If someone only gave me 2 minutes for this, because they think it is very simple (as always), I'd have done a count of files of a specific pattern in the directory and then picked a random index, very naive and quick and dirty programming, no sampling at all, just to avoid discussions why it takes so long with people who don't want to hear it.
This reminds me of when I did a lot of C#, Java, JS, Python in my life, filling maps of strings and objects until I started with zig and noticed how expensive and complicated strings and data structure allocations can be. It kind of blew my mind how much memory and computation we waste when we try to get stuff done as fast as possible because of budget/time constraints.
Its not like windows is the pinnacle of software craftsmanship.
Being tenured and one of the top engineers in your company with a very proven track record gives you quite a bit more freedom.
If it were the Windows 11 source, it'd get nuked immediately
Interestingly, when reading Raymond Chen's article I thought "reservoir sampling would compare the random number (between 1 and n) to 1, not to n, because that extends more easily to picking more than one element" - and that's what the actual Windows code uses.
On top of that, how often is it necessary to efficiently know the number of files in a directory while at the same time not caring about the files enough to list or display them? This algorithm is a special case where you could use the count of using a bit simpler code that ultimately would have the same file system API calls (since you cannot tell the FS to give you file #37 from that directory, so you'd have to use FindNextFile 37 times anyway, just like the sampling algorithm).
This is more-or-less unique to ZFS. Other file systems even on Linux and FreeBSD generally don't provide this behavior.
I don't understand Microsoft. These guys solve the most mundane problems with most elegant solutions and with sound edge-case handling scenarios, then they destroy all the effort with subpar programming where it matters and with user hostile behavior where they can't botch it.
Different teams with different goals and different management
Yep..
And image files were, and continue to be, a huge exploit attack vector
However, I still remember Wine laughing at Windows for WMF exploit and end up being affected from the same exploit. Now, that was a good laugh.
I get what you mean, but it's really hard for any organization this size to drive consistent quality across the board.
Just like the rest of us.
https://jakeludington.com/2003/12/17/create_your_own_windows...
To me Windows 95/NT 4 is still the gold standard in Windows UI. It's certainly not the prettiest, that would be Windows 2000, but it was easy to use, easy to navigate and efficient with space.
I had tons of "Visual Styles" back then and in the last XP days I opted for grayish Royal or Royale. It's such shame that MS has abandoned Watercolor theme - that was a middle ground: interface was updated and yet, still similar to classic design. And it was even in some elements flat before that style become a dominant. Luckily we're slowly moving away from that and I won't be missing it.
i kinda miss xp at a cultural level since it was a bit the end of that computing culture cycle (after that apple started to dominate and ubuiquitous computing influenced desktop ui)
When did Apple dominate? I'm not trying to hate on Apple here, but there's this weird belief that Apple have had a lead in personal computer OS market share at some point in the last few decades, and it isn't really true since about 1984.
You can argue that they should dominate, but that doesn't seem to have happened.
I eventually got used to it and ended up liking it.
For awhile I ran XP 64-bit though, that did do one thing 2000 couldn't do.
>During the Luna studies, that people’s reaction to Luna was often, “Wow this would be a great UI for X,” where X was “my dad” or “my employees” or “my daughter”. People didn’t look at it as the UI for themselves; rather, they thought it was a great UI for somebody else.
(Luna is the name of the default look of Windows XP)
Its Vista. Like it or hate it. It’s Vista
It's all been downhill from there as far as UX goes.
A simple rand/mod based on first character of username should be sufficient?
You still need to see all of the items once.
Imagine you have 2 items.
First one has 100% chance to be selected. So it does. Then the second has 50% chance to be selected. If it isn’t you effectively chosen the first one and have 50/50 chance to return either.
Now you add a third item. There is 50/50 chance of having either selected. And 1/3 chance of replacing the selection with the new one. Resulting in a 1/3 chance of selecting any of the three. (Because 1/2-1/6 = 1/3) 1/6 because there is 50% chance you will “steal” the selection.
If you are at picture 1, you have 100% chance of selecting it as the current winner.
If you are at picture 2, you have 1/2 chance of selecting it as the current winner, or 1/2 chance of keeping the previous fairly selected winner.
At picture 3, 1/3 chance of picking it, or 2/3 chance of retaining the previous fairly-selected winner. There are two of them, so 1/3 chance of each.
At picture n, you have a 1/n chance of picking it, or an (n-1)/n chance of retaining the previous fairly-selected winner. There are n-1 previous pictures, so all of them have had 1/n chance of being picked.
At every single step, there is the invariant of all pictures being considered that far having had an equal chance of being selected, and the next step always retains the invariant.
pics[Math.random() * len(pics)]
The picture selection algorithm's kind of single-pass iterator usage might have been more performant back in the XP days, as it avoids possibly expensive operations.
Modern CPU/other optimizations might make a multi-pass approach more performant due to better memory locality or other factors.
I think it's true, but not sure if I'm just falling victim to false memories... help?