Posts by Fibbles 1421 publicly visible posts • joined 28 Jan 2008
GPL is one of the main reason why Linux desktop market share is below 5%. If that means it's a cancer or not is up to you to decide - but it's one of the reason most commercial - useful and needed - software is not ported to Linux.
You are aware that making your software compatible with a GPL licensed kernel does not mean you have to distribute your software under the same license, right?
Mozilla: why not just give us what WE WANT instead of what YOU want us to have?
I agree with the sentiment but by that logic you still wouldn't be getting a new RSS reader. If nobody uses a feature, Mozilla has to assume nobody wants said feature.
This is useful if you want to run Linux without "pretend Windows" (i.e. systemd), because you have the real thing instead.
WSL is impressive, and undoubtedly useful for some people but I struggle to see how you can call it 'the real thing' when it doesn't even use the Linux kernel.
Just get a cheap Chromebook and install GalliumOS on it. Its a lightweight distro specifically for Chromebooks.
I got myself an Acer CB3-431 a few years back and did just that. Full metal body, 14 inch screen and some random Intel dual core SoC for £200ish. The distro and SDD make it feel pretty nippy considering the hardware and the battery lasts 10+ hours with heavy use (I mostly use it for coding and web browsing).
It's pretty much what I always wanted netbooks to be but never were.
Any tool that takes months to learn how to use is a badly designed tool.
I don't think anyone would argue that git has the most consistent of interfaces but if it has taken you months to learn a dozen terminal commands maybe programming just isn't for you?
The contains method is certainly shorter but the whole point of Standard Library algorithms is that they are generic. The free function 'std::find' will work with any container that provides iterators, even user created ones. You can even use the function on a raw array by just passing it pointers rather than iterators. The fact that it lets you specify the begin and end iterators also lets you find an item within a sub-range.
On the other hand the 'contains' method needs to be re-implemented for every new type of container. It also only lets you search the full container, there's no facility for specifying a sub range.
Then there's the return type. The 'std::find' function will return a pointer/iterator to your found element so you can immediately start using it, otherwise it'll return whatever you specified as the end of the range. By the looks of things 'contains' just returns a bool which is considerably less useful.
The second you start using a different syntax for the same command (for), and distinguish using obscure symbols, and even HAVE things like "auto" type modifiers (which just makes me think of VB "Variants"... shudder...), then you've strayed far enough from the original command to warrant a new keyword.That line is impenetrable to my programming mind.
What makes it impenetrable? I really can't see how 'foreach x in y' is significantly more readable than 'for x in y'.
The auto keyword is not specific to for loops, you can use it pretty much anywhere you'd like the type deduced. It's useful because you shouldn't be redeclaring the same information over and over. If I change variable foo from int to unsigned int I don't want to have to then go through each line of code to change the type there as well.
Can you honestly imagine seeing something like that inside, say, the Linux kernel? Or the LibreSSL library?
No because they're both written in C, not C++.
For instance, if that loop modifies x, and it's just a reference back to the object inside the collection, that could quickly turn into disaster and it might well be hard to spot.
References have been a core part of the language since the year dot. Do you have the same complaint about pointers? A reference serves the same purpose as a dereferenced pointer.
Honestly, a programming language is like a joke, if you have to explain it,
You can't honestly expect to be able to use a language without learning the syntax. Even something like Python (which is marketed as close to natural language,) requires you to learn the syntax.
It's not far off that really. C++ is a statically typed language so you need to provide a type in your code or explicitly tell the compiler to deduce it from the value passed.
for ( auto& x : v )
If you look at the above range based for you can see that the colon is equivalent to 'in'. The only non obvious bit to somebody who uses another language is the 'auto&'. The 'auto' just tells the compiler to deduce the type since it knows what 'v' contains and therefore knows the type of 'x'. The '&' tells the compiler that it should not make a copy of the element from the container but just use a reference back to the original object.
/glm/gtc/matrix_transform.inl
glm - because it's in the OpenGL Math Library
gtc - because it's Template Core rather than Template eXperimental (gtx)
matrix_transform - because it's a free function for transforming a matrix object
.inl - design choice of the library, could just as easily go in the hpp file
This seems more a criticism of the GLM library and their header layouts rather than a valid criticism of templates. It's also unfair comparing its size to linmath since GLM is specifically designed to inter-operate with OpenGL and mimics GLSL as closely as possible within the limits of the language.
"Language I know is easier to understand than language I do not know."
The range based for loop is far from opaque to anybody who actually knows the language. It simply iterates the each element 'foo' in container 'bar'. It does it by using a feature of the language that has been in the standard for 20 years, namely 'iterators'. Every algorithm in the Standard Library uses iterators, they're not a difficult concept and are fundamental to understanding the Standard Library.
Your complaint seems to be that you don't understand the inner workings of the Standard Library and therefore can't 'secure' your code which is ridiculous because you shouldn't care about the implementation any more than you should care about the implementation of your compiler. At a certain point you have to trust that something does what it says on the tin.
I thought the same. I thought he just described Java when he described a "completely type-safe and resource-safe style of programming". That's what Java *is* and it became a thing precisely as an antidote to C++.
The difference is that C++ aims to do these things with zero runtime overhead. Think RAII vs garbage collection.
You call it junk but I, for one, find it comforting to think that when all life is gone from this planet and the Sun swells to such an extent that it consumes the Earth; there will still be a Spaceman chilling out there in his car with the top down, Bowie in the tape deck and emblazoned across the dashboard (in big friendly letters,) the words "DON'T PANIC!".
You forgot the anniversary update that messed up the partition table on dual boot systems. They subdivided the Windows partition to create a recovery partition but when rebuilding the partition table assumed anything with a filesystem that Windows doesn't native support was just empty space. Goodbye grub, goodbye Linux.
As I pointed out in my post, we are by definition "pirates" when we format shift; therefore all that we paid for is "pirated".
While I'll admit the courts have confused the issue by bringing format shifting under the umbrella term of 'piracy' I doubt it is the definition most people would use. Piracy for myself, and I imagine most other people would be described as "obtaining copyrighted material you don't have a license for".
The idea that the masses of torrent sites exist mostly because of format shifters is ridiculous. As I said before, they exist because people want free shit.
You are assuming we don't pay for what we pirate.
It's a fairly valid assumption when you go on to say only a few lines later:
It is certainly true that I don't pay for all that I "pirate" but that's because ever so much that I download isn't worth paying for.
Another favourite shield excuse of the freetard. It completely ignores the fact that the value proposition of a movie, book, game, etc changes after the first use. Usually a film is worth less to the viewer on the second viewing because they already know what's going to happen. People are much less likely to pay for content they've already consumed, regardless of how much they enjoyed it the first time. That doesn't mean the first viewing shouldn't still be paid for.
The people with the "bullshit excuses" are companies like Sony and their secret Rootkit that voided the warranty on my quite expensive CD player.
That was over a decade ago. I remember at the time the bullshit excuse on this forum was along the lines of "if only they'd sell music without DRM, piracy would disappear". Publishers then went on to sell music without DRM. Lo and behold, piracy continued; almost as if the DRM argument was some sort of bullshit excuse to mask just wanting things for free.
As I said before, there'll always be some sort of flimsy excuse for piracy. People understandably want to take shit for free but they also want to feel morally justified whilst doing it. It doesn't matter the mental gymnastics involved to get to that point. For most pirates there'll always be "one last hurdle" before they pay for their content.
FWIW the music industry pissed me off so much with their bullshit that I now only purchase mainstream music second-hand. I do buy new from musicians selling their own material; they're cheaper and I know where the money is going.
That's some serious hipster nonsense right there. You'll only buy artisanal music sold by the musician themselves? So any form of production network suddenly makes them not worthy of your cash? Where do you draw the line? Anything other than individually burned CD-Rs in hand-drawn sleeves is the evil work of Big Music?
BTW, it's considered quite bad form to invent quotes
"Hurr Durr, I'm gonna treat a random internet forum like debate club and point out what I think are fallacies mostly because I can't tell the difference between a sarcastic but accurate summation of my point and a strawman. For my next trick I'm gonna nitpick about your grammatical errors before finally transforming into Spectacularly Refined Gent. Good day to you Sir!"
Most who pirate a lot also purchase a lot.
If you say so. If they don't purchase what they pirate what difference does it make though?
If you only pay for half of what you consume that isn't somehow magically made OK because you also happen to consume a lot.
It also depends on how you define "piracy".
"We're all format shifters. Honest, gov!"
I highly doubt that. I can accept people are going to pirate even though they shouldn't. I just wish they'd stop inventing such bullshit excuses for doing so.
Some pirate simply because the canMany pirate because they are pissed off being unable to pay
I think you've got your adjectives the wrong way around there. If we're being realistic, most pirate because they don't want to pay for something when they can easily get it for free. While there are definitely some that pirate because of geoblocking, delayed regional releases and DRM, who then go on to later buy the product; for most its just a convenient excuse to try to legitimise their actions. The numbers of seeds doesn't suddenly drop to zero once a TV show has been released in all regions. I suspect that for many pirates there'll always be "just one last hurdle" that needs to be overcome before they'll pay for content.
With the BOFH there no, so I assume some sort of Star Trek fight to the death scene needs to take place before the PFY replaces the BOFH.
Stephen: Did you ever hear the tragedy of BOFH The Wise?
James: No?
Stephen: I thought not. It’s not a story the HR would tell you. It’s an IT legend. BOFH was a Dark Lord of IT, so powerful and so wise he could influence management to increase budgets… He had such a knowledge of the dark side, he could even keep the ones he cared about from being sacked for gross misconduct.
James: He could actually save people from summary termination?
Stephen: The dark side is a pathway to many defenestrative abilities some consider to be... unethical.
James: What happened to him?
Stephen: He became so powerful… the only thing he was afraid of was losing his power, which eventually, of course, he did. Unfortunately, he taught his apprentice everything he knew, then his apprentice had him sacked for embezzlement and use of a cattle-prod without completing the necessary risk assessment paperwork. Ironic. He could save others, but not himself.
The employees can vote for whoever they like, it's a secret ballot after all.
It's not as secret as you might think. There needs to be some sort of tracking mechanism to aid in investigations of electoral fraud.
Each ballot slip has a serial number and records are kept matching voters to serial numbers. The slips themselves are stored in a government warehouse for a year before being destroyed.
It's very possible for the government to find out who you voted for. Considering the reports of lax security around the used ballot slips it wouldn't surprise me if, after greasing the right palms, private parties could find out who you voted for.
But, but... If the skip button was a plain hyperlink you might never load the intro. If you do that how else will we share with you the main buzzwords of our mission statement? It is imperative that we tell you about how we work with the community to promote synergy; how we leverage our visionary product to promote organic growth. If you don't see these words floating next to stock photos of smiling people you may never realise that we are innovative and disruptive thought-leaders. How will you know that our paradigm shifting business is a game changer that will cause the entire industry to pivot? How will you know?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
