The Australian National University teaches a course in Snap aimed at non computer science majors.
Whilst I was originally skeptical of the language and thought it might be "babyish" I was pleasantly surprised to see how expressive it was. Most of the labs use a javascript-y like object model behind the scenes and provide useful functional programming primitives (map/fold/etc <3).
The response from the students thus far has been pretty great. Some of them are looking into taking more programming courses as part of their degrees; often very separate from computer science. I'm not sure if we would have gotten this result chucking them straight into a CS101 course.
There's perhaps the risk of it becoming the major anchor in the web of trust. That said, you're probably right with respect to the other keyservers being no better.
Precisely why they should be adopting Google's End-to-End system. Yahoo is already supporting it. Also it would be better if everyone went with the same (solid) standard than doing their own thing.
Didn't Level3 recently have Net-Neutrality issues with Verizon? While I think that botnets are a serious issue for internet security, I don't see how carriers have the authority or mandate to engage in selective traffic filtering without it contravening their support for NN.
If ICANN or the RIR's (APNIC, RIPE) were vested with the power and responsibility of maintaining botnet-blacklists then that might be better? I just don't think there's any legitimacy in carriers taking on this role.
"For another, conventional wisdom holds that reference counting and "pure garbage collection" (his term for mark and sweep) are roughly equivalent performance-wise, but the performance impact wouldn't be known until after the change was made, which might make it a hard sell."
AFAIK there exists RC GC's which are performance equivalent to MarkSweep, but these aren't super common out of academia? What is the state of GC performance in python currently?
"and more about MS abusing its market position and a massive failure to regulate." thats a pretty vague statement.
IMO its simply the fact that Windows/OSX have set a high bar of out-of-the-box usability and shine that GNU/Linux simply hasn't reached. Not that this is a bad thing, it just might be worth accepting that we can't compete on desktop.
Back during the netbook froth, they put XP on life support using a highly focused license that ended up defining what a netbook was (in essence a small, underpowered, laptop).
This while the early netbooks from Asus and Acer ran Linux installs that can be likened to ChromeOS, with a UI somewhat like Windows 8 Metro.
What they did may very well be considered market position abuse.
Depends on how you look at it. Darwin is based on Mach with some monolithic BSD stuff linked in, I remember reading that Windows was fairly microkernelish but they've been pushing more things to kernel space.
Sounds like an interesting framework, my quick search didn't unearth any docs for it though? The only reference on Apples website is "we added this to 10.10"
> Hypervisor (Hypervisor.framework). The Hypervisor framework allows virtualization vendors to build virtualization solutions on top of OS X without needing to deploy third-party kernel extensions (KEXTs). Included is a lightweight hypervisor that enables virtualization of the host CPUs.
As with all Mac frameworks, the full headers are embedded in the framework and the headers all have full Javadoc-style API documentation for each function. Since there are only 24 functions in the whole framework, that's probably enough to work it out.
