gribbly

19 ms·

121.
by gribbly 10y ago
Yeah I agree that Mort Drucker was fantastic, I also had a fondness for the more wacky style of Jack Davies and extremely wacky style of Don Martin, oh and Sergio Aragones, damn they had so many great artists on that magazine.
122.
by gribbly 10y ago
Va ? Läste du inte svenska MAD, skam! ;D Joking aside, the C64 game (the first one) captured the comic strip very well in my opinon.
123.
by gribbly 10y ago
Well, Go has a 1.7 release coming up very soon which has a nice performance boost due to the new SSA backend, I assume this test was done using Go 1.6 .
124.
by gribbly 10y ago
This is the Microsoft which ran a two year 'Scroogled' campaign. The old adage, 'never pay any attention to what companies say, only what they do', is as true as ever.
125.
by gribbly 10y ago
I assume he'd want it to be lossless, as is the case with Lepton.
126.
by gribbly 10y ago
I figured the wide use of goroutines would be the cause for different choices in Go's GC compared to other GC's for languagues not sharing that characteristic. From what I understand, the upcoming transactional collector is writte
127.
by gribbly 10y ago
>Not according to the transactional collector proposal. That's hardly the end all of Go GC development, also as I understand it's not even certain it will be used in a Go release as it depends on it actually showing the benefit
128.
by gribbly 10y ago
>That's why you don't do it often. You need to do it when you become too fragmented (or suffer the same potentially poor allocation performance as Go), how often that happens largely depends on what the application is doing. &g
129.
by gribbly 10y ago
On the other hand, compaction is itself an extremely expensive operation as it means moving the blocks of memory (allocations) around in the heap. Do you know of any real-world examples where the lack of compaction is impacting usage of Go
130.
by gribbly 10y ago
A bit off topic, but I was excited about that lossless jpeg (re)compressor you guys had developed, is there a chance it will be open sourced ?
131.
by gribbly 10y ago
>How can Apple be shipping it (?) when LLVM is an open source project and it's not in the SVN head yet? Apple ships their own proprietary forked version of Clang+LLVM, this is for example how they implemented Swift, which was made o
132.
by gribbly 10y ago
It's tested against a wide range of other compressors in this thread: http://encode.ru/threads/2221-LZFSE-New-Apple-Data-Compressi... The results are kind of underwhelming.
133.
by gribbly 10y ago
Same here, love the look. Some of those generated ships gave me serious 'Event Horizon' vibes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiE-NB-kxh8
134.
by gribbly 10y ago
>This is about blatant theft of a technology they were introduced to under a written agreement of confidentiality. Claims 'Space Data Corporation', let's not portray their statements as facts until there is evidence to bac
135.
by gribbly 10y ago
They are legally bound to contribute their modifications back to Linux (if they distribute them), it may be a different matter when they don't have to. I can't say I know either way, however I do recall their Tizen SDK licensing n
136.
by gribbly 10y ago
Well, in the case of Linux they are legally bound to provide the source code to any modifications they ship in binary form to a third party due to the GPL, I don't know what their track record is when they don't have to release th
137.
by gribbly 10y ago
So, according to this article, Apple was making a deal with Sun to use ZFS, and later finally dropped it after an alleged discussion between Steve Jobs and Larry Ellison when Oracle owned it. My question is why did Apple think they needed t
138.
by gribbly 10y ago
>This is a dichotomy that does not exist in practice. It's the same people "upstream" as "downstream". I believe that's nonsense. Out of all the software being packaged in all the distros out there, I would
139.
by gribbly 10y ago
>Upstream as in it's included in the distribution but not primarily developed there. Your claim was that most of the BSD's was from a shared upstream, with a few patches, and then listed things like OpenZFS and DTrace as exampl
140.
by gribbly 10y ago
>Not everything but there is OpenZFS, similiar for DTrace, e.g. DNS is unbound that is included, same for OpenSSL and stuff like that. Eeh ? OpenZFS is not a BSD upstream project in any way shape or form, heck it did not even originate i
141.
by gribbly 10y ago
>But mostly it's taken from a shared upstream with some specific patches. Is it, that's not the impression I've gotten of the BSD's development, where is this shared upstream located ? >Source lying in the same git
142.
by gribbly 10y ago
Makes no sense to me at all, what systemd does brings the Linux ecosystem closer to what FreeBSD offers, a standardization of base components, which is what FreeBSD (and of course the other BSD's) are doing, but on a whole OS level. So