Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



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

Comment Re:Windows 10 is absolutely crap (Score 2) 215

The kernel (the thing that you call Windows) hasn't been rewritten from scratch with every new OS iteration.

Nobody calls the kernel "Windows". We call the entire operating system, GUI, system tools, system frameworks, file systems, etc, plus the kernel Windows.

Windows 10 is not the same OS as Windows 7. There are subtle and unsubtle changes in the way it works, some for the better, but some for the worse. Responsiveness on critical widgets such as the Start menu has deteriorated - and the Start menu itself is a complete rewrite, sharing no code whatsoever with the Windows 7 version.

Yes, there are similarities and there's a lot of code that's unchanged or marginally changed, but that doesn't mean someone can't compare one to the other. If you couldn't, Microsoft wouldn't have released it. I mean, what would have been the point?

Comment Re:INTERNATIONAL Business Machines (Score 1) 169

Mod parent up! This is exactly the same situation as with International House of Pancakes, who likewise will be letting go millions of waitstaff and cooks this year, instead hiring people in India and China to do the same work, at a fraction of the cost. Sure, you'll have to yell your order a little louder so they can hear you in India, and wait 7-14 days for your pancakes to be shipped to you from China, but the 2% cut in prices will be worth it.

Comment Re:You just now started worrying? (Score 5, Insightful) 356

The list goes on...

...of stuff nobody has ever said?

'Islamic terrorism' not being a real thing - I'm guessing this is a perversion of the Bush and Obama administration's refusal to call IS* or Al Qaeda terrorism "Radical Islamic Terror". But neither regime has said "'Islamic terrorism' not being a real thing", they've said that it's unhelpful and likely to help the terrorists' own campaign if you link the words "Islamic" and "Terrorism" because you're implying that IS*/AQ's linking of the two is legitimate, and because many, including Muslims, will take the phrasing as implying we're at war with Islam rather than at war with terrorists.

or like that we can pull out of Iraq and be free of our involvement there - Nobody has ever claimed this, ever.

or like that we can let Russia come in and take control and that won't have a bad impact on the US or our allies - Where? Syria? Because that's not what I've heard at all. Most politicians on both sides of the fence are deeply troubled by Russia's involvement in Syria. Hence the support for a no-fly zone.

or how if we just build schools, hospitals and give them jobs, everybody who would have become a terrorist will instead live a happy productive life without perpetrating any violence, - nobody has ever made that argument in the history of the universe.

or how we should release the bad people from Gitmo because they aren't really bad people they're just misunderstood - nobody has ever made that argument in the history of the universe. The complaint about Gitmo is two fold: one, there are a lot of innocent people there, and two: it's unconstitutional and illegal to hold people without due process (see (1) for the reason why.) Obama was making plans to move prisoners at Gitmo to the US in the early days of his administration, to US prisons, to be processed by constitutional authorities. After Congress effectively made that option impossible, he did the exact opposite of what you claim: he kept Gitmo open, rather than releasing people being held illegally there.

or going back to the Clinton administration how we don't have a problem with terrorists that requires a military solution, we have a problem that requires a criminal justice solution? - congrats, you found something that's correct, but alas, still not something the Obama administration has ever claimed. Terrorism is indeed best treated as a criminal, rather than military, problem. Turning Terrorists from murderous scum into heroic soldiers is the worst thing the Bush administration ever did, and is probably why we've seen an uptick in terror in general, not just in the creation of IS*, but also in groups not associated with Arabs or Radicalized Religious fanatics such as white supremacists.

The list goes on, but you get the idea. All of those 'alternative facts' from Democrat administrations have resulted in the direct and indirect violent deaths of many Americans and other westerners. The Republicans have their fair share, but you can't lay the blame for the problem solely one party.

None of those "Alternative facts" exists. The nearest you got to, that a twenty year old Democratic government might have had a different view of terrorists to the heroic soldiers view you subscribe to, saved lives - it was a conventional law enforcement operation that prevented the NYE attack on LAX from being better known than 9/11. And it was Bush's refusal to take seriously those policies that lead to 9/11.

And, even if any of those alternative facts did "exist", ie Democrats were actually saying them, none of them would ever cause lives to be lost.

Comment Re:Hornby set? Maglev is "new"? (Score 1) 115

I'm of the opinion that Hyperloop is a bad idea, but the Chunnel costs, which are relatively reasonable, isn't one of them. The Chunnel was for three tunnels, two of which were designed to accommodate, with plenty of space around them for walking, air flow, etc, two 20' high freight trains with catenaries two feet above them. The tunnels in the Hyperloop case will be a small fraction of this size - uncomfortably small if you follow Musk's proposal, but hopefully at least 12' if created by a company that doesn't think humans are sardines.

Comment Re:Another SLOW Language (Score 1) 300

The JIT and the GC are the two parts of the VM that must be able to escape the constraints of the language model (the JIT must be able to generate executable code, which the Java security model doesn't permit, and the GC must be able to allocate memory and assign it a type and delete objects that are still reachable). Absolutely everything else in a JVM can be implemented in Java fully respecting the language model. You can write almost all of a JVM in Java, as long as you have a small amount of statically compiled Java code that is treated as trusted and so permitted to violate the language invariants. This is precisely how Smalltalk VMs are typically written. There is no requirement for C/C++ to implement Java, it's just an easy way of doing it.

Comment Re: Don't look at it that way... (Score 1) 154

If you're creating a database table, 64 bits doubles the size of the index column. If you're creating a database table in normal form, then you'll have a number of tables that are simply pairs of two indexes, so you will double the size of entire tables. That's going to have big cache and memory overheads and is definitely not a simple 'let's always do that' choice.

Comment Re:More features. (Score 1) 300

I honestly couldn't say. I learned C++ about 20 years ago, hated it, tolerated it a bit while working on LLVM, revisited it in C++11 and discovered that the language had changed beyond all recognition and didn't suck anymore. I like cppreference as a reference for the standard library, but I've not used a tutorial (and I definitely wouldn't recommend the old book that I read).

Comment Re:how about modules? (Score 1) 300

Yes, modules as proposed for C++ (which don't give you what the grandparent wanted: a clean separation between interface and implementation) are pretty easy. Clang has mature support for them and even some logic to implicitly generate modules from headers. They give you a compilation speedup, which is sorely needed for C++, but not the benefit that the grandparent was looking for, though they do at least require that you don't litter your headers with #ifdefs (which means C++ and C can't share modules).

Comment Re:C# vs Swift (Score 1) 79

The term to search for in the research literature is barrier elision. The new and shiny optimisations in Swift are things that garbage collected language implementations have been doing for around 30 years. Finalisers are a pain to support, but you either need to support them or you need some other mechanism for preventing non-memory resource (e.g. file descriptor) leaks.

Comment Re:C# vs Swift (Score 1) 79

The only GC mechanism that requires double the memory that you use is a semispace compactor. A lot of modern GCs use this for the young generation (if the space fits in the cache, it's very cheap, especially if you use nontemporal loads / stores when relocating the objects. Some work at Sun Research a decade ago showed that you could do it entirely in hardware in the cache controller very cheaply). Most GCs use mark-and-compact on smaller regions than the entire heap. You're right that you get some cache churn, but after the compact phase you're getting much better locality so your cache and TLB usage is improved during mutator execution.

Comment Re:two things I use Google's assistant for (Score 1) 87

You're not using "Google Voice VoIP" because that doesn't exist. You're using Google Talk/Hangouts/whatever it's called today. The relationship between the two is that GV can route calls to Google Talk, and Google Talk will use your GV number when making outgoing calls.

So, as this is a story about Google Voice, not Google Talk (or Hangouts etc) you can safely assume your setup is not affected by this at all. That doesn't mean it'll continue to work, just that this doesn't impact it.

Comment Re:How about running real Linux apps too (Score 1) 71

I wouldn't say they're simple steps, and Crouton suffers from trying to run both operating systems at once, which can only be done by heavily patching the "guest" operating system, which in turn means only supported revisions of specific distributions are supported - and the only in some configurations. Want to run Cinnamon? Don't even try.

(There's also very little reason to suppose this provides any real benefits to users either. Why would you want ChromeOS if you're already running Ubuntu? ChromeOS is bare bones GNU/Linux with Chrome as the UI, and Chrome runs fine under Ubuntu.)

Crouton exists mostly because it's awkward to install a "real" Ubuntu instance on a Chromebook, and so the authors figured that maybe getting bits to Ubuntu to work under the already running ChromeOS kernel might be "good enough". It's an illustration of the problems with Chromebooks, not indicative that Google has some kind of solution to "Linux on the desktop".

I'm not saying Chromebooks are bad, or even that you shouldn't buy one to run Ubuntu/etc (but use chrx, and be aware that the experience of installation is suboptimal, requiring BIOS patches and barely documented control key combinations at boot) - they can run more open distributions of GNU/Linux, and if you like the hardware, then go for it. But this "Crouton proves its awesome" stuff is overblown. Crouton is a smart, interesting, hack to workaround a problem, but it's probably not going to deliver what the average "I want to run Fedora/Ubuntu/Mint/Debian/CentOS" Slashdot GNU/Linux user wants.

Comment Re:Nope (Score 1) 71

I'm generally finding little difference in price between Chromebooks and low end Windows laptops - compare HP's "Stream" series, for example.

It's also a lot simpler to install Ubuntu et al on a cheap laptop built for Windows than on a Chromebook. I've done the latter, and it's an, uh, interesting experience. Having to patch the BIOS was my favorite part I think. Also awesome was the fact it forgets there's a partition with a non-ChromeOS operating system on it if the battery runs out, so you have to boot into ChromeOS and set a flag to remind it its there.

Comment Re:More features. (Score 1) 300

In 1997, std::vector was not legal syntax.

1997 was prior to C++ becoming standardised, so there was no standard library. The vector from vector.h in SGI's STL was similar to the standard library vector, but it was not part of the standard library. The STL was also still available for a good decade or so after it was deprecated in favour of the C++ standard library.

Another change that happened involved the meaning of delete with respect to arrays. Old code would introduce bugs if compiled with new compilers and new code would leak memory if compiled with old compilers. That fits your time window.

Only if your compiler is buggy. Arrays have required deletion with delete[], not delete, for as long as the language has had a standard.

Slashdot Top Deals

I THINK THEY SHOULD CONTINUE the policy of not giving a Nobel Prize for paneling. -- Jack Handley, The New Mexican, 1988.

Working...