Forgot your password?

Comment: QoS (Score 1) 95

by KingMotley (#46789829) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Which Router Firmware For Bandwidth Management?

TCP window sizes are on a per-connection basis, and obviously only affects TCP traffic. Most VoIP, gaming, and many common file sharing protocols don't use TCP so any of these would be unaffected by QoS using the above techniques. Also, having many multiple simultaneous TCP connections in the order of hundreds or thousands would also render this technique useless as you would need to shrink each window so small so in case they all filled up that you could respond in a reasonable time frame that latency (vs inflight buffer) would kill the throughput of any TCP link. Which are reasons why this wouldn't work, and why it isn't implemented in anything beyond niche experimental stuff.

Comment: Research papers (Score 1) 95

by KingMotley (#46789765) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Which Router Firmware For Bandwidth Management?

Well, you might want to reread the first paper, which talks about live lock, which is a completely different cause than the one you describe, although similar. You seem to understand what the problem is, but I fail to see how you don't understand why your solution is so wrong.

Live lock as described in the paper you linked was solved over a decade ago using the method described in the paper under section 5.1, at least under windows. It's a standard property to rate limit the interrupts under heavy load, and many network cards have many setting that allow you to tweak this from off to fixed to multiple dynamic methods.

Comment: Unsafe code (Score 2) 131

by KingMotley (#46780717) Attached to: Code Quality: Open Source vs. Proprietary

Yes, so your argument is that you can, with great difficulty cause a possible security issue in C#, but in order to do so, you have to basically say... I'm about to do something possibly bad, please don't check to make sure what I'm doing is bad. Then modify the compiler from default to allow said code to be compiled, then put it into a fully trusted assembly so it bypasses all security checks, and THEN you might have an issue.

and this is comparision to where in C/C++ where you can write an exploit in 2 lines of code by accident, using nothing but defaults.

Comment: A million is easy (Score 2) 453

by KingMotley (#46773815) Attached to: Survey: 56 Percent of US Developers Expect To Become Millionaires

Yeah, if you continue to make 50k for 18 years straight, especially as a developer, you've done something very wrong. Living off of 29k pre-tax isn't difficult. Just difficult if you try and live like you have 50k to spend and only really have 29k. Getting ahead isn't easy if you have no self control, but it's really easy if you plan ahead and stick to it.

Comment: Compare Windows XP to Windows 7 Ultimate (Score 1) 641

by KingMotley (#46694395) Attached to: Meet the Diehards Who Refuse To Move On From Windows XP

Why did you stop at Windows 7 Ultimate, why didn't you compare it to the price of Windows 7 Datacenter, or a customized version of Windows 7 for Supercomputing clusters? Your copy of Windows XP doesn't have any of the added features in Ultimate, so why choose that?

Here, you go, saved you about half:

Of course, you could have upgraded when it first came out and saved yourself a ton of money, but you procrastinated. Maybe you should wait for Windows 9 and see if they have a deal when it launches.

Comment: Re:car analogy? (Score 1) 158

by KingMotley (#46574251) Attached to: Florida Judge Rules IP Address Can't Identify a BitTorrent Pirate

For any particular crime, you can with in reason pin point it to the exact planet on which the criminal is on. I therefore suggest, we just charge everyone on that planet with the crime in the name of security. Or perhaps, just get a search warrant for the planet so we can identify the correct user. If we did this for every crime, it would solve everything.

Comment: Re:what you need them for? (Score 1) 306

by KingMotley (#46516751) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Can an Old Programmer Learn New Tricks?

I couldn't agree more. Frameworks are important for the same reason standard libraries are important. For example, reading someone else's code without libraries they write a routine to sort strings. Great. And then the next guy comes along and calls it, expecting it to sort his strings, but the routine does a case insensitive sort, which isn't what the 2nd programmer wanted. Of course he could have read and analyzed the whole routine before using it, but having a library allows both programmers to have access to a string sort that they don't have to analyze to make sure it really is a sort, and can reuse it.

Frameworks are much the same way. Often without them I find code from a previous programmer, and I think what the hell was he thinking and why is he doing this. Or doing it this way. A framework removes most of the useless code setting up and tearing down basic things and does so in a consistent manner. If I see he's overriding some standard function, I can assume there is probably a reason why it's been overridden.

Comment: Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor (Score 2, Insightful) 878

Of course he would. Their missiles and ours have self destructs that can be used mid-flight. Once russia sees the incoming mess, they know they must self-destruct theirs, and we supposedly will do the same.

Of course, if the missiles do hit us, well, then we have no way of self-destructing ours.

"The most important thing in a man is not what he knows, but what he is." -- Narciso Yepes