Consider it a pull request
I think callsyfing it as racist is fair, isn't "mon" slang from Jamaica, a nation in which 59%[1] have mixed ancestry?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaica
In 30 years of working in electronics and software, I have never been sent on an interview, or even contacted by an employer, through any recruiter, despite getting weekly calls from them all these years and rising through the ranks of these industries in medium sized companies.
"Adobe on Wednesday said it will no longer push its Flash software format for use in the browser programs that come with smartphones and tablet computers. Instead, Adobe will increase its support for HTML5, a collection of technologies backed by Apple and others such as Google Inc. and Microsoft Corp."
"Adobe continues to actively invest in enabling developers to create and deploy Flash based content as mobile (and desktop) applications via Adobe AIR."
Never, EVER use a Microsoft browser as a reference for how things should work!
As far as Adobe is concerned, they stopped development of Flash on mobile and recommends switching to HTML5 video/audio so don't think Adobe is still head over heels about Flash.
This is not about how things should work, this is about how things are going to actually work for a number of desktop / laptop users, with Chrome and a Microsoft-supplied browser being the two top choices.
Edge is IE12. They forked the Trident engine to remove all the legacy stuff. Otherwise, everything else is the same and gets the same new stuff that IE12 would have. No different.
Hmm. As an assembly language programmer, electronic engineer, who was forced into learning this new "high level language" by our MIT educated boss, decades ago, I can assure you that we were neither beginners nor students as we created the product most likely used on you and yours in hospitals everywhere.
That's actually ad-hoc cargo-cult, not a scientific assesment.
If a programmer uses a language poorly it can be the programmer but in a lot of cases it can also be the language, that has poorly thought out, conflicting, etc constructs.
There is a field called PL research (part of Computer Science) and researchers can all agree on several problems that C (and what would have been a better design).
Some of the problems are so obvious that the creators of C admitted them too. Some have been corrected in later revisions (C99 etc).
To blame your tool when you don't use it correctly is a typical fallacy found on forums everywhere. You blame the car for your accident, your parents for being in jail, the hammer for breaking your thumb.
I can actually blame my car for an accident if it didn't respond to my brake press. The hammer can be blamed if the head flew off mid-swing striking my finger instead of the nail.
The tool can be the source of your issue if its not made correctly.
That's the thing: going beyond what the parent commentor said, tools that "work as advertised" can still be bad.
"Pure wire-mesh electric blanket -- no insulation whatsoever! Only $20 dollars. Will raise the heat with sparks of electricity, plug directly into your 110v outlets!".
Sure, works as advertised. But it's ill concived and will fry anybody trying to use it, either because he wants to or because he is forced to (by his boss or needing to deal with legacy code in the case of a programmer).
The example is contrived to showcase the point, but the gist is: "works as advertised" doesn't mean much with regards to quality or well thought-out architecture.
Is the certification from "The Open Group" relevant to anyone?
OS X 10.10 ships with a version of bash from 2007. Without something like homebrew or macports to install an updated userland the "Unix" core of OS X is rotting away.
It just means that the operating system ships with the properly-licensed UNIX software binaries and libraries, rather than the GNU free software replacements for said software. If you look in the man pages for any shell command OS X ships with, you'll see it's from the "BSD General Commands Manual". On Linux systems, this originates from GNU. Your example of bash is actually not part of that distribution, it's something additional OS X ships with just for userland purposes. I suppose the point of being a "certified UNIX distribution" is just so they can put the trademark on their website because it looks pretty.
One interesting way to look at this. The first commit from freebsd for ls.c is:
Added Thu May 26 06:18:55 1994 UTC (21 years, 2 months ago) by rgrimes
Original Path: vendor/CSRG/dist/bin/ls/ls.c
File length: 13099 byte(s)
BSD 4.4 Lite bin Sources
The last commit apple has is:
Modified Fri Jun 3 11:05:58 2005 UTC (10 years, 2 months ago) by dd
So apples version is almost closer in time to the original 4.4 sources as to the current version.
string `which ls`|grep src shows cvs strings. FreeBSD switched over to svn a long time ago and cvs id strings are not updated anymore. But svn log ls.c on the head branch shows the last change was on 20-July-2015.
In any case, why keep fiddling with the source code if the program does what it is intended to do?
Here's a good example. Came up just the other day.
$ du -hs big.log;time cat big.log > /dev/null
199M big.log
real 0m0.045s
user 0m0.002s
sys 0m0.043s
$ time gtr a b < big.log > /dev/null
real 0m0.334s
user 0m0.182s
sys 0m0.142s
$ time tr a b < big.log > /dev/null
real 0m33.105s
user 0m31.757s
sys 0m0.488s
$
I don't have a freebsd machine around to see if it's just apples tr that is broken.
I'm sure it's related to unicode bullshit, but the usual env var tricks don't seem to help.
UNIX is a spec. The point of being a "certified UNIX" is that the system conforms to SUS/POSIX and software developed targeting those specifications and their API are expected to run.
One might question the usefulness of SUS/POSIX in a world where most of the *nix ecosystem targets GNU, but saying it has no purpose beyond advertising is disingenuous.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Do you think these tests were created and maintained for free? Do you think the certification process happens on its own? Do you think there is no value in the whole Unix standard is stagnant, none-changing, and never reviewed or updated? And it all happens without cost? Do you think no one pays any attention to that?
Don't really understand your reply. Linux and GNU and {free,net,open}bsd are created and maintained "for free". Can things only have value if they cost money?
Is the unix certification only for large companies who can afford to throw money at the open group in order to get certified?
According to the wikipedia page:
> By decree of The Open Group, the term "UNIX" refers more to a class of operating systems than to a specific implementation of an operating system; those operating systems which meet The Open Group's Single UNIX Specification should be able to bear the UNIX 98 or UNIX 03 trademarks today, after the operating system's vendor pays a substantial certification fee and annual trademark royalties
Right.. Please tell me how this is not a meaningless certification?
FreeBSD is more unix than OS X, and would likely have no problems running the test suite, but is not certified as "real unix" because that certification is about money.
I used to use some solaris boxes, that was always painful.
I knew some sysadmins liked it. There definitely was a mindset of some admins that solaris boxes were great. You did a full install of solaris that took up like 8G of disk space. Then you installed oracle. Then you never touched the machine again. As long as you never actually needed to use the machine for anything, solaris was great.
Solid kernel.. terrible userland. Still some very smart people working on zfs/dtrace/kvm, will be intersting to see what the next few years bring.
EDIT: See what I mean?