Forgot your password?

typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Interesting. Not clear if it's good yet. (Score 1) 41

by advantis (#43040615) Attached to: Genode OS 13.02 Features Low Latency Audio, Virtualization, Protected DMA


typedef Meta::Type_tuple<Rpc_create_thread,
Meta::Type_tuple<Rpc_utcb,
[snip]
Meta::Empty>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rpc_functions;

Now that's a _very_ interesting way to build a singly linked list at compile time. And you can append to it at runtime as well. And manipulate it. And all without a writing a single line of linked list management logic yourself and without bringing STL in. Just (ab)using language constructs.

Comment: Letters overlaid on talking guy - really? (Score 3, Insightful) 28

by advantis (#42390005) Attached to: Tales From the Slashdot Help Desk: Reverse-Engineering Rob Malda (Video)

Don't make scrolling text and a talking guy compete for attention - I couldn't pay attention to either of them. Play again, and again? You wish.

I was about to suggest you do what "Hide/Show Transcript" does, but I noticed it before I submitted this, so I deleted 2/3 of what I wrote. :)

Comment: Whose money did they spend? (Score 3, Interesting) 91

by advantis (#42376961) Attached to: New Pirate Bay Proxies Spring Up

All that money spent in the courts to get ISPs to block the Pirate Bay from direct access, and by the ISPs to implement the ruling, and for what? It appears only the lawyers won. The artists aren't any better off as a result, the "industry" isn't getting any fatter, and the pirates were only slightly inconvenienced for the five minutes it took to find a way around the blockade. You know, given this perspective, I'd suggest that the "industry" spends that money helping people in Africa or poor regions of the US (yeah, I crack myself up sometimes).

Comment: Re:WTF? English fail (Score 2) 464

by advantis (#42263413) Attached to: Linux Nukes 386 Support

Actually, that "pull" operation exists in other distributed versioning systems as well (Mercurial, Bazaar, Monotone). They also have a "push", for when you want to give your patches to others. Pulling and pushing are common operations in these systems. Also, your sense of "pulled" would be presented as "reverted" (as in "undone").

Comment: Re:kernel in c++? (Score 5, Informative) 151

by advantis (#42252217) Attached to: Linux 3.7 Released

And you need a kernel in C++ why? Because you can't get your head around objects that aren't enforced by the language? Or you can't get your head around doing error cleanup without exceptions enforced by the language? The Linux kernel even does reference counting without explicit support from the language.

Just to get a complete picture, I looked at some competing kernels (I skimmed over the source really quickly):

FreeBSD kernel - C, with objects and refcounts, similar to Linux
OpenBSD kernel - C, but I have a hard time finding their equivalent to objects and refcounts, and I gave up looking
GNU Hurd - C, and I'm not even going to bother looking around too much
XNU - C, but with I/O Kit in C++ - works only with Apple software?
Haiku kernel - C++, which is interesting in itself - but supports only IA-32?
Plan9 kernel - C
OpenSolaris kernel - C

I think it's pointless to look at the rest. All the others listed by Wikipedia are even more obscure than some of the above.

C seems to dominate the kernel arena, so Next time you post, I'd like to know what you think C++ would bring to the party. No, really. I've seen many dismiss that Linux isn't written in C++, but haven't seen a single one of these trolls (yes, I'm feeding you) say what that would accomplish, and I'm really really really curious. I'll throw a bone from the XNU Wikipedia article: "helping device drivers be written more quickly and using less code", and that seems to be the only bit written in C++, yet Linux does pretty well without, and apparently so do the majority (see above).

Comment: Re:UDP ... (Score 2) 151

by advantis (#42251575) Attached to: Linux 3.7 Released

At that point you don't need the reliabilitiy and retransmission features of TCP. Once you stack the layers up, TCP will take care of that anyway, without running it over TCP again. Think IP: unreliable datagrams; you put TCP on it and presto: reliable, ordered, everything. Run a VPN, and you do it over UDP, and end up with something like IP -> UDP -> TCP, and then TCP again does its thing, without a care in the world about the layers below. Same principles apply with this new things too. If your underlying layers are flaky, you can't make them less flaky by adding more TCP to your cake. In effect, you make them even more flaky as each TCP layer tries to do its own retransmission and floods your line.

Comment: Re:Same IP (Score 5, Informative) 132

by advantis (#42164133) Attached to: The Promo Bay Blocked By UK ISPs

Replying to myself because I just got the brilliant idea to see if BT aren't actually hijacking DNS itself, making me look like an idiot. Well... they succeeded:

$ dig +trace thepiratebay.org
#snip#
thepiratebay.org. 3600 IN A 194.71.107.50

$ dig +trace promobay.org
#snip#
promobay.org. 3600 IN A 108.59.2.74

Promobay.org works once I add its IP to /etc/hosts.

Why are BT hijacking the DNS for promobay.org? I have no idea, but a judge might be interested.

Comment: Same IP (Score 2) 132

by advantis (#42164049) Attached to: The Promo Bay Blocked By UK ISPs
I can't believe I haven't read this one yet:

$ host promobay.org
promobay.org has address 62.239.4.146
$ host thepiratebay.org
thepiratebay.org has address 62.239.4.146

BT gives me "Error - site blocked" for both TPB and PromoBay.org which means they've hijacked the IP address itself. What I will have to see next is if anyone goes and tell the court that BT is doing more blocking than they've been ordered. They've been ordered to block TBP, but not anything else that may be hosted at the same IP address.

My conclusion: TPB is playing one of their games. Popcorn may be recommended for this one if the ball gets rolling.

Comment: Workaround (Score 1) 186

by advantis (#42158451) Attached to: Firefox 20 Will Finally Fix Private Browsing Mode
I created a new profile in the profile manager of Firefox and wrote a tiny script that I called '~/bin/privatefox' with this command in it:

#!/bin/bash
exec /usr/bin/firefox -P new -no-remote -private

Bug fixed :)

I've switched away from Chrome since Chrome started adding my incognito cookie and javascript exceptions to the persistent list. Everything else Chrome did to tick me off was tolerable, but the leaking of incognito exceptions... GTFO

Comment: Printed braille (Score 1) 75

by advantis (#42079759) Attached to: Implant Translates Written Words To Braille, Right On the Retina
I imagine the OCR is overkill, but this invention could really make printed braille useful, and turn the fail I just linked to into a win (if you ignore the braille typo). I imagine the recognition would be a lot easier to do (to the likes of QR codes), and it would be really easy to retrofit to existing signs.

Comment: Re:Meanwhile at Canonical (Score 2) 255

by advantis (#42070551) Attached to: Media Center Key Accidentally Gives Pirates Free Windows 8 Pro License
I was about to uphold my point by pasting this from the GPL:

2. Basic Permissions.

All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met. This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program. The output from running a covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a covered work. This License acknowledges your rights of fair use or other equivalent, as provided by copyright law.

emphasys mine,

but then I scrolled down:

9. Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies.

You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program. Ancillary propagation of a covered work occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission to receive a copy likewise does not require acceptance. However, nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or modify any covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so.

emphasis mine here as well.

So I guess you're right. Thanks for making me look it up and update my knowledge.

Comment: Re:Meanwhile at Canonical (Score 1) 255

by advantis (#42058237) Attached to: Media Center Key Accidentally Gives Pirates Free Windows 8 Pro License

[...] no license required [...]

This bit just isn't true. You get a full rainbow of licences to abide by: GPL, MIT, BSD, Apache, Creative Commons, just to name a few. Just no EULA, and no "fear the BSA" religious indoctrination, which is probably what you mean by the excerpt.

Let him choose out of my files, his projects to accomplish. -- Shakespeare, "Coriolanus"

Working...