1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop - Linux

This is a discussion on 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop - Linux ; In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Linonut wrote on Wed, 14 May 2008 10:33:57 -0400 : > * The Ghost In The Machine peremptorily fired off this memo: > >> Nevertheless, .NET will revolutionize the industry -- >> if Microsoft can clear out all ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 97

Thread: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop

  1. Re: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Linonut

    wrote
    on Wed, 14 May 2008 10:33:57 -0400
    :
    > * The Ghost In The Machine peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> Nevertheless, .NET will revolutionize the industry --
    >> if Microsoft can clear out all of the other "revolutions"
    >> first. It'll be interesting to see if .NET will suffer the
    >> same fate as ActiveX, which allowed remote code to walk
    >> in the front door, settle into the library, and start
    >> rearchitecting the foyer. (Nowadays, he at least has
    >> to sign a writ of authenticity first. In Java's case,
    >> he's shown to the sandbox at the side of the house, and
    >> only allowed to rearchitect sand castles.)

    >
    > .NET ain't gonna revolutionize /****/, in spite of having some cool
    > technology.


    I'll admit to some curiosity as to what .NET has that Java
    does not. Except for the obvious Microsoft ownership of
    ..NET, I don't see that much difference, and Java has JIT
    capability, which is a mixed blessing but does allow for
    the option of tightly optimizing those pieces that get
    called really often, without wasting time on looking for
    optimizations on pieces that get called a few times
    during startup.

    Granted, C# does have some interesting syntactic oddities,
    auto-converting f.a=f.b into f.setA(f.getB()) for example.
    (I don't recall the actual syntax. For its part Java avoided
    that route, though rather clumsily; various Java modules
    assume "getXXX()" and "setXXX(p)" are property getters
    and setters; there's also issues such as appending "MBean"
    to a classname and looking for an interface.)

    >
    > No company that values stability in an API is going to build on it.


    An interesting subpoint. Of course the Java API isn't
    quite that stable either -- though at this point I think
    it's more an issue that Sun has been *adding* glop to the
    libraries, as opposed to mutating them. (Had Sun been
    doing it right they might have used interfaces almost
    exclusively for most of their APIs -- I consider an
    interface a contract, and the implementation behind it
    the implementation thereof. Of course religiously hewing
    to that notion might involve a performance penalty; I don't
    know without looking into the details.)

    >
    > (Cue Tim to provide a list of companies that obviously do not value
    > stability in an API. )
    >
    > Microsoft wants you to rewrite your apps every few years, so you can pay
    > them for another round of "technology refreshes".


    Yeah, I know what you mean. :-P Anyone for some
    warmed-over LISP-style mutated S expressions? Oh, wait,
    it's called XML now. The difference is that XML is more
    popular, has attributes, and a variety of tools know how
    to play with it -- but that's about it.

    >
    >> I'll also be curious as to what happens to WinFX, which was
    >> supposed to replace the Win32 muck.

    >
    > Like I said about the periodic sea changes...
    >
    > Anyway, I am being a bit unfair, as many many changes occur without
    > Microsoft being involved. What's the big one now? Ruby?


    Not sure what's changing in Ruby, or for that matter
    what Ruby's changing *from* (Ruby looks like a Smalltalk
    variant, and I'd frankly have to research its details).

    But yeah, Ruby on Rails is gaining some popularity, from
    what little I've poked around in that area. (As you might
    have gathered, my main specialties are Java and Linux/x86.)

    I'm not all that thrilled with PHP, though it's probably
    useful for quick-and-dirty websites, and has a nice, big API.

    >
    > And, going by the example of a Windows web-based project another group
    > is doing, there's always a half-dozen different languages involved in a
    > Microsoft project anyway.
    >


    Which I like generally but it's not a new idea; VAX/VMS
    had that general notion in the 1980's, and there's probably
    environments prior to VAX/VMS that had it as well.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Error 16: Not enough space on file system to delete file(s)
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  2. Re: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop

    "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
    news:5b7rf5-6lh.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
    > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Linonut
    >
    > wrote
    > on Wed, 14 May 2008 07:38:52 -0400
    > <%9AWj.11821$C8.5819@bignews2.bellsouth.net>:
    >> * Ian Hilliard peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >>
    >>> A computer system's engineer, who understands that cross platform
    >>> development guarantees the best results at the lowest cost, because it
    >>> forces cleaner development and provides access to a wider set of tools.

    >>
    >> Not to mention having to deal with the quantum shifts in Microsoft APIs
    >> that come every few years.
    >>

    >
    > And these are ... ? MoveToEx() is *still* in WinGDI.
    > The only APIs I know have shifted are the ones for the
    > drivers (I'll admit I don't know the details for those),
    > RDO->ADO (I know very little about either), and something
    > which I can only identify as a WinInet->WinHTTP transition
    > internally, and that only because I happened to notice
    > them while poking around hither and yon.


    Sure. When an API has been updated like MoveTo() updated to MoveToEx() the
    old MoveTo() is still there and works. Enhancing an existing API call while
    preserving the existing one is hardly a "quantum shift" in the APIs.



    > Or are you referring to .NET? .NET is indeed a quantum
    > shift in one respect, but when boiled down to its
    > essentialls appears to be little more than the export of an
    > intermediate compiler format, one level above machine code
    > (anyone who's read what's colloquially called "the dragon
    > book", so called because a green dragon is being attacked
    > by a knight on the cover, will know about quadruplets,
    > code hoisting, and peephole optimization; it was written
    > by Aho and Ullman and its proper title is "Principles of
    > Compiler Design", but everyone just calls it "the [green]
    > dragon book": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Book).


    ..NET is not a "quantum shift in the APIs. No more so than Python or Ruby is
    a new shift in APIs. The existing API's are still there and they continue to
    work exactly as they did before .NET came around.

    ..NET is simply a new programming language. It doesn't replace or obsolete
    the existing APIs. It's a new language the same as when Ruby and Python came
    out they were new languages and weren't meant to be a "quantum shift" from
    C, C++ or Perl. Because a new language is released doesn't mean that there
    was a "quantum shift" in the existing APIs. We continue to use the native
    Win32 API in some of our projects and .NET or no .NET... it all still works
    exactly as before.



    > Nevertheless, .NET will revolutionize the industry --
    > if Microsoft can clear out all of the other "revolutions"
    > first. It'll be interesting to see if .NET will suffer the
    > same fate as ActiveX, which allowed remote code to walk
    > in the front door, settle into the library, and start
    > rearchitecting the foyer. (Nowadays, he at least has
    > to sign a writ of authenticity first. In Java's case,
    > he's shown to the sandbox at the side of the house, and
    > only allowed to rearchitect sand castles.)



    > I'll also be curious as to what happens to WinFX, which was
    > supposed to replace the Win32 muck.


    "Replace" or be an "alternate" to? The native Win32 API isn't going
    anywhere. There are far, far too many apps (including MS apps) that are
    written for the native Win32 API.



    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  3. Re: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop

    "Ezekiel" writes:

    > "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
    > news:5b7rf5-6lh.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
    >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Linonut
    >>
    >> wrote
    >> on Wed, 14 May 2008 07:38:52 -0400
    >> <%9AWj.11821$C8.5819@bignews2.bellsouth.net>:
    >>> * Ian Hilliard peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >>>
    >>>> A computer system's engineer, who understands that cross platform
    >>>> development guarantees the best results at the lowest cost, because it
    >>>> forces cleaner development and provides access to a wider set of tools.
    >>>
    >>> Not to mention having to deal with the quantum shifts in Microsoft APIs
    >>> that come every few years.
    >>>

    >>
    >> And these are ... ? MoveToEx() is *still* in WinGDI.
    >> The only APIs I know have shifted are the ones for the
    >> drivers (I'll admit I don't know the details for those),
    >> RDO->ADO (I know very little about either), and something
    >> which I can only identify as a WinInet->WinHTTP transition
    >> internally, and that only because I happened to notice
    >> them while poking around hither and yon.

    >
    > Sure. When an API has been updated like MoveTo() updated to MoveToEx() the
    > old MoveTo() is still there and works. Enhancing an existing API call while
    > preserving the existing one is hardly a "quantum shift" in the APIs.
    >
    >
    >
    >> Or are you referring to .NET? .NET is indeed a quantum
    >> shift in one respect, but when boiled down to its
    >> essentialls appears to be little more than the export of an
    >> intermediate compiler format, one level above machine code
    >> (anyone who's read what's colloquially called "the dragon
    >> book", so called because a green dragon is being attacked
    >> by a knight on the cover, will know about quadruplets,
    >> code hoisting, and peephole optimization; it was written
    >> by Aho and Ullman and its proper title is "Principles of
    >> Compiler Design", but everyone just calls it "the [green]
    >> dragon book": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Book).

    >
    > .NET is not a "quantum shift in the APIs. No more so than Python or Ruby is
    > a new shift in APIs. The existing API's are still there and they continue to
    > work exactly as they did before .NET came around.
    >
    > .NET is simply a new programming language. It doesn't replace or obsolete
    > the existing APIs. It's a new language the same as when Ruby and Python came
    > out they were new languages and weren't meant to be a "quantum shift" from
    > C, C++ or Perl. Because a new language is released doesn't mean that there
    > was a "quantum shift" in the existing APIs. We continue to use the native
    > Win32 API in some of our projects and .NET or no .NET... it all still works
    > exactly as before.
    >
    >
    >
    >> Nevertheless, .NET will revolutionize the industry --
    >> if Microsoft can clear out all of the other "revolutions"
    >> first. It'll be interesting to see if .NET will suffer the
    >> same fate as ActiveX, which allowed remote code to walk
    >> in the front door, settle into the library, and start
    >> rearchitecting the foyer. (Nowadays, he at least has
    >> to sign a writ of authenticity first. In Java's case,
    >> he's shown to the sandbox at the side of the house, and
    >> only allowed to rearchitect sand castles.)

    >
    >
    >> I'll also be curious as to what happens to WinFX, which was
    >> supposed to replace the Win32 muck.

    >
    > "Replace" or be an "alternate" to? The native Win32 API isn't going
    > anywhere. There are far, far too many apps (including MS apps) that are
    > written for the native Win32 API.



    And still run without recompilation. How stupid did Mark Kent look then?
    Himself and Liarnut are a laughing stock.

  4. Re: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop

    * The Ghost In The Machine peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > I'll admit to some curiosity as to what .NET has that Java
    > does not. Except for the obvious Microsoft ownership of
    > .NET, I don't see that much difference, and Java has JIT
    > capability, which is a mixed blessing but does allow for
    > the option of tightly optimizing those pieces that get
    > called really often, without wasting time on looking for
    > optimizations on pieces that get called a few times
    > during startup.


    In "Beautiful Code", Charles Petzoldt (he of the Windows tattoo)
    goes on at length about making calls directly to the Intermediate
    Language environment, in order to write code that is self-modifying,
    for speed.

    Pretty neat.

    >> Anyway, I am being a bit unfair, as many many changes occur without
    >> Microsoft being involved. What's the big one now? Ruby?

    >
    > Not sure what's changing in Ruby, or for that matter
    > what Ruby's changing *from* (Ruby looks like a Smalltalk
    > variant, and I'd frankly have to research its details).


    My point is just that there's always some new technology
    coming along that you have to learn and use to rewrite your
    apps.

    Although I got kind of jaded on the TaskJuggler project just
    for that reason: they're rewriting it in Ruby. Why, I don't
    know.

    --
    Gary Kildall was one of the original pioneers of the PC revolution. He was a
    very creative computer scientist who did excellent work. Although we were
    competitors, I always had tremendous respect for his contributions to the PC
    industry. His untimely death was very unfortunate and he and his work will
    be missed.
    -- Bill Gates, The Computer Chronicles. "Special Edition: Gary Kildall." 1995

  5. Re: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop

    Linonut writes:

    > * The Ghost In The Machine peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> I'll admit to some curiosity as to what .NET has that Java
    >> does not. Except for the obvious Microsoft ownership of
    >> .NET, I don't see that much difference, and Java has JIT
    >> capability, which is a mixed blessing but does allow for
    >> the option of tightly optimizing those pieces that get
    >> called really often, without wasting time on looking for
    >> optimizations on pieces that get called a few times
    >> during startup.

    >
    > In "Beautiful Code", Charles Petzoldt (he of the Windows tattoo)
    > goes on at length about making calls directly to the Intermediate
    > Language environment, in order to write code that is self-modifying,
    > for speed.
    >
    > Pretty neat.
    >
    >>> Anyway, I am being a bit unfair, as many many changes occur without
    >>> Microsoft being involved. What's the big one now? Ruby?

    >>
    >> Not sure what's changing in Ruby, or for that matter
    >> what Ruby's changing *from* (Ruby looks like a Smalltalk
    >> variant, and I'd frankly have to research its details).

    >
    > My point is just that there's always some new technology
    > coming along that you have to learn and use to rewrite your
    > apps.


    Your point is bull****. You can use the new if you want. You do not have
    to. The python APIs change daily.

    >
    > Although I got kind of jaded on the TaskJuggler project just
    > for that reason: they're rewriting it in Ruby. Why, I don't
    > know.


    Because you do not know anything about it. They have listed their
    reasons. And the main one is this : like all geeks they are more
    interested in the challenge than a working solution.

  6. Re: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop

    On Wed, 14 May 2008 18:07:34 +0200, Hadron wrote:


    > And still run without recompilation. How stupid did Mark Kent look then?
    > Himself and Liarnut are a laughing stock.


    Mark Kent is obviously a buffoon.


    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  7. Re: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop

    Linonut wrote:

    >You're forgetting about "Windows XP Stripped Down for OLPC" edition
    >.


    Isn't that the one that Rat called a "magnificent product"? Guffaw.


  8. Re: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Linonut

    wrote
    on Wed, 14 May 2008 12:14:37 -0400
    :
    > * The Ghost In The Machine peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> I'll admit to some curiosity as to what .NET has that Java
    >> does not. Except for the obvious Microsoft ownership of
    >> .NET, I don't see that much difference, and Java has JIT
    >> capability, which is a mixed blessing but does allow for
    >> the option of tightly optimizing those pieces that get
    >> called really often, without wasting time on looking for
    >> optimizations on pieces that get called a few times
    >> during startup.

    >
    > In "Beautiful Code", Charles Petzoldt (he of the Windows tattoo)
    > goes on at length about making calls directly to the Intermediate
    > Language environment, in order to write code that is self-modifying,
    > for speed.
    >
    > Pretty neat.


    Self-modifying remotely-deliverable code? Oy vey iz mir.
    That looks like a major disaster just waiting to happen...

    >
    >>> Anyway, I am being a bit unfair, as many many changes occur without
    >>> Microsoft being involved. What's the big one now? Ruby?

    >>
    >> Not sure what's changing in Ruby, or for that matter
    >> what Ruby's changing *from* (Ruby looks like a Smalltalk
    >> variant, and I'd frankly have to research its details).

    >
    > My point is just that there's always some new technology
    > coming along that you have to learn and use to rewrite your
    > apps.
    >
    > Although I got kind of jaded on the TaskJuggler project just
    > for that reason: they're rewriting it in Ruby. Why, I don't
    > know.
    >


    We're an odd lot, we developers. ;-)

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    New Technology? Not There. No Thanks.
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  9. Re: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Ezekiel

    wrote
    on Wed, 14 May 2008 12:06:14 -0400
    <107ef$482b0df8$12819@news.teranews.com>:
    > "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
    > news:5b7rf5-6lh.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
    >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Linonut
    >>
    >> wrote
    >> on Wed, 14 May 2008 07:38:52 -0400
    >> <%9AWj.11821$C8.5819@bignews2.bellsouth.net>:
    >>> * Ian Hilliard peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >>>
    >>>> A computer system's engineer, who understands that cross platform
    >>>> development guarantees the best results at the lowest cost, because it
    >>>> forces cleaner development and provides access to a wider set of tools.
    >>>
    >>> Not to mention having to deal with the quantum shifts in Microsoft APIs
    >>> that come every few years.
    >>>

    >>
    >> And these are ... ? MoveToEx() is *still* in WinGDI.
    >> The only APIs I know have shifted are the ones for the
    >> drivers (I'll admit I don't know the details for those),
    >> RDO->ADO (I know very little about either), and something
    >> which I can only identify as a WinInet->WinHTTP transition
    >> internally, and that only because I happened to notice
    >> them while poking around hither and yon.

    >
    > Sure. When an API has been updated like MoveTo() updated to MoveToEx() the
    > old MoveTo() is still there and works. Enhancing an existing API call while
    > preserving the existing one is hardly a "quantum shift" in the APIs.
    >


    This is true, but it looks a little odd. Not that X is immune to such
    modifications.

    >
    >
    >> Or are you referring to .NET? .NET is indeed a quantum
    >> shift in one respect, but when boiled down to its
    >> essentialls appears to be little more than the export of an
    >> intermediate compiler format, one level above machine code
    >> (anyone who's read what's colloquially called "the dragon
    >> book", so called because a green dragon is being attacked
    >> by a knight on the cover, will know about quadruplets,
    >> code hoisting, and peephole optimization; it was written
    >> by Aho and Ullman and its proper title is "Principles of
    >> Compiler Design", but everyone just calls it "the [green]
    >> dragon book": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Book).

    >
    > .NET is not a "quantum shift in the APIs. No more so than Python or Ruby is
    > a new shift in APIs. The existing API's are still there and they continue to
    > work exactly as they did before .NET came around.
    >
    > .NET is simply a new programming language.


    No it's not. C# is the language. .NET is the environment.
    There are about 19 other languages that can feed a .NET assembly,
    Java# and Cobol# among them, if I'm not totally mistaken.

    > It doesn't replace or obsolete the existing APIs.


    Not initially, no.

    > It's a new language the same as when Ruby and Python came
    > out they were new languages and weren't meant to be a "quantum shift" from
    > C, C++ or Perl. Because a new language is released doesn't mean that there
    > was a "quantum shift" in the existing APIs. We continue to use the native
    > Win32 API in some of our projects and .NET or no .NET... it all still works
    > exactly as before.
    >


    At some point everyone will use .NET, which will make
    Windows (or maybe Windows.NET) portable to all platforms,
    licensing fees permitting.

    At least, that's what I suspect Microsoft wants.

    >
    >
    >> Nevertheless, .NET will revolutionize the industry --
    >> if Microsoft can clear out all of the other "revolutions"
    >> first. It'll be interesting to see if .NET will suffer the
    >> same fate as ActiveX, which allowed remote code to walk
    >> in the front door, settle into the library, and start
    >> rearchitecting the foyer. (Nowadays, he at least has
    >> to sign a writ of authenticity first. In Java's case,
    >> he's shown to the sandbox at the side of the house, and
    >> only allowed to rearchitect sand castles.)

    >
    >


    >> I'll also be curious as to what happens to WinFX, which was
    >> supposed to replace the Win32 muck.

    >
    > "Replace" or be an "alternate" to? The native Win32 API isn't going
    > anywhere. There are far, far too many apps (including MS apps) that are
    > written for the native Win32 API.
    >


    The general idea, AFAICT, is an extremely simple one.

    [1] Write WinFX, implementing it using a combination of Win32 and
    internal code.[*]
    [2] Encourage people to develop using WinFX, by a combination of
    marketing, documentation, developer conferences, etc.
    [3] Over time, WinFX's implementation is scoured clean of Win32 code.
    [4] Write Win32_B, an implementation of Win32 based on WinFX and
    internal code.
    [5] Replace Win32 with Win32_B.
    [6] When the need for Win32 vanishes, Win32_B also vanishes, leaving
    only clean, pristine WinFX. (FSVO.)

    One can also observe this process in motion by looking at
    WinInet and WinHTTP as well. Of course it's far from clear
    as to whether this is what Microsoft is actually doing, but
    it's a logical solution to the problem.

    Contrast this to the upgrade path of DirectX, which is
    mostly a matter of upgrading the DirectX installation kits.
    Presumably this is because the DirectX interfaces aren't
    being radically changed.

    >
    >
    > ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **



    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    New Technology? Not There. No Thanks.
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  10. Re: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop

    * chrisv peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > Linonut wrote:
    >
    >>You're forgetting about "Windows XP Stripped Down for OLPC" edition
    >>.

    >
    > Isn't that the one that Rat called a "magnificent product"? Guffaw.


    Well, his wants are apparently as simple as he is.

    --
    The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining armour to lead
    all customers out of a mire of technological chaos neatly ignores the fact that
    it was he who, by peddling second-rate technology, led them into it in the
    first place.
    -- Douglas Adams

  11. Re: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop

    On 2008-05-14, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >
    > Of course "platform" has more meaning when one realizes
    > Linux code can be ported to almost two dozen totally
    > different microprocessors, with some care (because of the
    > endianity problem).


    I code using linux on the x86, mips and arm architectures and I've never had a
    problem with endianity. As far as I'm aware, the CPU looks after the
    stuffing of bytes between the registers and memory... and the use of bit
    masks and the "<<" ">>" C language bit shift operators all work
    transparently despite "endianity".

    The only time you'd have to worry is if you are in the habit of storing
    stuff in binary files that are transferred between architectures.
    Between, say, your MSB arm machine an and your LSB x86 machine, the
    eg "int" storage is all arse about....

    --
    Regards,

    Gregory.
    Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

  12. Re: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Gregory Shearman

    wrote
    on 14 May 2008 21:54:20 GMT
    :
    > On 2008-05-14, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >>
    >> Of course "platform" has more meaning when one realizes
    >> Linux code can be ported to almost two dozen totally
    >> different microprocessors, with some care (because of the
    >> endianity problem).

    >
    > I code using linux on the x86, mips and arm architectures and I've never had a
    > problem with endianity. As far as I'm aware, the CPU looks after the
    > stuffing of bytes between the registers and memory... and the use of bit
    > masks and the "<<" ">>" C language bit shift operators all work
    > transparently despite "endianity".


    Yes, that would work very well towards writing portable
    applications, assuming everything's the same size (an
    issue for new 64 bit apps, and one C can't handle all
    that well). The main problem is when one misuses fwrite()
    with structures.

    >
    > The only time you'd have to worry is if you are in the habit of storing
    > stuff in binary files that are transferred between architectures.
    > Between, say, your MSB arm machine an and your LSB x86 machine, the
    > eg "int" storage is all arse about....
    >


    Yeppers, or one might run into issues between 32- and 64-bit machines.

    I've had to deal with this before; we had Sun, HP/UX, x86
    (running NT), AIX, and DEC OSF/1 Alpha machines. It was
    even more fun because we were using a mix of Pascal, C,
    C++, and Fortran; god-ugly mess (and Pascal's idea of
    field alignment didn't jibe with C's on some platforms,
    adding to the fun). Fortunately, we were able to convert
    to mostly C/C++ at one point, but we still had (have?) to
    store a flag in our datastructures indicating whether a
    saved structure was little endian or big endian.

    No, it's far better doing it right, and you're doing
    it more or less right, with the caveat that I know of
    some ancient machinery where a C char was not 8 bits
    (a Honeywell box way back used 9). Fortunately, I
    think everyone's standardized on byte = 8 bits now.

    Nowadays, I use Java for most of my work. It has its own
    issues, admittedly. ;-)

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    New Technology? Not There. No Thanks.
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  13. Re: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop

    Linonut wrote:

    > DFS is a gibbering idiot.


    Linonut is a dissembling cola luser.



    > He's also a liar if he makes claims about the usage of
    > someone's else code without having visited their shop.


    So show us some pics of your production work code being developed on a
    non-Windows system, and being run by non-Windows systems.

    We'll be waiting... forever.



    > DFS is a confused person.


    And you're a hypocrite.



    > You would think he would understand that
    > "OS" is only one of the many categories that development jobs fit
    > into. There's also: embedded, database, financial, SCADA,
    > computational, and many more, each having their own set of tools.


    Who cares? The issue is do you write code for Windows systems, using a
    Windows computer? The answer is yes and yes.


    > I'm pretty lucky right now in that a good chunk of my work has nothing
    > to do with the OS. It is simply cross-platform library code.


    Since you're blinded by idiocy, I'll repeat myself: 100% of your code is
    written on Windows, and 100% of it runs on Windows. You're a Windows
    developer that dabbles and tinkers with with Linux, and jollies himself by
    making snide, ridiculous anti-MS remarks on cola by night. Then the next
    day you get up and make a living with MS products. Hypocrisy: it's the One
    Cola Way.




  14. Re: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop

    Ian Hilliard wrote:
    > DFS wrote:
    >
    >> 2nd place prize? Two copies

    >
    > If you were to spend the time you use dissing Linux on
    > actually learning Linux, you wouldn't have to worry about you
    > future employment possibilities.
    >
    > Wake up and smell the roses. Balmer's greed is killing
    > Microsoft and Linux is filling the void. Instead of treating
    > the change with fear, embrace it and be one of the winners
    > rather than one of the hoard of losers, which are unable to
    > make the transition.


    DFS obviously doesn't know what he is talking about. Linux is
    only a download away for many. Several days ago, I upgraded to
    Ubuntu 8.04. So far, I have experienced no problems with it.

    Much of the gob****e he pulls is fragmented problem discussions
    without the full truth.

    http://www.macedonianembassy.org.uk/business.html

    A Linux thin client for every child
    Andrew Donoghue ZDNet.co.uk
    Published: 05 Dec 2007 15:26 GMT

    The project you are currently engaged with in Macedonia sounds
    like a massive undertaking, and possibly a record in terms of a
    thin-client deployment. As far as we know this is the first
    country-wide, full education deployment where they made the
    commitment to equip every single student seat in every single
    school in Macedonia with a computer workstation, and achieve a
    one-to-one student-to-computer rating, which is the best in the
    world.

    They will be rolling out 180,000 student seats, of which 100,000
    are being done right now over a five-month period. They are going
    into high schools because those students are the closest to
    entering the workplace and they want them to be computer-
    literate. Next year 80,000 additional seats are being rolled out
    into primary schools.
    So much for DFS' 2 copies of Linux. That is Macedonia only.
    Others are following suit. Indiana Schools, US jumped on it
    earlier, so did Windsor Schools in California, US, Brasil, Spain,
    etc. May be if he used Linux he would know, but then he would
    have to contribute something useful, which we know at this point
    he is incapable of.

    --
    HPT
    Quando omni flunkus moritati
    (If all else fails, play dead)
    - "Red" Green

  15. Re: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop

    On 2008-05-14, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Gregory Shearman
    >
    > wrote
    > on 14 May 2008 21:54:20 GMT
    >:
    >> On 2008-05-14, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >>>
    >>> Of course "platform" has more meaning when one realizes
    >>> Linux code can be ported to almost two dozen totally
    >>> different microprocessors, with some care (because of the
    >>> endianity problem).

    >>
    >> I code using linux on the x86, mips and arm architectures and I've never had a
    >> problem with endianity. As far as I'm aware, the CPU looks after the
    >> stuffing of bytes between the registers and memory... and the use of bit
    >> masks and the "<<" ">>" C language bit shift operators all work
    >> transparently despite "endianity".

    >
    > Yes, that would work very well towards writing portable
    > applications, assuming everything's the same size (an
    > issue for new 64 bit apps, and one C can't handle all
    > that well). The main problem is when one misuses fwrite()
    > with structures.


    Oooh yes... alignment of data in structures will hurt you badly if you
    aren't careful.

    --
    Regards,

    Gregory.
    Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

  16. Re: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop

    Ian Hilliard wrote:

    > Being too stupid to use learn a new OS is NOT a requirement.


    Or language (beyond visual BASIC).

    --
    HPT
    Quando omni flunkus moritati
    (If all else fails, play dead)
    - "Red" Green

  17. Re: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop

    On Wed, 14 May 2008 23:54:25 -0400, DFS wrote:


    > Since you're blinded by idiocy, I'll repeat myself: 100% of your code is
    > written on Windows, and 100% of it runs on Windows. You're a Windows
    > developer that dabbles and tinkers with with Linux, and jollies himself by
    > making snide, ridiculous anti-MS remarks on cola by night. Then the next
    > day you get up and make a living with MS products. Hypocrisy: it's the One
    > Cola Way.


    It's classic COLA behavior.
    Mark Kent wrote the book on how to earn with Windows by day and beg people
    to give away their hard work by night.


    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  18. Re: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop


    "Gregory Shearman" wrote in message
    news:slrng2o076.a9j.ZekeGregory@netscape.net...
    > On 2008-05-14, The Ghost In The Machine
    > wrote:
    >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Gregory Shearman
    >>
    >> wrote
    >> on 14 May 2008 21:54:20 GMT
    >>:
    >>> On 2008-05-14, The Ghost In The Machine
    >>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> Of course "platform" has more meaning when one realizes
    >>>> Linux code can be ported to almost two dozen totally
    >>>> different microprocessors, with some care (because of the
    >>>> endianity problem).
    >>>
    >>> I code using linux on the x86, mips and arm architectures and I've never
    >>> had a
    >>> problem with endianity. As far as I'm aware, the CPU looks after the
    >>> stuffing of bytes between the registers and memory... and the use of bit
    >>> masks and the "<<" ">>" C language bit shift operators all work
    >>> transparently despite "endianity".


    The use of bitmasks work because the "endianess" of the bitmask match the
    endianess of the data you're bitmasking against.

    "Most" endian issues arise when binary data is shared (via network, files,
    DB blobs) between systems with different endian processors.

    There are still local issues/bugs that are the result of endian. Typically
    this is when you do something like mask a int value with a 4-char array
    (assuming 32-bits) and casting. These sort of operations are fast but they
    require an understanding of the underlying data layout. See the source of
    md5sum.c as an example of what I mean.


    >> Yes, that would work very well towards writing portable
    >> applications, assuming everything's the same size (an
    >> issue for new 64 bit apps, and one C can't handle all
    >> that well). The main problem is when one misuses fwrite()
    >> with structures.

    >



    > Oooh yes... alignment of data in structures will hurt you badly
    > if you aren't careful.


    True, but this is orthogonal to endianess. Alignment differences (ie -
    member packing) and word size (32-bit/64-bit) can hurt you badly but
    endianess itself has no effect on structure alignment. A big-endian struct
    member and a little-endian struct member will be aligned (or misaligned) the
    same way.





    > --
    > Regards,
    >
    > Gregory.
    > Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power



    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  19. Re: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop

    Moshe Goldfarb is flatfish (in real life Gary Stewart)

    http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2008/...arb-troll.html
    http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2007/...ish-troll.html

    Traits:

    * Nym shifting (see below)
    * Self confessed thief and proud of it
    * Homophobic
    * Racist
    * Habitual liar
    * Frequently cross posts replies to other non-Linux related newsgroups
    * Frequently cross posts articles originally not posted to COLA

  20. Re: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop

    Moshe Goldfarb is flatfish (in real life Gary Stewart)

    http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2008/...arb-troll.html
    http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2007/...ish-troll.html

    Traits:

    * Nym shifting (see below)
    * Self confessed thief and proud of it
    * Homophobic
    * Racist
    * Habitual liar
    * Frequently cross posts replies to other non-Linux related newsgroups
    * Frequently cross posts articles originally not posted to COLA

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast