jfr · HackerTrans

13 tahun yang laludiscuss

Ctrl-x e in zsh is '_expand_word'. The function you are talking about is 'edit-command-line', which is not loaded or bound to any key by default in zsh. You have to load it manually.

jfr

15 tahun yang laludiscuss

gmaslov is clearly talking about the OpenSSH trust model. You are confusing it with the Trust On First Use model, which is not the same thing.

jfr

15 tahun yang laludiscuss

Wrong.

The OpenSSH model implies that you check the fingerprint of the public key before you send encrypted data using that key. That is why SSH shows you the fingerprint of the server key when you first connect, and you have to answer "yes" in order to accept the key and add it to your keyring. You are supposed to have talked to the person managing the system and that person should have given you the fingerprint of the key.

It is virtually impossible for the ISP to intercept and sniff the stream without changing the fingerprint.

The user still has to trust its SSH client.

jfr

15 tahun yang laludiscuss

Calendar does have a custom view, which defaults to showing the next "4 Days" (hint), available in the bar at the top of the calendar view. You can change it to 7 days if you like in the settings (gear -> Calendar settings -> General -> Custom view).

jfr

15 tahun yang laludiscuss

Also, the PDF format is already compressed. Compressing it again with zip or gzip is a little strange.

jfr

15 tahun yang laludiscuss

For the users, it is either this or no movie player for them. No movie player means a big product disadvantage compared to competitors, which is very bad for Google as a company.

The problem is not Google, it is DRM and DMCA.

jfr

15 tahun yang laludiscuss

No, I have read it in its integrity the first time it came around, a few years ago. Please, stop judging people.

jfr

15 tahun yang laludiscuss

I could use your argument to describe pretty much any modern compiler or framework. "It is extremely hard to write a fast, reliable Java SDK that generates good error messages.", for example.

It took years to GCC to arrive where it is because it contained A LOT of legacy code that have been accumulating since its first versions with C++ support. GCC is a compiler that evolved little by little through long years, and many features were added with little design, to fix punctual problems, which made it difficult to converge to a clean implementation.

Clang, on the other hand, had a good deal of proper design to write a clean, robust compiler. The fact that clang reached where it is in such a short time compared with GCC is a good evidence that it is possible to write a good C++ compiler with nice performance and error reporting if you employ good engineering efforts.

jfr

15 tahun yang laludiscuss

Most, if not all, of his arguments were already beaten to death. The rebuttal should be floating around somewhere on the Internet, but I couldn't find it with a quick search right now.

Anyways, right at the beginning of the presentation you see the quality of his arguments as he uses a very known problem of a particular compiler (GCC) to bash the language. Sort of a straw man fallacy.

jfr

15 tahun yang laludiscuss

> The bitching about bad compile time errors has been mostly fixed in clang.

Yes, IOW, it is a compiler problem, not a language problem. Because one particular compiler is horrible on error presentation doesn't mean that the language is bad.

> declared somewhere with static linkage, it can be hard to pin down exactly _when_ that constructor will be called.

The language doesn't define it on purpose. The language leaves it to be defined by the implementation because it goes a little beyond the purpose of the compiler. The compiler transforms C++ source into object code. You can have multiple objects linked together into a single binary, and this linkage is very platform and operating-system dependent. C++ is already horribly difficult to implement correctly; if the language were to define an order for static initialization, it would be stepping on the operating system domain, and make it even more difficult to implement on some systems.

jfr

15 tahun yang laludiscuss

This is not the expected transition plan to IPv6. You do not turn IPv4 off. During the first phase of the transition period, new users are supposed to run IPv4 and IPv6 side-by-side, so they can reach both parts of the Internet without issues.

You just jumped to the third phase of the transition plan while the rest of the world is busy doing the first one. That ain't gonna work.

jfr

15 tahun yang laludiscuss

Tip: Point your customers to http://omgipv6day.com/ , now.

The site will tell if your Internet access will be fine on World IPv6 day. A positive answer means that you either have IPv4 only connection (no broken IPv6 DNS responses or routes), or have a fully operational IPv6 nameserver and route to the Internet. A negative answer means that your computer was tricked into using IPv6 while no actual IPv6 connectivity exists (and thus you are going to have problems on June 8th).

For a more detailed test: http://test-ipv6.com/

jfr

15 tahun yang laludiscuss

Note: in your case, customer means ISP.

From what I remember, the instructions were that ISPs receive no less than /32, which should provide end-users either /48 or /56. End users use the remaining 8-16 bits to partition their networks in /64 subnets. /64 is the minimum routeable prefix, and is the prefix used for automatic configuration.

Linode offering /128 for free and /64 at a cost is ridiculous. Users will have problems to forward since that would require breaking the /64 into smaller networks (to have at least one distinct subnet at each end of the tunnel), which is not possible for radvd.

jfr

15 tahun yang laludiscuss

> A GC system with explicitly visible reference counts (and immediate freeing) with language support to make it easier to get the refcounts right [...]

To be a little pedantic on the subject, such a system (reference counting and immediate freeing) is a form of automatic memory management, but it is not GC in any way. Garbage collection implies that the system leaves garbage around, which needs to be collected in some way or another. The usual approach to refcounting releases resources as soon as they are no longer required (either by free()ing immediately or by sending it to a pool of unused resources), thus doesn't leave garbage around, and doesn't need a collector thread or mechanism to.

There are partial-GC implementations of refcounting, either because items are not free()d when they reach zero references, or to automatically detect reference loops which are not handled directly.

I agree with Torvalds on this matter. GC as it is promoted today is a giant step that gives programmers one benefit, solving one problem, while introducing a immeasurable pile of complexity to the system creating another pile of problems that are still not fixed today. And to fix some of these problems (like speed) you have to introduce more complexity.

This is my problem with GC. I like simplicity. Simplicity tends to perform well, and being simple also means it has little space for problems. Refcounting is simple and elegant, you just have to take care of reference loops, which also has another simple solution, that is weak references. I can teach a class of CS students everything they need to know to design a refcounting resource management system in one lesson.

GC is the opposite: it is big, complex, and a problem that the more you try to fix it, the more complex it becomes. The original idea is simple, but nobody uses the original idea because it performs so badly. To teach the same class how to design a GC system that performs as well as we expect today, an entire semester may not be enough.

jfr

15 tahun yang laludiscuss

The boingboing article is just a link and excerpt for the actual article on InformationWeek. You could have linked directly:

http://informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=...

jfr

15 tahun yang laludiscuss

Simpler:

    python -m SimpleHTTPServer

jfr

15 tahun yang laludiscuss

From the page style:

    textarea {
       font-family: monaco, courier, monospace;
       width: 500px;
       ...
    }

Web designing mistake, wrong choice of units. Depending on user's choice of font width, text will wrap inside the text area and not produce the expected result. 'width: 40em' would be a lot more sensible and produce the expected results.

jfr

15 tahun yang laludiscuss

> But I think I've fed the troll enough.

I'm glad someone said it. This apenwarr seems to have some good karma here on HN, but IMO a lot of what he says is heavily misinformed and biased.

I had the urge to go point-by-point of his post and refute each with proper references and practical examples, but I then I realized that he is just a troll and that would be feeding him.

Some of his points, like about IPv6 addresses being too long and hard to memorize and that NAT is good/enough for users, basically points that he probably doesn't have much experience with network management and how IP works (specially IPv6 networks). This is strange coming from someone who was the original author of wvdial.

I have already argued here on HN why IPv6 addresses are easier to memorize: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1804038

jfr

15 tahun yang laludiscuss

There is dolphin, and a few others. http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/3990/is-there-a-good...

jfr

15 tahun yang laludiscuss

Sorry, the correct number was 3986.

RFC 3986 - Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax

comments