Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:could still use improvement (Score 0) 148

by gbjbaanb (#48649365) Attached to: The Magic of Pallets

A "collapsible shipping container like palette" would be harder to load and unload than a palette.

not really - a pallet with sides is still a pallet. Only now its easier to put stuff in that won't fall off the edge. You only need to put bars at the corners with thin material stretched between them. The only issue is cost, pallets are simple and cheap.
TBH a pallet with sides is no different to a pallet with a box of stuff stuck on top of it, so I don't really see the need, but I understand where they're coming from.

And how do you accommodate over-high items? Or stuff that is over-wide?

charge extra for custom handling. Isn't that what the shipping industry would love :-)

Comment: Re:Like many inventions ... (Score 4, Insightful) 148

by gbjbaanb (#48649345) Attached to: The Magic of Pallets

but isn't the pallet a standardised container - albeit without walls and a top?

Its standard width, and length means it fits into standardised holes in warehouses and can be moved with standardised vehicles. The shipping container is no different except it has walls to keep stuff together.

the point I take is that its the standardisation that matters. True in so many areas.

Comment: Re:I'm Using C++ (Score 1) 360

by gbjbaanb (#48646821) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Is an Open Source<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET Up To the Job?

I'll tell you one more ting to look at in C/C++ : web development.

I had to replace a PHP webserver that did a small bit of functionality recently, and we had a C++ service that did all the heavy lifting anyway, so I added a webserver lib to it (civitweb, a fork of mongoose) and found to my surprise that it was trivially easy. sure I had to write out my own headers but that requires all of 3 lines of cut and paste code, the rest - pure ease.

All the bloated web frameworks I'd used previously are gone now, for all their advanced functionality, I find they just get in the way. I might still use them for big systems that have a lot of pre-built functionality, but if you want web serving that provides most of the functionality in client-side javascript anyway, I'd be doing it in C from now on!

Comment: Re:Why bother? (Score 1) 360

by gbjbaanb (#48646755) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Is an Open Source<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET Up To the Job?

Of late, .NET Native is an interesting piece of tech that precompiles .NET apps using VC++ compiler backend. So you get all optimizations in your .NET code that C++ normally gets.

this is why I prefer C++ - my time is worth a lot less than the time all my users spend using my programs, so although my boss complains about my productivity, he does that when I'm writing .NET code anyway :-)

Comment: Re:Why bother? (Score 1) 360

by gbjbaanb (#48646707) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Is an Open Source<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET Up To the Job?

I would pick PHP over .NET everytime... and I'm not a PHP dev!

the main reason is the bloat in .NET - its good at many things, but web serving is always been a "look at the cool kids and try to replicate what they do". So you either have to support IIS-based webservers which I have always found rather clunky (and if you ever go back to one that was written a while ago, getting it working again is always been trouble).

For webservices, I found that WCF is crud. Its nice to code up a webservice that doesn't require IIS, and it all seems nice. But then I saw how PHP could do a web service in 6 lines of code compared to the 6 files of code WCF required I knew I was using the wrong tool for the job (especially when you factor in WCF's dreadful performance).

The last aspect is security - having worked in very high secure systems, one additional thing you can do to help add a layer of security is not to use a monoculture - so a web server written in PHP that talks to a Windows server running .NET is more secure than both running the same OS (ie a zero-day exploit will be used on both servers, but if one is Linux and the other Windows one server is going to be immune).

I'm all for .NET, its a good tool and I use it daily. But experience has taught me to advocate the right tool, regardless of what it is. I hate and loath the "it is Microsoft therefore we use it" attitude as I've seen so many useless systems written with the wrong, but Microsoft, tool. (I guess the same applies to Oracle, IBM and every other vendor or language - the same hate goes for "100% pure java" that was just a way of saying "only buy my shit")

PS. Apache has supported threads since 2.0 came out, it only spawns processes where some 'cgi-style' processor requires them. Also, on Unixy systems spawning processes is as cheap as spawning threads on Windows.(if you want a truly lightweight thread on Windows, google for Windows Fibres to see what I mean). But again, my point is - you don't know enough about what you're criticising and so are making poor choices based on hype and bullshit.

Comment: Re:Old (Score 0) 559

by gbjbaanb (#48642217) Attached to: What Happens To Society When Robots Replace Workers?

there's always new jobs.. even if its working in "customer support" or marketing.

There's a reason the West has migrated jobs from manufacturing to the service sector, the manufacturing is done in China or similar, leaving western workers to either design, advertise or sell the products to each other.

Its pretty old news, what happens depends on the area automated - when Gutenberg created the press, the old clerks stopped copying by hand and started becoming more like authors (similar to have the newspapers have been replaced by bloggers and opinion), though when the Spinning Jenny was introduced there was a lot of public disturbance, but in the end it worked out.

Comment: Re:Why virtual currencies are ineffective (Score 0) 143

by gbjbaanb (#48627149) Attached to: Will Ripple Eclipse Bitcoin?

quite true, and part of the problem is the pyramid scheme of them all, designed to make pots of cash for the people who create the currency in the first place as they have a stash of coins before it starts.

What we really need is the government to create a virtual currency, with all the regulation and control that entails. Then you can have all the benefits of a cryptocurrency but with the benefits of it actually becoming mainstream for the majority of users, without the problems a truly anonymous one has with regard to criminal activity.

Comment: Re:Embrace (Score 1) 216

by gbjbaanb (#48621725) Attached to: What Will Microsoft's "Embrace" of Open Source Actually Achieve?

"The real thing for your .NET platform" will be "the Open Source .NET platform produced by the .NET Foundation."

or will it be "the real thing for the .NET version platform"?

Or the .NET platform that is open source, but you still need to buy a load of stuff to get the juicy stuff that powers most applications nowadays, like WCF and WPF.

Now, if someone forked it and produced a GUI that worked well, rendered fonts without fuzziness or needing a caching service, and performed well... then I'd be much more positive about this open sourcing of .NET core.

Comment: Re:Oh yeah, he was a orthodontist (Score 1) 156

by gbjbaanb (#48616055) Attached to: Dr. Dobb's 38-Year Run Comes To an End

You gotta be joking?!

At work, I have a dual core i7 and 4Gb RAM and you know what - I spend my whole day staring at the damn applications while they think about swapping back in to run. I click Visual Studio and it thinks for a couple of seconds then pops into its usual full-screen view, then I click on SQL Server's management studio and ... it thinks for a bit before popping into view.

As a developer I usually have 1, sometimes 2, VS instances open plus SQL plus firefox with the application services and client app open. 4GB just isn't enough to run these monster programs.

And maybe that's the point, where I would easily have said 4GB is loads... that was before people started saying 4Gb is loads and therefore it doesn't matter how much of it I use up in shitty, inefficient data systems. Your program might run fine, but often I have to run 2 of them and that's when you see the problems.

There's one thing about efficiency, and then there's another about not caring and stuffing your programs full of layer after layer of abstractions to the point where it performs like a dog and sucks up all the RAM there is available because "developer time is more important than user time". Pah.

Comment: Re:I'm guessing that a lot of enterprise technolog (Score 1) 153

by gbjbaanb (#48611871) Attached to: In IT, Beware of Fad Versus Functional

doubt it, a lot of it is chosen by developers buying into the hype of the coolest new technology or language or framework... which invariably turn out to be a pile of shit.

For example, a few years back all the talk was of Biztalk and some people developed their "this time it'll be great" tech products using it, and now some poor sods are lumbered with a steaming piece of legacy poo that they have to maintain and that costs them a fortune. Before that there was so much talk of functional languages (which are ok in themselves) that would be a silver bullet that solved all problems, and Ruby after that, and .NET before that, and ... well I could go on but its depressing.

I think sharepoint is the main technology chosen by non-techies but the techies are way worse for jumping on the du jour bandwagon.

Our industry embraces technology churn far too easily. Change might be good, but only in evolutionary steps, making things better. I think a lot of it is driven by people who either don't have the experience or simply can't handle the current tech and so see anything different as a chance to avoid being found out.

"Text processing has made it possible to right-justify any idea, even one which cannot be justified on any other grounds." -- J. Finnegan, USC.

Working...