rockdoe

53 ms·

571.
by rockdoe 12y ago
Oops, you're right. But the way I read the report, even having other systems with local copies would've gotten data loss, because it would have removed those local copies as well (which was not the idea when enabling selective s
572.
by rockdoe 12y ago
because in the end, it doesnt turn out better. <citation needed> So what's an administrator to do in that situation? Take the "best" bid, see the project go over time, see the contract and specification disputes start
573.
by rockdoe 12y ago
A comparable bug would be that when the server goes away (Dropbox closes), the client starts deleting all local files.
574.
by rockdoe 12y ago
No, it's "you shouldn't trust one single thing with your data" Which is why he has local copies on several systems and the copy in the cloud with Dropbox. The nasty thing here is that Dropbox effectively deleted the &q
575.
by rockdoe 12y ago
Chromium in debian is extensively patched. It disables third party cookies, for example. That said, I couldn't find a real trademark policy page for Chromium. If it's the generic Google one: http://www.google.com/p
576.
by rockdoe 12y ago
That's skipping a few steps :) Debian patched out some artwork because it didn't follow their license requirements, and the patches to remove the artwork ended up violating the trademark license. The trademark owner then did what
577.
by rockdoe 12y ago
Apparently it's currently no longer needed, but making sure and dealing with the legalities is a sufficient drag that it's easier to live with the renaming: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=555935
578.
by rockdoe 12y ago
Now consider the situation that the government official knows your company can deliver on time and in budget, with little fuss, and your competitors are known to underbid, over-promise, deliver very late or never and discuss endlessly over
579.
by rockdoe 12y ago
They already do? There's a switch in the preferences.
580.
by rockdoe 12y ago
There's already a switch in the preferences.
581.
by rockdoe 12y ago
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Features/Application_Reput... * 47% improvement in malware detection with the current implementation * 87% improvement in malware detection possible when the feature is complete I
582.
by rockdoe 12y ago
The quoted docs actually say that the remote lookup feature isn't even in Firefox 31.
583.
by rockdoe 12y ago
It's in the documentation: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Features/Application_Reput... 1) Check local blacklist 2) Check local whitelist 3) If no hits on either, check remote service
584.
by rockdoe 12y ago
Did you file a bug?
585.
by rockdoe 12y ago
That feature hasn't been implemented: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=775104 Note the "we haven't seen any demand for this in our feedback channels".
586.
by rockdoe 12y ago
"Firefox is already running" just means it failed to shut down. Any number of things (including malware and bad plugins) can cause it. I think you're referring to a specific bug that caused more regular users to see the warni
587.
by rockdoe 12y ago
Given that people have written add-ons to do just that, there's no need to even make patches for it.
588.
by rockdoe 12y ago
Does that even work for memory usage by native code?
589.
by rockdoe 12y ago
Wouldn't the background JIT thread possibly cause some of Android's notorious stuttering in the UI? No? Why would it? Unless it's a single-core device with bad scheduling and prioritization, that makes no sense.
590.
by rockdoe 12y ago
In practice, it seems to be very hard to do significantly better than just running it through a good compiler once. Why aren't the other Java runtimes doing it, then?
591.
by rockdoe 12y ago
What is the difference between AOT and sufficiently aggressive JIT caching? AoT doesn't adapt to changing program profiles.
592.
by rockdoe 12y ago
Up until that time things are interpreted and thus slower. That's true - but not specific to mobile. For servers there is more leeway in terms of available memory and CPU power but on mobile you can only optimize so much without slo
593.
by rockdoe 12y ago
That's not really an advantage of AoT over JIT+interpreter, is it? AoT requires compiling at first run, the JIT can just use the interpreter (and preferably compile in the background).
594.
by rockdoe 12y ago
Arguments please. The post you are responding to already rebuffs this.
595.
by rockdoe 12y ago
If you cache jit code it loses it live data benefit for the most part As pointed out elsewhere: that's just not true.
596.
by rockdoe 12y ago
If you cache everything, you're just doing AoT compilation. Not at all. That's a false dichotomy. You can restore the past JIT-ed code from the cache and do new profile directed optimizations. Java JITs already do this, just not
597.
by rockdoe 12y ago
But why not just cache the JITed code? There's third party JIT runtimes that do it (Excelsior JET) and it's planned in the official Java 8 runtime. Caching first-run still gives you the ability to do more/new profiled-based o
598.
by rockdoe 12y ago
What advantage does AoT have over JIT in terms of power? Recompiling is a non-issue, if you can cache AoT code you can cache JIT code. Not to mention, faster code uses less battery.
599.
Ask HN: Why is Android moving to AOT Java compilation?
27 points by rockdoe 12y ago|55 comments
600.
by rockdoe 12y ago
It's interesting that x86 only seems to have TLB tagging for VM guest/host switching usage. Regular context switches require TLB flushing, which (reading the Linux kernel) either flush the entire TLB or a specific set of entries.

More ›