Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Does this mean no more Gnome desktop? (Score 3, Insightful) 687

by ThePhilips (#46740341) Attached to: The GNOME Foundation Is Running Out of Money

The open source movement owes much to the Gnome foundation.

Care to elaborate?

I can only recall the libxml2 and it isn't the most popular xml library.

I had hopes for gstreamer too, but it turned out to be a dud, worth only writing helloworld^W Totem class applications. And GNOME has already wrote the Totem...

Rest of GNOME are just vast layers of layers of wrappers for layers of abstractions for wrappers for 3rd party libraries.

Comment: AC successor? Doubt it. (Score 1) 85

by ThePhilips (#46734713) Attached to: <em>Civilization: Beyond Earth</em> Announced

AC successor? Very much doubt it.

The Civ III/IV/V were indicatory of the direction they want to move the game: simplify, make it connected.

I'd say it is an achievement to have a Civ game play out in matter of hours. Marvel of game design. But that is also what made it shallow. When you start the game, you already know approximately how it is going to end. There are few surprises there.

AC to me was THE immersive game. You could play it short way - but that was boring. Or you could play it long way - and see your and game's limits. There are simply more possibilities in the AC, compared to the Civ. As time progresses, there are much more surprises in the game.

To me also it was the first game of the genre I could play on the highest difficulty level. All the info and numbers were there. Unlike the Civ where you have to guess and count number of the icons on the screen.

Comment: Re:What debian lacks (Score 1) 341

I had a number of friends who used Wine to run MSO, because their universities demanded papers in WinWord, e-mail in Outlook and IE for the intranet. That was quite some time ago now. All of the stuff worked pretty well, including 3rd party ActiveX plug-ins. But that's because MSO/IE are *the* software many use Wine for.

The catch is that Wine occasionally breaks stuff. For popular apps that might be not a problem - but for some obscure corpoware is. AFAIU regression testing is very minimal and done by volunteers - due to proprietary nature of the software Wine is used to run. The important bit is to stay with the version which works for you. If upgrade is needed, test new version thoroughly in advance.

Comment: Virtualization? (Score 1) 341

800K PCs is a lot of stuff.

I wonder if anybody tried to calculate the costs of migrating that to a server farm with XP running in VMs?

If they use old hardware , then the RAM shouldn't be a problem.

If they use mostly the office software, then the CPU performance also shouldn't be a problem.

One can theoretically pack few dozens of those on a single blade.

Comment: Re:It produces performance like C++ (Score 1) 217

by ThePhilips (#46659069) Attached to: .NET Native Compilation Preview Released

It can't use an `int` as a key or value - it operated on pointers to something abstract. Meaning that not only that something has to be dynamically allocated, but that if it is small - like `int` or even `long` - the overhead of dynamic memory would (typically) quadruple memory consumption. Which is clearly why things like glib aren't used in kernel space.

Comment: Re:It produces performance like C++ (Score 1) 217

by ThePhilips (#46655901) Attached to: .NET Native Compilation Preview Released

For fuck's sake, *nix kernels have been implementing complex process and cycle allocation algorithms for four decades now, almost all of it written in C.

LOL. Thanks. As a system developer specializing on Linux, how could I have missed it!? /s

Seriously though, you might also note that it often took kernels also *decades* to get where they are.

Most algorithms are very very primitive - because you shouldn't put complex/unpredictable logic into the kernel.

Lion share of memory allocation is static. There are very few truly dynamic structures. Because kernel may not run out of memory (and kernel address space is often very limited).

Data structures are primitive - lists and hashes are the pillars - because everything else either has lower memory efficiency or has performance quirks.

It literally takes years to get it right.

Otherwise, if you are such a huge fan of C, please show me an implementation of binary tree in C which can be reused to store either `int` or `double` or `void *` data types in it. And no, crapload of preprocessor macros or type casts on every source code line do not cut it.

That's not even talking about various tools in userland that invoke fairly complex logic.

You seem to be either inexperienced or undereducated. Because you have missed the elephant in the room:

Complex logic != complex implementation.

And it's not like "complexity" has any formal definition.

Having seen and written plethora of C code in my life, I know well what C is capable of. But still, for any new development it is literally impossible to recommend C over C++.

Comment: Re:So when is MS Office going to be built with .NE (Score 2) 217

by ThePhilips (#46654943) Attached to: .NET Native Compilation Preview Released

Microsoft were unable to use .NET to build their own applications, presumably because of poor performance.

Unlikely. MSO is very old. Very likely the source code is poorly documented and not completely understood. Porting that to anything is going to be a major and very risky undertaking.

.NET has clearly failed.

Still clearly better than VB.

When speculation has done its worst, two plus two still equals four. -- S. Johnson