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.
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant Anonymous - The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine Winston Churchill, 1944 - Never argue with a fool. Onlookers may not be able to tell the difference. Mark Twain
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!
Of course they do it , the code is compiled to intermediate language in .net and that is executed in the runtime virtual machine. It is this virtual machine that may be impacted in the case of code running in containers since the software environment is now controlled. The hardware isnt, but the software is .
In that case are the benifits of using the runtime virtual machine as compelling . Of course not all code runs in containers, and it never will, but in the case of containers are there any advantages that can be gained by having control over the software enviornment? Potentially do we need the VM in its current form (in containerised apps) .
If we dont ( and I am not saying we dont I am mulling over the question) but if we dont need the VM then isnt that a bit of a kick in the teeth for languages that use a VM such as c#,vb.net, java, python etc. Will we see an emergence of a language more suited to containerised apps?
the code is compiled to intermediate language in .net and that is executed in the runtime virtual machine. It is this virtual machine that may be impacted in the case of code running in containers since the software environment is now controlled. The hardware isnt, but the software is .
I'd call that a sandbox.
To me, a VM has to allow the hardware and peripherals to be governed by a different OS (or another instance of the same OS).
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
In all honesty many people replying have been banging on about VMS (or VMs for the pedants) as if I was talking about the traditional virtual server. I'm not, I am talking about the run time virtual machines integral to program execution in many languages. Not really a sandbox , they are referred to by the term virtual machine , hence the confusion. My bad for not being clearer.