Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:And Microsoft gives not a single shit... (Score 1) 177

MS has billions in the bank. They can afford the best lawyers. And their EULA explicitly absolves them of responsibility for any problems caused by their software, and EULAs have been successfully tested in court. Exactly how far do you think you're going to get with a lawsuit? Good luck with that.

AFAIC, if your company gets burned by MS like this, it's your own stupid fault. This stuff isn't a surprise.

Comment Re:And Microsoft gives not a single shit... (Score 1) 177

That is simply not true.

For one, you can get a Mac with MacOS. Yes, it's a small share of the market, but it is somewhere close to 10% last I heard, which is nothing to sneeze at. They even sell these things at fancy mall stores, and have for over a decade.

Secondly, you can buy a computer with Linux (usually Ubuntu). I think there was an article here a few days ago about being able to buy a Dell preloaded with Ubuntu for less than the same machine with Windows, which is different than the past. Of course, the marketshare here is pretty tiny too, even smaller than Macs. And of course, you can always load Linux yourself, which is really easy to do these days.

The fact is, you DO have choices. The problem is, almost no one actually does. At least 85% of PC users continue to use Windows despite shenanigans like this, and there's no sign this number is going to decrease significantly any time soon. It really doesn't matter what MS does; no matter how poorly they treat users, almost none of them will abandon the platform, so MS might as well amp up the evil and screw these people as hard as it wants for more profit (from advertising, telemetry, spyware, etc.). Personally, I think it's funny when people whine about how much of a pain Windows 10 is being, and repeat my mantra: "if you don't like it, don't use it". That just seems to piss them off, which makes me laugh even more. They've dug themselves into a hole and now they refuse to climb out, so I have no sympathy.

Comment Re:Vivaldi who? (Score 1) 177

Did you know that the two largest privately-held companies are Cargill and Koch Industries ($120B and $115B respectively)?

How many people on the street (or on Slashdot) have heard of these companies, even know the first thing about these companies, how large they are, or what they do? I barely know anything about either of these companies, except that Koch is associated with the infamous Koch brothers, and my quick Google search shows that Cargill is involved in agriculture.

Comment Re: Non Issue (Score 1) 177

If you don't like systemd, you're free to choose a Linux distro which doesn't have it. There are plenty of such distros around, including Slackware and Devuan. And if that's not good enough for you, you're free to roll your own distro. It isn't that hard to do, and all the components are freely available.

Try that with Windows.

Comment Re: The death spiral is continuing. (Score 1) 168

So, almost by definition, if IBM or any other company is making money they're also making the world a better place one computer or pot or pan or refrigerator or jet airplane at a time.

That's demonstrably untrue. There's entire industries that actually make the world a worse place, while making money doing so. Telemarketing is one good example here, payday loan stores are another (plus actual loan sharks), Nigerian scammers are another, and patent trolls are yet another. I'd also argue that there's many other industries that are really bad for the world too and only exist because of bad government regulation: tax preparers and car dealerships come to mind here. Both of these are just parasites, though the tax preparers are frequently necessary for many people because the US tax code is such a complicated mess. The real estate bubble in the previous decade is another great example of people and businesses making lots of money while making the world a worse place, driving up the cost of real estate while not providing any actual value.

Now back to IBM, because this is really tangential: my argument there was that IBM doesn't need to be changing the computing market. Just because they did that in the past in a big way doesn't mean that needs to remain their mission forevermore. After the whole PS/2 debacle, it should have been pretty obvious that IBM was a has-been, and was never going to be the pioneer and world-changer in personal computing that they once were (entirely by accident I might add; they thought their PC would be a small thing and just help sell more mainframes). So they've moved their business into other areas, which is fine. To my knowledge, they still do a lot of mainframe stuff, along with professional services, along with research and patents (for instance, I believe they invented the copper-on-silicon process back in the 90s which is now critical to chipmaking). The OP seems to think they're somehow "failing" because they aren't trying to be a big force in the computing market (outside of mainframes), and that's simply silly. Lots of very old businesses no longer do the same stuff they started out in, yet remain highly successful. Nokia, for a while, was the leading mobile phone maker, but they started out making tires IIRC. There's a bunch of Asian companies that do entirely different things now than what they started out doing.

Comment Re:This is obvious... (Score 1) 290

No, because whenever you add new syntax, you have to avoid breaking compatibility with old syntax.

No, you don't. You just need to tell your compiler to use the older standard. GCC does this with the --std= flag. If your code won't work in C++17, just add "--std=c++0x" or something.

And just how successful python 3 is? In every shop I worked in, they insisted on using python 2.

The problem with Python is they didn't do it like C++. To run a Python2 program, you actually have to have a Python2 interpreter/runtime and libraries compatible with it. You can't just take the latest Python3 interpreter and pass it a "--std=python2" flag and make it work. So you end up having to have two entirely separate and parallel installations of Python. It's a big mess. C++ isn't like this; you can even compile your libraries with a different C++ standard than your application code or each other, because the linker will resolve the linkages.

The problem isn't backwards compatibility, the problem is that Python did a terrible job of making a new version of their language.

Comment Re:This is obvious... (Score 1) 290

It doesn't need to be that backwards-compatible. When you compile C++, you can easily set the compiler to use a particular standard (c++0x, c++11, c++14, etc.).

So if you have old code, simply direct your new compiler to follow the older standard instead of the latest one. You don't need to drag everyone else down.

Comment Re:Just what we needed C++ (Score 1) 290

First, those 10 things aren't "organs", they're just features. Your fingers aren't organs either, even though you probably need them to function normally every day.

Secondly, the article is partly wrong. For #1, it even admits that the "third eyelid" is useful for ensuring tear drainage and sweeping debris away. #9 is flat-out wrong: the appendix, while not essential to life, is very useful when you have big problems with your GI system. It's basically like a first-stage bootloader for your gut bacteria. You may never even need it, but when you do, it's really useful. #10 isn't a misfeature, it's a by-product of the way we develop as embryos. Take away male nipples and you lose female ones too, which really do have an important function. Eliminating them without losing the female ones would probably require a significant re-engineering of the genetic code, which doesn't happen with an evolved system. #4 sounds like #9: calling something "useless" because we don't fully understand it yet. Maybe we really do make good use of the ability to detect pheromones (or then again, maybe it causes us to make terrible choices for dating/marriage partners). For #3, I've read some people claim that armpit and pubic hair does serve some important function WRT bacteria, I forget exactly what now. It may have some truth or may be bunk, I don't know, but as seen with #9 and our complete lack of understanding until very very recently the role of gut bacteria (such as with its effect on obesity), it does seem like our medical sciences have largely overlooked the roles of bacteria on human health over the years.

So back to C++, just because you don't see the need for a feature doesn't mean that it's actually useless. A good example here is the 'volatile' keyword. It's useless in most C++ programming, but absolutely essential if you're doing low-level hardware access on an embedded system.

Comment Re:Just what we needed (Score 1) 290

No, but I do here [sic] people who go in to modify something say "Gosh, I wish there weren't so many different types of connectors, why does this screw have a starburst and this one a rhombus on it?"

Well if people had adopted a really good screw-head standard way back, we wouldn't have this mess. We have different types because better standards have been invented, and the old ones are utter crap (particularly slotted and Philips heads). Now we have Robinson (square) and Torx and e-Torx which are much better fastener heads than what came before. Strangely, Robinsons have been around for about a century now, but only started catching on in recent years for some reason (I believe patents had something to do with it).

BTW, do you really now know how to spell "hear"? I'm seeing so many mistakes like this lately, I'm starting to wonder if everyone is using voice-to-text to compose messages, and the result is a complete mess.

Remember that for every Clever Lad who writes this code, an army of dudes has to come through and read and modify it over time.

Try removing a Philips-head screw that's been over-torqued or just from age/corrosion has gotten stuck. Now try it with a Torx-head screw. On the former, you're going to be drilling it out after stripping out the head, whereas the Torx will come right out. There's a reason we invent new standards: because the old ones are frequently shit. Just look at the early versions of Java.

That's not to speak against it- merely that as the language gets broader, supporting it becomes slower and more expensive.

Yep, there's really no way around that. The alternative is stagnation (getting stuck with a shitty old language that has demonstrable deficiencies (again, see early Java)), or having people constantly jumping to new languages that aren't much different from the old ones (which we're seeing to an extent now: Rust, Go, D, etc.), and this incurs its own costs.

Comment Re:As someone with a masters in this -exact field- (Score 1) 290

Similar, but not exactly. The OP is pointing out why experts are frequently bad at imparting their knowledge to others, particularly laypeople. This is a valid hypothesis.

Trump supporters, OTOH, go much farther, and simply discount anything claimed by experts if it contradicts their "gut feeling" or what they "know" or what their preacher tells them.

Slashdot Top Deals

Never let someone who says it cannot be done interrupt the person who is doing it.

Working...