Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Probably GPL, but depends on Apple (Score 1) 92 92

by WilCompute (#50017233) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Choosing the Right Open Source License

The viral part is forcing you to use the same license. If the GPL were the only option available, it would be very free compared to closed source licenses. Since it is competing with the likes of the BSDs and MITs of the world, it is one of the most restrictive licenses. It forces you not just to use its license with its own source code, but also with others source code, to which the original developer doesn't necessarily have any claim.

Comment: Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice (Score 1) 92 92

by WilCompute (#50017211) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Choosing the Right Open Source License

The problem with this argument is if someone forks my project, and publishes it under a newer license, I can no longer accept changes back into my codebase. If I did, I would be forced to use the new license, making the GPL doubly viral, cannibalizing its own license to spread its viewpoint. This is the reason Linus made the Linux kernel GPL2 only.

Comment: Re:was this a sarcasm/joke? (Score 1) 71 71

by WilCompute (#50014109) Attached to: MIT System Fixes Software Bugs Without Access To Source Code

Unfortunately, this doesn't fix those type of bugs, because they aren't bugs. It also cannot patch a program without the sourcecode, at least not by itself.

What you really want is to use one of these project that translate executable code into, say, c or c++, and from there you could try to do this, if it runs on those systems and can handle anything other than x86 code.

Comment: Re:Smell test (Score 2) 71 71

by WilCompute (#50014067) Attached to: MIT System Fixes Software Bugs Without Access To Source Code

In fact, you are correct. The article clams they don't have to have the source, but that is only partly true. The recipient, the program that has a bug, must have the source code. The donor, the program that does not suffer from the bug, does not need to have the source code. And this is perhaps the interesting part.

So, say you are creating an open source Office program, and you obviously need to open .doc files. You have mostly everything working, but now you have this one file that crashes your program, but doesn't crash Office. Instead of spending the time to find it, CodePhage allows you to point it at your source code, and at Office, and it will build an internal set of debug like codes of each program. You need to run it on your code with a working example file, then run it with the non working file, it will figure out what you are doing, then it will open the same file with Office, find out if you are doing something out of order or if there is a check you aren't running, and the article describes in a little more detail how it works, though not the nitty gritty. It then modifies your source code, and runs it again, and see if the changes fix it, if not it will continue until it does.

The say in general the bugs they tested were fixed in 20 to 90 minutes.

Comment: Re:Security team (Score 1) 507 507

by WilCompute (#50004025) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Are Post-Install Windows Slowdowns Inevitable?

Spybot S&D has a whitelisting function that allows it to skip whitelisted functions. Its not that hard, you can use the timestamp on the file, or compare the file hash if it looks like it has been changed.

By doing this with at least the files that are not accessible to normal users, and using a limited account, you can mitigate a lot of this.

Comment: Re:meh (Score 1) 280 280

by WilCompute (#49955947) Attached to: Windows 10 Will Be Free To Users Who Test It

You can install a clean install of the Insider Builds, then upgrade and have an activated version of Windows 10. That is the exact wording that was used in the blog. It simply stated you had to be running an Insider Build, and when you upgraded, Windows 10 would be activated. No other requirement.

Comment: Re: isn't x86 RISC by now? (Score 1) 161 161

by WilCompute (#47787339) Attached to: Research Shows RISC vs. CISC Doesn't Matter

However, there are projects underway to optimize general purpose instructions, i.e. the Mill CPU designs found at millcomputing.com. They are designing a cpu from the ground up that can process up to 33 instructions per cycle, trying to get the performance per watt of a DSP with the flexibility of a General Purpose CPU.

Comment: Re:Node.js (Score 1) 536 536

For the next 5 Years? Typescript. Typescript runs on node.js, IS Javascript, the next ECMA version of it at least, and is supported by Microsoft, so it will be supported for at least 5 Years. Since it is the next version of Javascript, It compiles to all the current browsers, and can be used with current Javascript libraries.

If you like Visual Studio, 2013 has first class support for it.

Combining this with, say, Web Components such as Polymer from Google, or Bricks from Mozilla, for the front end of your system, will allow you to future proof your application in the one language the web by definition will support.

(I cannot foresee the future, but I BELIEVE that Javascript will stay as part of the web standard, even if the standards committee were ever to decide to add another language, such as Google is hoping for with Dart.)

(I would like to say Dart, but for a large application, it will be harder to find coders that are familiar with it, versus Typescript, which at worst can be written by decent Javascript Developers.)

Comment: Re:thanks (Score 1) 359 359

by WilCompute (#39445485) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Which Multiple Desktop Tool For Windows 7?

For me, I find myself running Windows in a virtual machine. (I am on a Mac.) By having the virtual machine in a different window, I can full screen the VM, and simply switch quickly between the two machine states. This allows me the full screen feel on Windows, and I find it feels cleaner to switch between the two types of desktops.

Now, for everyday programs, I can use the desktops to organize the way I work. I like to read in full screen, with no distractions such as pictures and other windows. So when learning how to use new tools, I put manuals, and tutorials off to their own screen. I put background music, and other things I need to run in the back ground all on one screen, then I don't have to look at them cluttering my Dock, and they are not in my way on screen. (Here's looking at you Spotify/iTunes.)

Then, when I am doing any type of creative work, Photoshop, Maya, they all need as much real estate they can get. Giving them their own screen makes quite a bit of sense.

Not to put too fine a point on my browser usage, I use tabs like the dickens. Now, I may have 60 tabs open at once, but they don't display well on one window. I break them up into groups depending on what they are for. They then get their own screen, and are more useful to me.

Not everyone will use screens like that, but it does help my workflow, so I do.


The perversity of nature is nowhere better demonstrated by the fact that, when exposed to the same atmosphere, bread becomes hard while crackers become soft.