Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Wow, Typical Linux Defensiveness! (Score 1) 208

... Also, I fail to see what the app software has to do with anything. It's the kernel's responsibility to allocate resources and prevent single apps from monopolizing system resources. It's called "preemptive multitasking" and you might want to look it up. ...

Sorry, but that's not true. Preemptive multitasking is only an emergency measure and only activates after a timeout. If a thread is monopolizing the CPU it will still waste a lot of CPU cycles before it can be preempted, repeatedly, with the result that the system can be almost "brought to it's knees" anyway. The OS can only stop extreme cases, it can't regulate it continuously.

Programs must still be designed as if they were running in co-operative multitasking, i.e., they must call some API that releases the CPU within a reasonable time. Working in event-driven windows or device I/O is usually sufficient, as long as monopolistic "busy-loops" are not being used. Most modern programs are fine.

P.S., Yes they lied to you... ;-)

Comment Re:Uh, why? (Score 1) 208

Windows 3.1 was 16 bit.

Yes, the X86 processors of the time (8088) had 8 bit memory bus, but ran 16 bit software, using a double-fetch mechanism so it was "transparent". Slightly later processors (8086, 80186, 80286) had a 16 bit memory bus and single-fetch to double the speed, but ran the same software.

The earlier 8 bit processors were 8008 and 8080, the later ones could fetch 16 bit addresses with a double-fetch. This would be early CP/M.


Comment Sounds like ... (Score 1) 475

Sounds like it was written by a communist who hates all free enterprise! 8-P

No one wants to work themselves to death. But if someone wanted to, do you have a right to force them not to? That way truly lies slavery!

Save other people if they give you their permission, but don't take away their right to refuse.

Government regulation of large companies is necessary, as a balance of their power (in both directions). But regulation of people's life choices is extreamly dangerous.

Sometimes you don't have the right to "fix things". ;-)

Comment Re:Digital Rights? (Score 1) 260

You do realize that it doesn't matter, if it's convenient enough that hardly anyone bothers to use the cracked copies?

In fact, like you said, it's probably a good thing in case Steam should shut down some day. I don't think it's hurting anyone, even the authors.
But I'm not an author, so maybe someone has other information...

Comment Re:Common Economic problem (Score 1) 499

The manufacturer technicians being the ones who know how best to fix it, is a nice idea. But these days it is not often true, companies hire the cheapest people they can. And give them a "two week course of memorizing", then assume they can do the work.

I've lost count of how many times I have had to train the company techs just to get my work done, and then had to fix something afterward. I am sure the farmers, large or small, feel the same way...

No offence meant, to the company techs that are experts, but you guys are getting really hard to find! ;-)

Comment Deliver us from bean-counters! (Score 1) 318

The cost of the drone means nothing. What is significant is the cost of the damage done if it is not brought down.

They are, of course, right about the future cost of large numbers of missiles. But that is for much later, when there will be time to find other methods (like shotguns).

And of course good training for the missileers is difficult and expensive. Quite possible that the decision was made, to provide good realistic training for the team. Which it no doubt did!

Comment Re:Shouldn't shock anyone (Score 1) 419

Why the hell are people shocked? Microsoft first said it was going to do this 14 months ago, way back in January 2016.

Why the hell are people shocked? Microsoft first did things similar to this, to Windows XP years ago. There were even some reports of them doing it to Windows98 before that!

Funny how it only seems to happen to versions that people like?

Comment Re: Surely not the only solution. (Score 1) 419

It's not false advertising as they sell you a license, not the sofware itself. Read the fine print.

They lie. Does'nt matter what I seemed to agree to, even if I had.

Even lawyers lie sometimes.

If I buy it and pay for it, then it belongs to me, and they have no control over it unless I allow it. ;-)

Their only right is that I not make "carbon copies" and sell them claiming that it is from them. And, even that right is temporary only as long as congress keeps the law. It's not a "natural right".

Comment Re:Don't you dare blame the disabled (Score 1) 555

Closed captioning videos has been the law for a *generation*; the court shouldn't simply allow them to remove the videos instead of spending the $1.2M or so to transcribe and caption them as they were *required* to do in the first place. UC Berkely flouted the ADA. Again, there is NO EXCUSE not to closed caption video.

Sounds great!

You should donate the money for them to do it. The other thread estimated $900,000.00.

Slashdot Top Deals

Money is better than poverty, if only for financial reasons.