Language:
switch to room list switch to menu My folders
Go to page: First ... 54 55 56 57 [58] 59 60 61 62 ... Last
[#] Tue Feb 16 2010 21:27:58 EST from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

there are consumer grade liquid cooling setups for PC now, no?

[#] Tue Feb 16 2010 23:52:44 EST from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Sure, they're quite popular with the overclocking/gamer crowd.

[#] Wed Feb 17 2010 16:00:26 EST from dothebart @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

me realy liked the guys who mounted the cpu to a aloy chimney. nice concept. The chimney effect almost makes coolers unneeded...



[#] Wed Feb 17 2010 23:06:12 EST from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

mounted inside a PC case made of transparent plexiglas.

Transparent aluminum... duh!

[#] Thu Feb 18 2010 05:46:01 EST from dothebart @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

http://google-opensource.blogspot.com/2008/11/gerrit-and-repo-android-source.html

> And at last why not using Subversion?!

Subversion is not a distributed version control system. It makes it very difficult for 3rd parties to take the Android platform and build products on top of it. With Subversion, or any other non-distributed version control system, non-committers are 2nd class citizens who don't have the same level of functionality as the blessed committers/maintainers of the project.

We very much want to make Android available for everyone to use, extend, and build on top of. Open source allows rapid innovation to occur, and to open up markets that didn't exist before. Distributed version control tools are the next great thing for open source, as it ensures these innovators are really free to access the code, modify it, and redistribute those modifications.

I think this is one of the best explanations of the advantages of git i've heard so far.



[#] Thu Feb 18 2010 09:55:26 EST from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Now I'm going to be the last person to defend branches in subversion, but exactly how does git make branching the tree better than subversion.
noncomitters may be second class citizens, but why can't they commit to a branch?

I won't say more before I try git.

Everybody sings its praises, it must be just that wonderful.
Fleeb said something the other day though.
He was working on something and committing it on his local laptop so when he got back to the office he could sync and yada yada yada.
I don't know abuot the rest of you, but one of the big reasons I use version control at all is to get a copy of the source off my machine which I generally don't trust for more than 10 minutes at a time.
I'm not a big fan of losing work.

[#] Thu Feb 18 2010 16:00:28 EST from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I just spent 5 minutes with git and already I can see how superior it is to subversion in regards to branches.

[#] Thu Feb 18 2010 16:29:16 EST from dothebart @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

ford, your local git copy contains _ALL_ information of the repository.

you can do blame or log without connecting to the server, your local working copy contains all the data.

plus, a SVN workingcopy is _BIGGER_ than a Git workingcopy.

 

On the branching/forking thing...

GIT doesn't have linear revisions. you can commit to your local copy and start some weird vodoo not everybody might like plus stay synced with the main development tree.

You can work on something until its ready to be committed upstream. Or you could add features, which upstream doesn't like without having to worry that new features / bugfixes upstream does won't fix in easily. Git also offers upstream a very compfortable way to accept and integrate patches from "forkers"; Think of the problems the linux kernel has; git takes care of them and aids the maintainers without being in the way.

git to svn is like what one might think of 3d to 2d.

as long as you're in 2d you might find everything easy to use and live with, once you come to know 3d you don't want to miss it anymore...

 



[#] Thu Feb 18 2010 17:34:00 EST from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I'm not quite there yet.
Everybody raves about git. That doesn't make it good or useful for my purposes, it just means everybody raves about it.
Everybody raves about windows, doesn't make it good, os/2 was superior

Telling git that I specifically want to commit something, as opposed to letting it figure it out seems a bit of a drag to me. Obviously to other people so they added the -a flag.

But again, I find value in having the repository be elsewhere, so by making my localdisk the repository of all versioning information (by default, I know it can sync else where, I haven't gotten to that yet) this seems less useful to me than cvs or svn.

What I liked a lot was that you can say switch to branch, and it just does. you can do that in cvs and you can't do that in svn and it drives me nuts.

[#] Thu Feb 18 2010 19:48:36 EST from dothebart @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

you have to differentiate between 'commit', 'pull' and 'push' afaik. the later sync with your raid5 DLT backuped s00per save server.

(no I'm no git master yet)

 

and... NT4 definitely was superior to OS/2. I've worked with it, and coded for it. It definitely was no fun.

OTOh, os/2 just was another proprietary system, which basicaly shared the general closed source problem windows nt4 had and still has too.

 

for some fancy reason, there even is an adon to git: st-git which seems to be good for stopping to work on patch a, pull patch b from the stack, work on that... and commit.



[#] Fri Feb 19 2010 12:09:00 EST from Harbard @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

 

Wed Feb 17 2010 11:06:12 PM EST from LoanShark @ Uncensored
mounted inside a PC case made of transparent plexiglas.

Transparent aluminum... duh!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transparent_aluminium

 

Not just an obscure geek reference to a Star Trek movie.



[#] Fri Feb 19 2010 13:55:48 EST from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

and... NT4 definitely was superior to OS/2. I've worked with it, and
coded for it. It definitely was no fun.

I realize you're just baiting me, but I haven't had this flamewar in a long time, let's see how rusty my os/2 has gotten.
Explain to me any meaningful way in which ny4 was superior to os/2.
os/2 separated the gui layer from the kernel layer. some would say this makes nt superior because it's faster, but from a 'right way to do things' os/2 did it the better way.
you'll also notice no gui in the linux kernel.

That was just a warm up. bring it on boy.

[#] Fri Feb 19 2010 13:57:14 EST from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I think star trek has a history of taking real technical babble and using it (in meaningless ways) in the shows.

[#] Fri Feb 19 2010 14:44:28 EST from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Transparent aluminium is transient.

[#] Fri Feb 19 2010 14:47:46 EST from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


I thought NT4 separated the two layers as well.

You perceive that they're mixed, though, because various gui-related function calls are found within the kernel.dll... which isn't really the kernel, per se, but something that seems to do many things that you'd want to do with a kernel (by making those calls to the kernel for you).

I can't speak as much about OS/2, although I always liked that OS better.
I just had to deal with NT-derived OSes far more, and learned a bit about it while working with some code related to device drivers for the OS.

[#] Fri Feb 19 2010 15:50:27 EST from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Maybe nt 4 was split and win2k they merged them, I remmber there being a big hubub about putting the gui in the kernel process space or something like that.

[#] Fri Feb 19 2010 16:02:02 EST from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


And I could be missing something. I just don't recall that there was muc hof anything GUI-related in the kernel for NT-derived OSes (Win9x, maybe, but not NT-derived). I'd have to do some digging, and I'm not sure I have all the books I had before related to that area of the OS.

[#] Fri Feb 19 2010 19:36:09 EST from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


nah, NT4 made it worse. Back in NT 3/3.51 days, the GUI layer was in userland. They went and put the whole stack from driver through GDI in the kernel for NT4 if I'm not mistaken. This persisted until XP. Vista finally took it back out when they figured out how to do it with something approaching the performance they were looking for.

[#] Sun Feb 21 2010 17:29:13 EST from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

nah, NT4 made it worse. Back in NT 3/3.51 days, the GUI layer was in

userland. They went and put the whole stack from driver through GDI in


Yeah, that's what it was 3.51 was the good one and it went all downhill from there.

[#] Sun Feb 21 2010 17:35:51 EST from dothebart @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

the eff says, even without cookies your browser is next to uniq:

https://panopticlick.eff.org/index.php

check it out...



Go to page: First ... 54 55 56 57 [58] 59 60 61 62 ... Last