Er, no, it's a base 12 numeric system instead of base 10. It has several advantages over base 10, though. Multiplication and Division are considerably easier with that system, for one.
Or is that a programmer-chauvinist viewpoint?
Perhaps we should just use Base 1. All numbers are zero, and math is easy.
You can even divide by zero.
No, 12 is particularly great because it has so many divisors. You can divide it by 2, 3, and 6. Base 10 only has 2 and 5, making it a more awkward system to use by comparison.
(Oh, I forgot... base 12 also has 4 as a divisor... even better).
Wikipedia has a page that compares base 12 to base 10:
Damn the French and their base ten system.
You should pull out the modem and do it via dial up. I know my wife appreciated the nights I upgraded the old laptop that way :-)
I use it to capture the Caller ID of incoming calls on my home phone line, splash them to the screen of my computer in the basement, and log them. Because, y'know, I'm way too cheap to spend $20 on a phone with built-in Caller ID display. And of course I got to build the solution with Linux.
Something like the Minnesota company Multitech still makes?
Costly, but seems retro cool for $106. But as copper will disappear in the future, 9600 will probably be the top end of things. I have done 9600 bps over VOIP in the past (not good, but it works).
You would be better served by enslaving your sound card to be an an analog modem to "talk" to the other endpoint that also listens with a sound card "modem". You should be able to adapt that to what ever compression comes in to play in the future to further compress the human voice in to barely audible bits on an ever squeezed pipe :-)
Mine is more like these: https://www.google.com/search?q=MT5634ZBA-USB&oq=MT5634ZBA-USB
And yes, probably expensive, but I picked mine up off a discard pile. :)
The phone service that comes with Verizon FiOS actually is VoIP, even if they don't give the subscriber access to anything other than the POTS ports.
A little USB modem picked up off a discard pile was fun to implement as a Caller ID detector, and maybe sometime in the future I'll configure it to send faxes or something. I wonder if anyone still uses those.
Ha, faxes. Mostly real estate agents, used car sales(people), and other vermin :-) I had a chance to get one of those modems like you picked up off the pile IG, but thought I would just stick with the trusty old Zoom or USR 56K with a usb to serial adapter.
I'm starting to appreciate the equivalence of DLL-Hell on Linux.
But, in some ways, Linux magnifies the problem.
It's so strongly encouraged that you use shared libraries that it seems like you have to practically pull teeth to use static libraries. People generally say, "It is encouraged to use shared libraries," and make up all kinds of smarmy comments (at least, the ones who don't seem to grasp that some people have special needs requiring that you not compile everything on each machine).
Of course, I'm sure it's my fault for wanting to use a modern compiler when it seems this environment has machines that are... obscolete. But, sheesh...
Did I miss something - you now work at a Linux shop?
Well, you got what you wanted I guess.
But... don't upgrade the compiler. Use the distro-supplied... or upgrade the distro.
Heh... I work where we have both Linux and Windows.
We're going into the next phase of our software efforts, which involves writing more sophisticated code (rather than something for a demo). That code requires some code in common between Windows and Linux.
So, I saw an opportunity to write the service/daemon code that compiles for Windows SCM or for a Linux daemon depending on which machine does the compiling.
It seems to work reasonably well, and that allows me to write one bit of code in C++ that works in both Linux and Windows.
Except for the bit where the shared libraries on some of these machines are horribly out of date... so I should probably compile for static libs, like I do for Windows.
depends which libraries you're talking about.
Boost, and the standard c++/c libs.
Although, the more I read on this topic, the more I wonder if I couldn't just install the missing libraries when I install the executable itself somehow.
c++ is debateable, but I can't imagine why you would want to link libc statically. this is not standard practice, nor necessary practice, nor can I imagine why it would be merely expedient.
you'll probably just cause yourself more trouble, that way.
if you have a mix of old/new distributions on live servers, your toolchain needs to be based on the oldest binaries in your server farm.
or you need to think about source installs.
So you're basically suggesting to me that Linux discourages advances if you wish to write software professionally for that platform.
Unless you are in the luxurious position of telling everyone that they have to move to the version of Linux to which you compile your sources.
I want to like Linux, but this is really, really bad.