The Lounge is rated Safe For Work. If you're about to post something inappropriate for a shared office environment, then don't post it. No ads, no abuse, and no programming questions. Trolling, (political, climate, religious or whatever) will result in your account being removed.
That won't work in the US because of their Monty-Pythonesque pronunciation of "buoy" (which makes me chuckle every time I hear it -- especially when it issues forth from the mouths of uniformed-up, important-looking naval ship captains).
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
I'm printing in PETG now (ABS was a PITA) for a specific project: And printing in PETG[^] shows the piccy.
And I have an A2 sheet of clear PETG arriving today, Royal Mail permitting.
It's slow, but it's working, I think - I won't know until I get to try it properly as this is teh first "usable" print - bed adhesion problems mostly.
It's not my design, but it's open for non-commercial use: PrusaPrinters[^] - they will allow you to charge for materials if you do supply them, but no profit.
The setup I'm using is PETG "Translucence Blue" 1.75mm, 220C head, 60C bed, 80mm/s print speed, fan 25%, with a Brim, sliced and USB printed from Ultimaker Cura 4.4.1, using unmodified STL files - POETG is pretty finicky about fans, it might benefit from slightly less, and I'd like to reduce the stringing, but I can live with it if it saves a day of playing and gets prints out. I might reduce the head temperature 5C and see how it goes, but (assuming Anycubic are at all accurate) I'm at the bottom end of the filament manufacturers recommended print temperature as it is.
Takes about three hours per frame, and needs to be watched as the stringy bits can gather into a blob of snot and catch the head as it goes round. (Hence why it's unboxed, I need access to the print to clear blobs quickly.)
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
One of the main advantages of C# and Java is their use of a virtual machine. It abstracts the dependency on the underlying hardware. But dont containers also do that by allowing us to have whatever OS we want independent of the underlying operating system OS ? So why do we continue to use VMS in a world of containers ? And if the use of VMS goes , does that mean the writing is on the walls for languages that use them, such as C# and Java, or will we simply see a move away from the vm and revert to having the code more tightly coupled to the underlying OS ?
If "abstracting the dependency on the underlying hardware" is the criterium for a VM, then PDF readers are VMs, and even some word processors -- in fact, it could be said that anything that transports commands to OS peripheral interfaces is a VM.
For me, being in a purist mood, a VM has to effectively sidestep the underlying OS of the computer, by running files on a different OS on top of the underlying OS.
Do C# and Java do this? Not so far as I know, they don't; they may abstract things a tiny bit further than a PDF reader does, but it's still only abstraction.
They are programs that allow you to open, run, and use certain files.
Notepad does that much, for Heaven's sake!
So stop calling spades shovels, and the "problem" highlighted by the article disappears.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
That doesn't make any sense, they're completely different things.
Both containers and VMs can run C# and Java applications, but not vice versa.
C# ad Java can be used to create new applications, while VMs and containers, well, can't because they're very different things.
VMs can be used for work computers, servers, sandboxes, etc. and give you a complete OS on top of your OS.
Containers just run a piece of (non-UI) software on the existing OS.
If you really have to ask this I suggest you do some reading on the topics.
Well, JVM/dotNET do virtualize some aspects - they are virtualization techniques. You can say the same about a lot of computer concepts: Any compiler virtualizes the instruction set of the CPU. A file system driver creates virtual storage unit where you don't have to handle sectors and track and surfaces. And so on.
I see a lot of computer people that seem to think that virtualization is one specific thing: Creating a complete virtual hardware CPU / memory / IO environment. If you don't provide all of that Hyper-V or VMware provides, it is not virtualization. If you provide something not found in Hyper-V/VMware, then it it has nothing to do with virtualization.
I beg to differ. Virtualization can cover an arbitrary set of virtualized aspects. Bytecodes is one aspect. Memory paging is another. File system drivers is a third. Yes, you are right that containers can run C# applications but not vice versa. You could say something similar: A file system driver can be realized in byte code but a byte code interpreter cannot be realized by a file system driver, so they are completely different things. Yet both are virtualizations.
I have been arguing with Docker gurus who consistently insist that containers are NOT virtualization! But Docker does create virtual networks, a virtual address space, virtual disks... It is not the entire set of VMware virtualizations, but ... No, Docker gurus insist that Docker is lightweight, efficient, nothing like resource hogs like VMware/Hyper-V! Whatever Docker does must be called something else - even if it is exactly the same as virtualization.
So even people who are working with such issues more or less full time do not have a comprehensive understanding of what virtualization is in a more general sense, but stick to specific instances of it. It should come as no surprise that a less experienced fellow have problems keeping things straight