On 2/18/07, Tom Buskey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2/17/07, Jeffry Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> And don't forget that real Engineers (Professional Engineers) sign
> their work and take responsibility for failures (reputation, money,
> etc).
Not all real engineers need a PE.
In some
On 2/17/07, Jeffry Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And don't forget that real Engineers (Professional Engineers) sign
their work and take responsibility for failures (reputation, money,
etc).
Not all real engineers need a PE.
Civil Engineers do.
Some Mechanical Engineers do.
There's a pr
>
> And don't forget that real Engineers (Professional Engineers) sign
> their work and take responsibility for failures (reputation, money,
> etc).
>
> jeff
In the case of FOSS, so do programmers (well, their reputation at
least)
And it is interesting that in study after study, whether en
On 2/17/07, Jon 'maddog' Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, 2007-02-17 at 02:43 -0500, Bill McGonigle wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2007, at 01:22, Nigel Stewart wrote:
>
> > The Engineers I've worked with tend towards the
> > "just make it work" philosophy. Interpret the
> > spec as narr
On Sat, 2007-02-17 at 02:43 -0500, Bill McGonigle wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2007, at 01:22, Nigel Stewart wrote:
>
> > The Engineers I've worked with tend towards the
> > "just make it work" philosophy. Interpret the
> > spec as narrowly and specifically as possible,
> > and rely on nob
On Feb 17, 2007, at 01:22, Nigel Stewart wrote:
The Engineers I've worked with tend towards the
"just make it work" philosophy. Interpret the
spec as narrowly and specifically as possible,
and rely on nobody being rude enough to point out
the unhandled ca
The reason why we find ourselves in this mess is because we treat
programming as a task (or, some would even say, an "art") instead of
what it actually is: engineering.
And the choir will now sing back the chorus... ;-)
The Engineers I've worked with tend towards the
"just
On 2/15/07, Kevin D. Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The reason why we find ourselves in this mess is because we treat
programming as a task (or, some would even say, an "art") instead of
what it actually is: engineering.
And the choir will now sing back the chorus... ;-)
-- Ben
__
Ben Scott writes:
> Then there's the fact that every moron programmer in the world (and
> there are legions of moron programmers) assume integers and pointers
> are 32-bits, and their code breaks horribly if recompiled for a 64-bit
> architecture. So even if you have source, it's not just a ma
>
> Binary: My understanding is that a 32-bit binary can be run under a
> 64-bit kernel, but you need a 32-bit environment to do so. So any
> libraries the binary depends on also need to be built (for x86-32) and
> installed in parallel with their x86-64 counterparts. I could be
> wrong on th
> Binary: My understanding is that a 32-bit binary can be run under
> a 64-bit kernel, but you need a 32-bit environment to do so.
> So any libraries the binary depends on also need to be built (for
> x86-32) and installed in parallel with their x86-64 counterparts.
> I could be wrong on this; I
Binary: My understanding is that a 32-bit binary can be run under a
64-bit kernel, but you need a 32-bit environment to do so. So any
libraries the binary depends on also need to be built (for x86-32) and
installed in parallel with their x86-64 counterparts. I could be
wrong on this; I haven'
On 2/15/07, Bill McGonigle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* are there any gotchas with running 32-bit apps under a linux
that's native to x86-64?
Source or binary?
With source, well-written code just needs to be recompiled. Of
course, we all know that a lot, if not most, code is *NOT*
well-w
On 2/14/07, Paul Lussier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I find it mind-boggling that the Alpha came out what, 16-18 years ago
with 64 bit technology and it *still* hasn't caught on in the
mainstream. Why is that?
Well, AMD64 (64-bit address space only became available on
"mainstream" hardware a y
On Feb 14, 2007, at 22:22, Paul Lussier wrote:
I find it mind-boggling that the Alpha came out what, 16-18 years ago
with 64 bit technology and it *still* hasn't caught on in the
mainstream. Why is that?
I remember porting povray to the alpha back when they still called it
OSF/1, and it was
On 2/14/07, Paul Lussier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Ben Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm still running 32-bit everywhere, but from what I've read, it
> seems like the recommended solution is to use a 32-bit environment for
> web browsing. It's generally possible to do this in an oth
On Wed, 2007-02-14 at 22:22 -0500, Paul Lussier wrote:
> "Ben Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I'm still running 32-bit everywhere, but from what I've read, it
> > seems like the recommended solution is to use a 32-bit environment for
> > web browsing. It's generally possible to do this
"Ben Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm still running 32-bit everywhere, but from what I've read, it
> seems like the recommended solution is to use a 32-bit environment for
> web browsing. It's generally possible to do this in an otherwise
> 64-bit environment. The details and difficult
18 matches
Mail list logo
