Comment +1 (Score 1) 240
+1
+1
Fair enough. Since GCC 4.1 was released over 5 years ago maybe we're really discussing software projects simply not taking advantage of what's available.
I think that the lack of guided optimization on gcc is a fair indication that Microsoft offers a better compiler
Maybe I've misunderstood your meaning, but wasn't the whole point of this article that with a newer gcc you can use guided optimization and link-time code generation ?
Maybe its just because I use MSVC and gcc every day, but when MSVC lacks even C99 support I find it hard to call it a "better compiler".
-Malloc
I don't disagree but I think, by the same token, people that can't (or are too lazy to) read the assembly are less likely to have the m4d sk1lls (or attention span) to do something very serious with/to the anti-virus program. But, as you say, once you get into "ticked the general populace off" territory (instead of just "highly-skilled dude working for evil overlord for big$" territory), having the easier-to-read source laying around won't help.
This means the black hats pretty much have a roadmap to use to trash Kaspersky AV. Even if they didn't use much of the previous code it most likely will allow them to see how the Kaspersky AV team treats PC resources like memory, giving them a good idea of where the weak spots are. Bad news for Kaspersky users I'd say.
The moment you give someone your binary you've given them your code, just in a harder to read format. Any black-hat that cares will merely read the disassembly. Original source code not required.
-Malloc
Some time ago there were hints & speculations that Samsung bada mobile OS might use some Enlightenment libraries.
Considering that Samsung hired Carsten Haitzler, the main figure behind E17, that wouldn't be too far fetched.
You'll note I said "many" OBs, not all. But if you are around much you will find in some circles an incredibly arrogant and ignorant attitude among some OBs.
I suggest if you have another child you (well, your wife and kid) would benefit from looking at the real situation with mid-wifery, and the real outcome statistics since in the end that's all anyone (should) care about. Many types of complication can be dealt with by midwives, others are just as easy to take care of when they co-ordinate with the hospital and you're not far away. And yes, there are some emergencies that you could only deal with immediately in a hospital, but you're balancing those against the very real fatality rates of increased risk of infection in the hospital. (And of course, just because you have a midwife doesn't mean you can't give birth in the hospital, unless your hospital is of the previously mentioned ignorant attitude.) Anyway, for uncomplicated pregnancies the stats don't point in the traditional OB/hospital's favour.
This is an anomaly. The medical community(doctors in particular) doesn't cotton to these sorts of antics from outsiders. Just wait to this becomes more widely known amongst the Doctor fraternity. It will become like mid-wifery - a fringe practice prone to potentially costing your baby its life.
To clarify, you mean how many Obstetricians consider mid-wifery "a fringe practice prone to potentially costing your baby its life", despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary?[1]
[1] See Google, really
For anyone that travels on major highways very far the only safe answer is "locale dependent":
* Ontario, everyone drives at least 20KM/h over the limit, any slower and you're creating a safety hazard with all the people passing.
* Quebec, you'd better stay within 10KM/h, the cops are the "sit hidden on a downhill" revenue seeking kind.
* New York state, keep it under 5-10MPH over or you *will* get nailed. Tickets are pursued with such aggressiveness you'd think it was funding half their budget or something.
You are awesome.
The pgp digital sig proves it was sent by your computer, or any other digital device in the universe that has a copy of your key , but not necessarily sent by you.
FTFY.
Second, as far as system slow down, and this one hurts as I hate defending such shitty products
ALL ON-DEMAND SCANNERS KILL PERFORMANCE.
I invite you to try eset's NOD32. On our R&D build servers we had been forced by IT to use Symantec and McAfee at various times. Both sucked horribly: very slow, occasional file access conflicts. It got to the point that we had to say "Screw IT's policy", and tried NOD32. Wow, what a difference. We no longer notice the slowdown, and never get any trouble from it.
Yes, you're right, the act of scanning files is going to take CPU/IO, but it doesn't have to suck as badly as McAfee/Symantec make it.
6 cores. Do You Care?
Written like someone who's never heard of 'make -j'. Seriously, anybody that compiles stuff wants more cores, and if you ever reach a point were disk IO is the bottleneck just throw in an SSD.
Random project on my box:
make clean; time make -j8
Real: 4.3s
make clean; time make -j1
Real: 14.7s
Compiling is an inherently parallelizable task.
Unless they've opened a few new trans-pacific pipe connections since I was last there, forget about speed. Maybe it was just my ISP (Great Wall, ha) but within China you can get nice (e.g. 750kb/s) speed but the moment you cross the pacific your latency is killer and you're crawling at 5-10kb/s. This is using corporate VPN or without. I suspect the actual throughput is a result of active throttling by the State. In terms of restricting general information, making something extremely painful is nearly the same as blocking it.
it really shouldn't be a problem. They filter state secrets and political opinions
Have you ever been there?
I've spent a total of 3 months in the last several years. In actual practice they block tons of things you want. (e.g. Wikipedia, last time I was there in 2007).
It is easier to change the specification to fit the program than vice versa.