taken date" and you'll be fine and dandy.
Yeah, pretty much everything in their stack needs some love. They have little manpower and a lot to do and it's pretty damn critical for Linux to be successful on the desktop.
It will require a different paradigm for programming. Programs these days are built around monolithic flows of execution with lots of global and interconnected state. These really can't be parallelized. I don't know what the answer is, although I have some naive ideas based around extreme encapsulation and loose coupling. I'll leave solving that problem to people who are smarter than me.
Slashdot isn't chat. Slashdot is a techie news aggregator. Why it ought to behave by the same rules is beyond me.
In any case, Slashdot frequently mentions technologies without defining them. Generally, they are well-known among the crowd here (e.g., Linux kernel, X11, iPhone, etc.), but I guess they misjudged things with this article.
It's a bit ridiculous to make that claim given that women weren't even allowed to participate in society in the same way men were up until the 20th century.
While I'm sure there may be some doctors out there who are this callous, I think your statement is really way off the mark. Malpractice insurance only softens the blow. It's still a big deal, it's still stressful and it's still costly when a doctor gets hit with a malpractice suit. The point of the insurance is to keep them from having to go under and declare bankruptcy any time there is a malpractice suit. Things do go wrong, and people should make amends. Lives should not, however, be destroyed unnecessarily. And just because the patient's life may be destroyed doesn't mean the doctor's life (as well as the lives of the doctor's other patients, who will no longer have a doctor) should be destroyed as well.
I know language pedants can't handle shades of meaning or synonyms, but "almost completely normal" != "nearly normal". Sure, in a loose, denotational sense, it does. However, the implication is different. In the latter, the speaker is implying that while the object in question is not normal, it is close. Maybe not particularly close, but not really far either. In the former, the speaker is emphasizing that the object in question is, in fact, very close to being normal. "Completely normal" is itself an intensified phrase, meaning "not just normal, but normal in every conceivable way". And "almost", of course, means "very close, but not exactly". So the speaker is stressing that the object is very close to being normal, and not just kind of normal, but normal in every way. It is so extremely close, but yet not quite. "Nearly normal" doesn't have the same connotation or force.
Of course, it may be that the speaker was using needless exaggeration or force. That's a reasonable complaint. People do occasionally have a tendency to use phrasings that are far stronger than they need to be. I won't accept, however, that this phrasing is incorrect.
Why do they need to provide a menu bar? To be perfectly honest, I'm not convinced that a menubar is even a good UI design in the first place. Chrome and IE7+ are just doing what should have been done a while ago: get rid of a space-wasting and confusing widget.
It's the first pass at it. You expect it to be perfect? This is still the development version.
Will you freetards get over yourselves for $DEITY's sake?
I spend a lot of time in coffee shops with my computer, but I'm actually doing work (that I get paid for) and my ThinkPad definitely doesn't look trendy.
Well, since weather over the US, or anywhere else, is influence by weather elsewhere, monitoring weather over the US is actually quite important for Europe, especially given the storm track from west to east (from North America to Europe).
I don't see how references are any better than pointers, really, except you aren't allowed to do certain things. Whoop-dee-doo. If you can trust those certain things, then just don't ever do them in your code. Boom, you have the safety of references without having to use references.
I'm not sure what your problem is with the syntax for pointers in C. It makes pretty good sense. I guess the only annoying thing is that a star is used both to indicate type, and also as a dereferencing operator. I suppose they could have used, say, a ^ to indicate the type and a * for dereferencing. Either way, the two contexts are pretty clearly separated, so it doesn't seem to be a problem for me.
Sure, GC would be nice, but consider the versatility of C's targets. C demands absolute control over what's going on. GC violates that as the GC is off on its own, outside of your direct control as programmer. It may also be unnecessary. Many interesting programs can be written in C with manual memory management and very little risk for leaks. It's only the large programs that would benefit from GC. And even then, having a sane model of object lifetime would be the better choice. Honestly, to me, GC is a cop-out. You are saying "I'm too lazy to make sure I know what is needed when, so I'm gonna let the run-time heuristically determine it for me and hope I don't run out of memory before it can do its job!" But I guess since developer time is more expensive than computer time, GC is the way we are going to go.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not running preload. I've never found it to be worth it. Things load fast enough already anyway.
I booted back into Gentoo again last night and the numbers are more like this: starts off around 200 MB once I get into KDE. After doing things for a bit, but then closing all programs, it's more around 400 MB. I presume more code paths get touched by KDE and other libs and those get pulled into active RAM. But that's still considerably less than Winodws 7 is using.
Yeah, I'm thinking I might need to do a clean install. I find 1.7 GB with just Chrome open to be appalling. I do have a full-blown KDE running, but KDE really isn't that heavy, despite what the GNOME-tards say.
It's only 200 MB when first started up and with no apps running. It does get bigger, but it usually stays between 250 MB and 400 MB when idling.
I know how to read memory reports, you dolt. Right now, I have 1762 MB in use, 2158 it Standby (cache) and 13 MB free. I compare that with Linux, which uses pretty much the same virtual memory model as Windows (aside from the global vs. local working set deal and a few other things of no importance here) and I see that Windows uses three times as much memory as Linux does running basically the same programs -- services excluded. What did I build with Gentoo? I installed KDE and I have a KDE desktop. It works, it's snappy and uses a lot less memory than Windows 7. I can compare it with Windows because at the end of the day, it's still a monolithic OS kernel, system libraries, system software/desktop environment plus user applications. I can't think of a single reason why my Gentoo w/KDE is not comparable to Windows 7 with Explorer.
I doubt those things have anything to do with C vs. C++ and have more to do with fallbacks, GL API usage and graphics driver support. Those are the bottlenecks, not the language.
Well, I know OpenGL performance on Linux is sucky, but Windows 7 is definitely using more RAM. That's what task manager shows. And yes, I know how to read the various dials on there.
I don't know what your 3rd question is supposed to mean.
Yes, if you don't do things right, they won't work right. Wow, you are a genius. Perhaps bash is less forgiving than Windows crap, but I'd call that a feature, not a bug. The main problem with Windows is that it is so damn forgiving in every area that people can do stupid things and then require the OS to support them for years/decades to come, fucking everyone else over in the meantime. Windows shell scripting still works from release to release because they simply don't change anything because it is simply no longer under development and is deprecated.
Linux file managers can read that data just fine and display. Maybe they don't have it by default for whatever reason. I'm sure you can just select the columns you want, such as "picture taken date" and you'll be fine and dandy.
Well, on my system, Windows 7 idles at about 1.5 GB of RAM in use, while Gentoo idles at about 200 MB, so...
Yeah, pretty much everything in their stack needs some love. They have little manpower and a lot to do and it's pretty damn critical for Linux to be successful on the desktop.
Please someone help X.org. They need it pretty bad.
It will require a different paradigm for programming. Programs these days are built around monolithic flows of execution with lots of global and interconnected state. These really can't be parallelized. I don't know what the answer is, although I have some naive ideas based around extreme encapsulation and loose coupling. I'll leave solving that problem to people who are smarter than me.
Slashdot isn't chat. Slashdot is a techie news aggregator. Why it ought to behave by the same rules is beyond me. In any case, Slashdot frequently mentions technologies without defining them. Generally, they are well-known among the crowd here (e.g., Linux kernel, X11, iPhone, etc.), but I guess they misjudged things with this article.
It's a bit ridiculous to make that claim given that women weren't even allowed to participate in society in the same way men were up until the 20th century.
While I'm sure there may be some doctors out there who are this callous, I think your statement is really way off the mark. Malpractice insurance only softens the blow. It's still a big deal, it's still stressful and it's still costly when a doctor gets hit with a malpractice suit. The point of the insurance is to keep them from having to go under and declare bankruptcy any time there is a malpractice suit. Things do go wrong, and people should make amends. Lives should not, however, be destroyed unnecessarily. And just because the patient's life may be destroyed doesn't mean the doctor's life (as well as the lives of the doctor's other patients, who will no longer have a doctor) should be destroyed as well.
I know language pedants can't handle shades of meaning or synonyms, but "almost completely normal" != "nearly normal". Sure, in a loose, denotational sense, it does. However, the implication is different. In the latter, the speaker is implying that while the object in question is not normal, it is close. Maybe not particularly close, but not really far either. In the former, the speaker is emphasizing that the object in question is, in fact, very close to being normal. "Completely normal" is itself an intensified phrase, meaning "not just normal, but normal in every conceivable way". And "almost", of course, means "very close, but not exactly". So the speaker is stressing that the object is very close to being normal, and not just kind of normal, but normal in every way. It is so extremely close, but yet not quite. "Nearly normal" doesn't have the same connotation or force.
Of course, it may be that the speaker was using needless exaggeration or force. That's a reasonable complaint. People do occasionally have a tendency to use phrasings that are far stronger than they need to be. I won't accept, however, that this phrasing is incorrect.
Why can't you say "almost completely normal"?
Speaking of being an idiot...
Why do they need to provide a menu bar? To be perfectly honest, I'm not convinced that a menubar is even a good UI design in the first place. Chrome and IE7+ are just doing what should have been done a while ago: get rid of a space-wasting and confusing widget.
What do you need the menu bar for that the two menu icons in Chrome can't provide?
It's the first pass at it. You expect it to be perfect? This is still the development version. Will you freetards get over yourselves for $DEITY's sake?
I assume opposition movements wouldn't be publishing their locations on the internet for all to see...
I spend a lot of time in coffee shops with my computer, but I'm actually doing work (that I get paid for) and my ThinkPad definitely doesn't look trendy.
Well, since weather over the US, or anywhere else, is influence by weather elsewhere, monitoring weather over the US is actually quite important for Europe, especially given the storm track from west to east (from North America to Europe).
Guess they're going to have to shut down laboratory 5.
I don't see how references are any better than pointers, really, except you aren't allowed to do certain things. Whoop-dee-doo. If you can trust those certain things, then just don't ever do them in your code. Boom, you have the safety of references without having to use references.
I'm not sure what your problem is with the syntax for pointers in C. It makes pretty good sense. I guess the only annoying thing is that a star is used both to indicate type, and also as a dereferencing operator. I suppose they could have used, say, a ^ to indicate the type and a * for dereferencing. Either way, the two contexts are pretty clearly separated, so it doesn't seem to be a problem for me.
Sure, GC would be nice, but consider the versatility of C's targets. C demands absolute control over what's going on. GC violates that as the GC is off on its own, outside of your direct control as programmer. It may also be unnecessary. Many interesting programs can be written in C with manual memory management and very little risk for leaks. It's only the large programs that would benefit from GC. And even then, having a sane model of object lifetime would be the better choice. Honestly, to me, GC is a cop-out. You are saying "I'm too lazy to make sure I know what is needed when, so I'm gonna let the run-time heuristically determine it for me and hope I don't run out of memory before it can do its job!" But I guess since developer time is more expensive than computer time, GC is the way we are going to go.