Oh, right. execve replaces the existing process with the invoked one, so I'm not sure that use case makes sense. Usually execve is used with fork, too.
If you're concerned with Windows portability, mmap(2) is a bigger problem. Otherwise, not sure why you're asking...?
Sometimes I don't want to fork, e.g., if there's nothing waiting for input, e.g., the last program in a pipe.
prog |prog |exec prog
The usual way to do this is to put it in a shell script, then run the shell script. Though it would be nice in some instances, you can't run exec from a shell prompt or you'll exit the shell. I was thinking that if I'm in the kona console, executed from a parent shell, then I could type exec from the console and run programs without forking, because it's not going to cause kona to exit. Wishful thinking.
To stop forking, you would have to add an option to call execve() instead of system() in the kona source.
Has anyone read the motion (available from an economist.com server)? This what the Rolling Stone article is based on.
Is the issue whether and how GS makes money from the practice of naked short selling? Maybe the issue is that feeding the market with info about short sales that are never actually cleared (but which the market assumes will be cleared), can destroy the value of a company's stock.
Obviously if you can sell something without ever having to own or deliver it (is that really a sale?), you can do a lot of selling; and you can exert considerable influence on the market for a stock.
Maybe what happened here is a company, Overstock, believes they got screwed by naked short selling.
I need to read the motion to get a better idea of what happened.
Mirror replies: That's a tough question, Nathan, because you just keep creating new ones. No single company can accumulate that much hate and they can't be easily linked to a single source. Disperse the hate. I must admit, you are one clever guy.
There are already some very good stub resolvers and resolver libraries available to users (e.g. dnsqr and the djbdns library). I have a hard time believing Google is going to do better than djb.
Of course I have no problem with them or anyone else writing another one. Have at it. The more attention brought to name resolution the better -- because it can be so easily abused for questionable purposes, it is something that deserves user oversight.
But why does Google need to place theirs _inside the browser_? That is a very curious design decision.
The original comment in this thread seems to have been deleted, so I can't tell what was said. The primary reasons for implementing our own DNS resolver include:
* Being able to fully instrument it. As the article mentions, we have internal debugging pages like about:net-internals, which rely on this instrumentation.
* Being able to run experiments. Google Chrome releases often run A/B experiments to play around with different configurations to see which has better performance and what not. This is harder to do with a 3rd party library.
As Ilya notes, a fuller discussion can be found at the G+ post's comments section.
Note: I'm a Chromium developer on our network stack. I'm also the author of the G+ post linked to in the article.
I hypothesize their reason would be because they want to turn chrome more into a full os (chrome os/chromebook), and bring more things in house. I also recall something about some resolvers having through when ipv6 is enabled but not actually functional. Possibly they are trying to make such things a bit more seamless.
I, currently at least, would still prefer that the os handle name resolution.
The blog at miek.nl says that Go had a DNS library written in Go in the provided samples for a while, then they removed it.
It would be interesting to know why.
Interesting to read the comments. They should just rewrite the C resolver library for UNIX. Let's face it, the Plan 9^W^WGo team would probably produce a more elegant result than what we're using now, which has had its share of bugs over the years.
Perhaps we could draw it as the difference between "would pay" and "paid".
You can put a price on something, but until someone has paid it, it seems difficult to argue that the thing is "worth" your price... to anyone. But people routinely argue this, and others believe them.
But that is what the stock market is: A constant and immediate recalculation of worth.
To take another example: Facebook obviously, at the time of IPO, was not worth what it sellers hoped it would be. At some point in the future it will be worth much more than it is today, and at some other point it will be worth nothing. Today, the agreed worth/value of one FB share is $27.
Anything that cannot boot from USB, SD card, or some externally connected media, should be approached with caution.
If you can boot from external media, then generally you can dual boot. Someone may have to show you how to prepare media for booting, but it's quite easy once you have been shown. Today's PC's all seem to have good support for booting from external media. Are we going to see this removed in ARM devices?
You do not have to shop for devices that have an "open" bootloader. You have to shop for devices that can boot from external media. (For today's PC's, that's quite easy.) If you have a device that can boot from external media, we can show how to do the rest.
Did you read the article? He talks about how he got his goldman job as a result of a series of events that started with him happening to be sat next to the wife of a goldman employee.
Yes, I did read Liars Poker. I think its kinda funny that you question whether I am qualified to comment on his career, but a little bit of research shows he worked at goldman for awhile, wrote the book and has been a writer ever since. In other words, his success is clearly in writing.
It's really hard to avoid the perception that you haven't read the article, or the book, or done the little bit of research you're referring to, since Michael Lewis never worked at Goldman; not only did he never work at Goldman, but the whole last part of Liar's Poker is about the famous and epic collapse of the firm he did work for, and about him leaving finance after the collapse occurred.
Its really hard to comment on Hacker News without getting a reply from you where dishonestly exaggerate what I have said to try and impunge me. (which is, frankly, ad hominem)
The fact of the matter is that "Goldman" had replaced "Soloman" in my head in the intervening years and so I typed the wrong thing.
I think its hilarious that you guys are trying to shut me up and attack me because it is such a plain admission that you cannot actually make a counter argument, and thus you must evade and engage in the standard issue ad hominem and censorship approach. Hilarious and sad.
"This isn't just false humility. It's false humility with a point."
This is why I like Lewis' writing. Liar's Poker had a huge influence on me at an influential age.
There's always a sense that he's playing the same game that he's writing about. And not in a George Plimpton sense. But he's often got a message to deliver that other players will not touch. The message always seems worth hearing.
I interpret his reference to the Berkeley study as not one that explains "luck", but of one that explains how life is role-based. People take roles and play them, as if "all the world's a stage". It is. We are all willing to go along either as the audience or in our appointed roles. What I think Lewis means to say is that the assignment of roles, the "casting" if you will, is often arbitrary.
I only wish Lewis had made this longer. There is so much more to say. Not only do people not like success explained as "luck" but they insist on success being attributed to "brilliance", "genius", "hard work", etc. In this case, when the cause of an effect is not clear, we are very quick to find one that suits our purposes.
Re: making it longer. I think it was pretty much spot on in terms of length. This is a speech at graduation/commencement, nobody wants to hear someone yammer on and on and on. He had a point, which he illustrated with 3 concise examples (Liar's Poker, Moneyball, the Berkeley study). He could elaborate, certainly, but I don't think this was the forum for it. Maybe he'll find a venue in which to elaborate at some other time, but I think this pretty much perfect.
You are right, of course. Perhaps I momentarily forgot the context. I am reading his words on HN, not listening to them at a commencement. Big difference.
I confess I have not read Moneyball. I mistook it as the work of a baseball fan and not a metaphor for something more than an appreciation for baseball. My mistake.
Similarly I've long noticed a connection between brevity and stature. In speech, writing and behavior. With sales by the way it's always important to get your ass out of dodge after getting agreement from the customer, lest they change their mind.
I use it as my shell.