H
Hans Vlems
Mark, no not at all because the 10th commandment is obviously in
error: all the world is an Alpha surely ;-)
Mark, no not at all because the 10th commandment is obviously in
error: all the world is an Alpha surely ;-)
H
Hans Vlems
Bart, it's a one off attempt. I always catch return values, you never
know what
might bite you. The problem is perfoemance: I don't want to sit hours
next to somebody
else's pc waiting for the program to end while it's writing zeroes or
random bit
patterns to a disk. The target system doesn't belong to the military.
So your idea for using fseek is quite promising since it writes very
little
information to the disk. The runtime is probably determined by disk
seek times only,
and there's no way to avoid that.
Thanks,
Hans
C
Chris H
Anders Wegge Keller said:
FUD again.... Microsoft is Still there.
Many of the companies/organisations/groups producing the obsolete
distributions of Linux have gone and that is the piont
You are deliberately confusing incremental evolution of one OS with the
large number of parallel OS that have disappeared along with the people
producing them
Win95 support has stopped some 15 years on. Just as support for early
versions of say Red Hat Linux have gone. Both Red-Hat and MS are still
there and continuing to develop their OS
There have been many other (about50% ) Linux companies and groups who
have disappeared along with their Linux.
Where to I get support for these distributions of Linux that I bet the
farm on 10 years ago now?
If you use the wrong distribution of Linux you stand a 50 % chance that
you will be on your own in 5 years time with it.
Don't site Vista... there is a direct and supported upgrade path from
the same company to the next version
O
osmium
:
Which depends on a perverse definition for "upgrade". Leave the damn thing
alone!
Which depends on a perverse definition for "upgrade". Leave the damn thing
alone!
B
BartC
I hadn't tested that fseek/fwrite code for performance. I've done so now,
and it seems to create a 2GB file more or less instantly (on Windows 7
anyway).
Dumping the file just shows zeros.
K
Keith Thompson
So is Linux.
Is it significantly more difficult to move from one Linux distribution
to another than to move from one versionof Windows to another?
[...]
</OT>
D
Dr Nick
Keith Thompson said:
So what's the incremental path between NT and ME and 2000 and XP then?
Does it matter? How much actual work is needed to move from one to the
other? Surely that's one of the whole points of this group? People are
executing code as we speak on a Ubuntu machine that I wrote in the very
early 1990s on a 68008 based QL.
My feeling as a programmer is that it is less so, because the underlying
OS structure is probably more stable. But I have to confess that I
don't write things that use the Windowing system much.
I've given up producing a stand-alone Windows version of my program
because I have to chase Window's versions too much (the file structure,
the installation packages etc more than the actual code). And since I
don't use Windows for anything else, that would involve me buying new
versions of Windows, and the hardware to run them on, at far too
frequent intervals for a free package.
The only changes I've needed to make to the Linux version have been
mainly when an improved GCC has caught a long-standing bug or infelicity
in my code.
But, to be fair, I don't make the Linux version widely available - it
runs on a server. If I was trying to support every version of Linux out
there (the way people wanted me to support half a dozen versions of
Windows) it might be a different matter.
A
Alan Curry
When a company that distributes free software dies, nothing important is lost
because their code (if they had any unique code that wasn't assimilated
upstream) can be taken over by anyone who thinks it's valuable. If you're
willing to pay for continued maintenance, the old dead company can't stop you
from making an new arrangement with someone else to pick up where they left
off.
This is a benefit. It allows users of free software to quickly abandon
distributors who behave badly, rather than being tied to them for years
because of decisions that were made in happier times.
For example, XFree86 has been mostly abandoned since its change of license
several years ago. But nobody had to give up the actual features added by
XFree86 before that time. We now get the same software that was previously
distributed by XFree86, plus improvements, under a different brand name.
This is all good news, unless you consider it important to be in a long-term
relationship with a corporate entity. That's a sickness. Those relationships
are abusive. Get out!
H
Hans Vlems
Putting fprintf's or puts's in a loop takes a lot more (elapsed) time.
The zeroes are produced by NTFS. This prevents a non-privileged
program to allocate a large file and read data it shouldn't have had
access to.
All I'm interested in is short run-times ;-)
Hans
C
Chris H
Keith Thompson <kst- said:
And Unix.
However at least 50% of the Linux distributions are now obsolete and
unsupported.
It very often is. Depending on which random packages you had in the
distro you are moving form...
H
Hans Vlems
Is it significantly more difficult to move from one Linux distribution
I wanted to stay out of this part of the discussion because it had
nothing to do with the OP ;-)
Very few platforms allow easy migration of executable codes. The IBM
360/370 and the Burroughs A series architectures are notable
exceptions. Both support OS implementations that will stil run 40 year
old exectables without modification. Other OS'es claim similar
performance. Basically Windows NT (as opposed to the Windows 95-98-ME
family) and its successors doesn't do too badly. Code compiled under
NT 3.51 can run under Windoes 2003 R2. In some occasions recompiling
or relinking is all that is needed.
Linux suffers perhaps most from the enthousiasm of its developers and
hence the resulting changes in its development environment. I remember
a change of C libraries a couple of years ago. Not particularly
complex may be but for a programmer who develops code on four
different platforms in five languages it is difficult to keep up with
sudden changes in one of them. Then again, this statement probably is
more a sign of old age ;-). Anyway, I reduced my linux stations to
Debian (on Alpha) and Fedora (on x86).
Hans
I wanted to stay out of this part of the discussion because it had
nothing to do with the OP ;-)
Very few platforms allow easy migration of executable codes. The IBM
360/370 and the Burroughs A series architectures are notable
exceptions. Both support OS implementations that will stil run 40 year
old exectables without modification. Other OS'es claim similar
performance. Basically Windows NT (as opposed to the Windows 95-98-ME
family) and its successors doesn't do too badly. Code compiled under
NT 3.51 can run under Windoes 2003 R2. In some occasions recompiling
or relinking is all that is needed.
Linux suffers perhaps most from the enthousiasm of its developers and
hence the resulting changes in its development environment. I remember
a change of C libraries a couple of years ago. Not particularly
complex may be but for a programmer who develops code on four
different platforms in five languages it is difficult to keep up with
sudden changes in one of them. Then again, this statement probably is
more a sign of old age ;-). Anyway, I reduced my linux stations to
Debian (on Alpha) and Fedora (on x86).
Hans
C
Chris H
In message <[email protected]
I have had similar reports from many who have to support Linux. As you
say much is down to the enthusiasm of the developers and the many
different distributions and there being no overall control or discipline
in development.
If your time is free (which is very rare these days) then it is not
such a problem. But where some one is paying you time is money and it
can cost a lot to iron out these small problems.
I was involved with a company that does estimation software for
projects. It is quite accurate if used properly and they costed out for
a client the true cost of migrating from one version of windows to
another. Not cheap..... I asked if they also looked at the cost of
moving to Linux, open office etc. they said they had also run that
though as well. And it came out at over three times the cost!
So I said it was not a fair comparison as one was an upgrade between
version of an OS and the other was changing OS. They had also run that
and for a large organisation it was still a lot more expensive to run
Linux. The ongoing maintenance and getting things to work. This was
for a mainstream Linux.
..com> said:
I have had similar reports from many who have to support Linux. As you
say much is down to the enthusiasm of the developers and the many
different distributions and there being no overall control or discipline
in development.
If your time is free (which is very rare these days) then it is not
such a problem. But where some one is paying you time is money and it
can cost a lot to iron out these small problems.
I was involved with a company that does estimation software for
projects. It is quite accurate if used properly and they costed out for
a client the true cost of migrating from one version of windows to
another. Not cheap..... I asked if they also looked at the cost of
moving to Linux, open office etc. they said they had also run that
though as well. And it came out at over three times the cost!
So I said it was not a fair comparison as one was an upgrade between
version of an OS and the other was changing OS. They had also run that
and for a large organisation it was still a lot more expensive to run
Linux. The ongoing maintenance and getting things to work. This was
for a mainstream Linux.
H
Hans Vlems
Agreed, changing platforms is a costly business. Part of the
complexity is that you have to deal with two groups of experts and
generally either group doesn't understand the other system.
One of my projects involved moving a database from an IBM z series
(VSE) to Windows 2000 Server.
Everthing was different: dbms, programming environment, hardware, OS,
network hw and network protocol.
It went smoothly because all we had to do was move the data. And
understand both sides of the project, that was what kept the team and
progress together.
What drve the project business wise was money and performance. The
target platform saved the company nearly $ 1 million annually. The end
user saw response times of less than a second.
The price was the stability of the new platform. Microsoft produces as
many patches per day as IBM did in a year for VSE ;-)
The fact that the hardware changed as well made it easier for the
company as a whole to understand that this was a major move. Changing
from one OS to another while staying on regular Intel based hardware
makes that point more difficult to make perhaps.
Hans
B
BartC
That's not quite fair. MS don't design their own hardware, and it's more
challenging to create something that works across hundreds of combination of
hardware from different manufacturers. And that allows hundreds of different
peripherals to be plugged in and still work.
And there are a million different software products to buy or download for
Windows, which if nothing else, will bring obscure bugs to the surface due
to the sheer number of operating hours that the software runs for. (When I
sold software, each new sale meant, to me, another customer spending up to
forty hours a week trying to find bugs in my program; although my boss had a
different view..)
And then the popularity of the OS means a large number of people
deliberately and maliciously trying to find and exploit bugs.
I don't know VSE and the latest IBM hardware, but I'd guess this doesn't
apply so much ...
N
Nick Keighley
I develop on and for Windows. But that's in C++.
N
Nick Keighley
which also makes it a reasonable platform for "semi-embedded" stuff.
There are industrial PCs.
N
Nick Keighley
Le 25/02/11 15:10, Rui Maciel a crit :
I am using Ubuntu, last time I used it was around 5 minutes ago.
And when was the last time you used Mac OSX?
What is missing in linux and what makes the strength of Mac OSX
can be described in one word:
INTEGRATION
Cut and paste works very well, the applications have a similar look and
feel, the GUI is nicely done, and the intuitive programs are easy on
new people. My wife is using immediately her MacBook, without any
training.
Network configuration is done automatically, and it works. Integrated
TV, music, DVD, camera, microphone, everything works.
As in Linux. Everything works under linux too because if it doesn't
(what is most often the case) *I* can make it work. I have never
found any problem under Linux that I could not fix. It just costed
me HOURS of googling, etc. And I know for sure that only a professional
would have been able to do that.
Sometimes it just wasn't worth the effort.
Linux is nice, I have several virtual machines with it running in my
Mac. I test my code under linux gcc (that is different from Apple's
gcc).
It is a useful system for system administrators and big companies
that need a cheap server system.
Nothing else.
I've seen it used in semi-embedded systems. Linux can be shrunk down
so it's quite small and boots very quickly. But you're quite right it
needs some very smart and motivated people to make it work. I wouldn't
lumber a naive user with the Linuxs I've seen. Maybe its better these
days but I doubt it.
D
David Resnick
Was sort of hoping for a reference from someone if such exists. But I
also
misread his statement, thought he was talking about developing FOR
Windows
rather than ON Windows, a matter on which I have equally no actual
data but
less opinion on...
-David
C
Chris H
In message <[email protected]
Compared to what? Compared to embedded OS and RTOS it is neither
small, quick at booting or Real time. That said it does have it's
place
It does have it's place as long as you appreciate the reality rather
then the religion it seem sot come with.
I know of one company that went bust directly because of its use of
Open Source... not because it use Open Source per say but the but the
religious indoctrination that came with it.
s.com> said:
Compared to what? Compared to embedded OS and RTOS it is neither
small, quick at booting or Real time. That said it does have it's
place
It does have it's place as long as you appreciate the reality rather
then the religion it seem sot come with.
I know of one company that went bust directly because of its use of
Open Source... not because it use Open Source per say but the but the
religious indoctrination that came with it.
C
Chris H
BartC said:
That is often overlooked when people criticise Windows... (even if MS
are a bunch of bastards
Yes OSX is very reliable but Apple control both the HW and the SW
True... Whilst the Linux crowd go on about vulnerabilities in Windows
there are usually as many in Linux. Also of course the first worms and
viruses targeted Unix. I expect when Linux gets as popular as windows it
too will have it's fair share of viruses and attacks.
However with 100's of distributions how with the Linux community solve
this problem?
At least with Windows and OSX all the fixes come from 1 place. What will
happen with Linux? How with the hundreds of distributions apply fixes
against viruses? We also have the problem that viruses my affect
different distributions differently .