 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> > (Or perhaps you are just evil and do that on purpose, and when someone
> > starts defending it you point out that you weren't really attacking the
> > current Solaris, but just a 10yo one...)
> Um, no. I wasn't bashing Solaris at all. I was pointing out that (1)
> yes, it's been on Intel chips at least 10 years, (2) I tried it, and (3)
> still remember how surprised I was that Sun supported Java better on the
> competitor's OS than their own.
Hmm, was that a demonstration of how you would have responded if someone
had claimed you are bashing Solaris?
> I think you read way more "bashing" into most of my statements at this
> point than I intend. It's merely conversation.
Maybe you should reread what I wrote?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> In fact, you know what? I challenge you to find a Google search term
>> that finds my blog. :-P
>
> "Orphi". You're #5 on the list.
>
> Or, if I do "Orphi blog", then you're #1 :)
That's astonishing... My name actually ranks that high in Google?
Anybody would think I'd been out link-spamming or something...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> You know, if you want people to read your Haskell raves, you probably
> shouldn't respond this way to other people's interests...
I just find it puzzling, that's all.
I mean, if the POV-Ray team released a brand new version of POV-Ray that
was exactly like the old one but up to 3% faster in certain cases...
would anybody care? No, not really. Yet the Linux kernel apparently
generates this much interest? I find that strange.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I mean, if the POV-Ray team released a brand new version of POV-Ray that
> was exactly like the old one but up to 3% faster in certain cases...
> would anybody care? No, not really. Yet the Linux kernel apparently
> generates this much interest? I find that strange.
If you discover a new fancy way of using gonads or whatever, why should
we care? ;)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> If you discover a new fancy way of using gonads or whatever, why should
> we care? ;)
One might retort that it allows me to build a full expression parser in
less than a dozen LoC, but yeah, realistically, who cares about that? I
should just go kill myself now...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> If you discover a new fancy way of using gonads or whatever, why should
>> we care? ;)
>
> One might retort that it allows me to build a full expression parser in
> less than a dozen LoC,
Well I'm equally sure that 2.5.75.11 or whatever it was will allow some
people to do some new stuff. Otherwise it wouldn't be an update.
Just because most people don't know the details about gonads work with rear
end recursion, and you (and I) don't know the details about the
2.75.11.5.157 linux update, it doesn't mean it's not useful at all.
> but yeah, realistically, who cares about that? I should just go kill
> myself now...
What, just because you are doing something that not many others are
interested in? I'm not interested in the details of what you are doing with
Haskell, but once I understood what your logic program was doing (or rather,
what it is easily capable of doing) I was quite impressed.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> If you discover a new fancy way of using gonads or whatever, why should
> we care? ;)
>
Because, unlike Haskell or the Linux Kernel or POV-Ray, that really
would apply to most people.
And could either be considerably fun, or horrifically painful.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> For some reason OpenSuse has the policy that they never upgrade the
>> kernel (nor gcc) of a given distro to the newest version.
>
> I've not found that to be the case. My OpenSuse machines at work have
> three different kernels, depending on when I upgraded them.
I take that back. There are three different kernels, but the differences
are all in security patches. I don't know what I was thinking. I'll
blame it on the whiskey or something. ;-)
And it's not a bad thing, btw. We have 3rd party code that needs a
specific compiler, and other 3rd party device drivers that link against
the kernel. Stability in the basic infrastructure can be a good thing.
(Sadly, the compiler version the 3rd-party code needs isn't the compiler
that comes with the SuSE we're using, so that kind of sucks, but ...)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> If you discover a new fancy way of using gonads or whatever,
That's the giggle of the morning, I think. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Maybe you should reread what I wrote?
Have you stopped beating your wife?
You're not the only person I'm responding to here.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
