Slashdot Mirror

• Red Hat Enterprise Linux now pre-loaded on xSeries!
  Deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux on xSeries is now even easier. I November 2003, IBM introduced bundles of Red Hat Enterprise Linux with xSeries servers. Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS 2.1, Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES 2.1, or Red Hat Enterprise Linux WS 2.1 may be ordered when purchasing BladeCenter and xSeries servers. Offers are available with a "No Support option", which will allow the customer to purchase support from IBM Global Services. Also available are offers with 1 year of Red Hat support. Every copy of Red Hat Enterprise Linux includes a one year subscription to Red Hat Network. Now, customers can buy either Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES or WS 2.1 pre-loaded on x205, x225, x305, x335, and x345 servers in the US. For all other models, Red Hat Enterprise 2.1 Linux will be included with the server and installation will be performed by the customer. In 2Q04, Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 will be available via similar offers.

Your assumption that there are plenty of other profitable open source companies is wrong.

Timesys. MontaVista Software. Trolltech. SuSE. IBM's Linux ventures.

My current employer uses and contributes to open source software, although we're a proprietary software company -- using OSS tools for infrastructure functions saves us money, and contributing back reduces our software maintenance costs. My last employer is a member of the above list. They survived the bust, and I've heard rumors that they've started turning a profit.

Coming from this background, I didn't find this article suprising at all. There's plenty of money in OSS, as long as you're smart about making it.

IBM reps will be exhibiting and speaking at the Southern California Linux Expo this February in Los Angeles, CA.

Are you saying I won't be able to write any programs on my own?

You can do that just fine for programs YOU wrote, or "normal" programs which other people wrote. The problem kicks in when someone intentionally utilizes the Trust system. For example the RIAA can give you a GPL open source DRM enforcing music player. You could even compile it yourself (you'd have to get teh EXE exactly right) and it will play the music files just fine and it will enforce the DRM. If you attempt to modify that program in any way it will fail completely, it will not be able to read any of the music files. The source is useless.

You have the GPL source, but that source is useless.

The same goes for a Trusted web browser. It will enforce DRM and it can enforce ad-displays. Trusted ad-supported websites will work just fine. However that website will simply give you an error message if you attempt to modify the browser or make any attempt to block the ads. It will be impossible to view the website except with the unmodified Trusted browser and viewing the ads.

And again, the browser could be GPL'd, but the source is useless. Any attempt to modify the source and the browser no longer works, those Trusted websites become unviewable.

If I write a program which creates files, I sure as hell better be able to read said files from another program

If you wrote the software that created the files in the first place then you can choose to create normal files usuable by anyone, or restricted files which can only be read by programs you you personally approve, or files which can NEVER be read by any program except the program which initially created them. In that last case, even you the original author could never decrypt those files execept through the original software and as permitted by the original software.

The point is that if someone else wrote the software in the first place then they can defeat the GPL. You can modify the source code all you like, but you can never read files created by the original program (because they are encrypted and the software does not have the key, the hardware has the key and will never release it to different software), and you cannot interoperate with the original software or software that expects to talk to the original software (because the chip will "attest" that this is different software and thus unrecognized, and communications will be encrypted and unreadable).

And how is this technology any different from the CPU Serial debacle that occured when the P3 first came out?

It is a million times worse than the P3 CPUID numbers, but they are also spending hundreds of millions to sell this as a GOOD thing, and as a privavy enhancing thing. They also have essentially the entire computer industry (and content industry) on board. Your computer will have a unique "ID" number, but that "ID" will only be revealed if you "opt-in" to allow it to be revealed. And they have a complex system (which would take pages to explain) where you have have multiple identies or even a form of anonymity, all tied to that unique ID number, but without revealing that ID number.

Perhapse you have seen IBM's "Man in black" Think pad commercial? You can view it here. This "self-destructing chip" can protect your data for you, but it also has your keys inside it, it refuses to allow you to see your own keys, and if you make any attempt to get at your own keys then the chip self destructs. The expectation is in about a year or so this chip will be standard hardware, shipped on EVERY new motherboard.

You won't see any nastyness in the first phases of the roll out, they WANT people to adopt it. There will also be too few people with compliant machines to even attempt to abuse the system because you'de be excluding the entire public with noncompliant machines. By the time there's a fair percentage of machines have this chip then and they can start abusing it, and then it's too late to escape.

-

Darn machines never even slowed down. An IBM engineer even showed me a vial of "IBM Retail Dirt" that they created for testing cash registers in environments like ours. They collected and analyzed the crud they found inside cash register cases, including dirt, dust, lint, rodent droppings, insect parts, etc. Too bad they don't make them like that any more...

Systems Group is the Server and Storage productions organization, not the Microprocessor Group that develops and manufactures the Apple processors.

IBM uses the G5 processors in some of their servers, but chip sales are not included in the Systems Group numbers. All Microelectronics are part of Technology.

Ruger

Compare Personal Systems to the other section on that financial statement you linked - the one that says "Systems Group". That's where all the POWER technology is (excepting the xSeries stuff).

That's Ice Cube.

Check IBM's latest financial statement.

The Personal Systems Group generates much more revenue and gross profit than IBM's entire Technologies Group (which includes microprocessors). It's not even close.

Now, if you're talking percentage PTI, you probably have a point.

Ruger

An Apple/IBM alliance could be a good thing for both companies, but I don't see IBM shilling Apple iMacs to business. However selling into the Workstation market and lower end server market... that has some merit. Nobody yet knows what an IBM spin off of their PC division will look like, but you can bet it will impact their PC based workstation line. I'm willing to bet that should IBM sell it's PC Division it will be reluctant, or contractually prohibited from selling PC based workstations.

I'm not talking about desktops here, but fairly high powered workstations but not as high powered (or as high priced) as POWER based workstations. The PowerMac G5 seems to sit comfortably in between these two platforms. What if IBM ported Mac OS X to POWER for their higher-end stations and in the deal sold PowerMacs on the lower end? What if they ported AIX to the PowerMac? Kinda makes you think doesn't it?

The same can be said of the X Series of Servers. Intel based, sometimes Windows machines. Now, I think there's less of a chance that IBM would halt it's X-Series line, but... here's the prediction, what if IBM started selling XServe solutions a la Virginia Tech? I'm not real sure what Apple's support services can do as far as large supercomputer type installations, but I know IBM has been dropping X-Series based supercomputer clusters into Universities over the past few years. XServe would just be another product they'd be able to deliver for applications that could make use of the vector unit in the G5.

It's all wild speculation. Still, a POWER based AVID system with a Fiber Channel Disk RAID running Final Cut Pro might go over pretty well at NAB or with the Movie Studios. It's something to think about.

An Apple/IBM alliance could be a good thing for both companies, but I don't see IBM shilling Apple iMacs to business. However selling into the Workstation market and lower end server market... that has some merit. Nobody yet knows what an IBM spin off of their PC division will look like, but you can bet it will impact their PC based workstation line. I'm willing to bet that should IBM sell it's PC Division it will be reluctant, or contractually prohibited from selling PC based workstations.

I'm not talking about desktops here, but fairly high powered workstations but not as high powered (or as high priced) as POWER based workstations. The PowerMac G5 seems to sit comfortably in between these two platforms. What if IBM ported Mac OS X to POWER for their higher-end stations and in the deal sold PowerMacs on the lower end? What if they ported AIX to the PowerMac? Kinda makes you think doesn't it?

The same can be said of the X Series of Servers. Intel based, sometimes Windows machines. Now, I think there's less of a chance that IBM would halt it's X-Series line, but... here's the prediction, what if IBM started selling XServe solutions a la Virginia Tech? I'm not real sure what Apple's support services can do as far as large supercomputer type installations, but I know IBM has been dropping X-Series based supercomputer clusters into Universities over the past few years. XServe would just be another product they'd be able to deliver for applications that could make use of the vector unit in the G5.

It's all wild speculation. Still, a POWER based AVID system with a Fiber Channel Disk RAID running Final Cut Pro might go over pretty well at NAB or with the Movie Studios. It's something to think about.

An Apple/IBM alliance could be a good thing for both companies, but I don't see IBM shilling Apple iMacs to business. However selling into the Workstation market and lower end server market... that has some merit. Nobody yet knows what an IBM spin off of their PC division will look like, but you can bet it will impact their PC based workstation line. I'm willing to bet that should IBM sell it's PC Division it will be reluctant, or contractually prohibited from selling PC based workstations.

I'm not talking about desktops here, but fairly high powered workstations but not as high powered (or as high priced) as POWER based workstations. The PowerMac G5 seems to sit comfortably in between these two platforms. What if IBM ported Mac OS X to POWER for their higher-end stations and in the deal sold PowerMacs on the lower end? What if they ported AIX to the PowerMac? Kinda makes you think doesn't it?

The same can be said of the X Series of Servers. Intel based, sometimes Windows machines. Now, I think there's less of a chance that IBM would halt it's X-Series line, but... here's the prediction, what if IBM started selling XServe solutions a la Virginia Tech? I'm not real sure what Apple's support services can do as far as large supercomputer type installations, but I know IBM has been dropping X-Series based supercomputer clusters into Universities over the past few years. XServe would just be another product they'd be able to deliver for applications that could make use of the vector unit in the G5.

It's all wild speculation. Still, a POWER based AVID system with a Fiber Channel Disk RAID running Final Cut Pro might go over pretty well at NAB or with the Movie Studios. It's something to think about.

An Apple/IBM alliance could be a good thing for both companies, but I don't see IBM shilling Apple iMacs to business. However selling into the Workstation market and lower end server market... that has some merit. Nobody yet knows what an IBM spin off of their PC division will look like, but you can bet it will impact their PC based workstation line. I'm willing to bet that should IBM sell it's PC Division it will be reluctant, or contractually prohibited from selling PC based workstations.

I'm not talking about desktops here, but fairly high powered workstations but not as high powered (or as high priced) as POWER based workstations. The PowerMac G5 seems to sit comfortably in between these two platforms. What if IBM ported Mac OS X to POWER for their higher-end stations and in the deal sold PowerMacs on the lower end? What if they ported AIX to the PowerMac? Kinda makes you think doesn't it?

The same can be said of the X Series of Servers. Intel based, sometimes Windows machines. Now, I think there's less of a chance that IBM would halt it's X-Series line, but... here's the prediction, what if IBM started selling XServe solutions a la Virginia Tech? I'm not real sure what Apple's support services can do as far as large supercomputer type installations, but I know IBM has been dropping X-Series based supercomputer clusters into Universities over the past few years. XServe would just be another product they'd be able to deliver for applications that could make use of the vector unit in the G5.

It's all wild speculation. Still, a POWER based AVID system with a Fiber Channel Disk RAID running Final Cut Pro might go over pretty well at NAB or with the Movie Studios. It's something to think about.

I'm still a bit worried that I've not heard much about the seemingly built-in DRM management of this new platform (that seem to be able to spread to all facets of technology, including toasters). According to a clause in the pressrelease by IBM and Sony from Nov. 29, the Cell processor will have:

- On-chip hardware in support of security system for intellectual property protection.

Is this the end of tampering-capable hardware (e.g. machines where you can modify the kernel, bypass DRM-systems etc) that some people have long foreseen? Anyone more in-the-meat of the technical details care to elaborate on this?

yep, and this is the reason why you will see as/400's (now called iseries eservers) in most banks, because they can't afford downtime. (i used to work in a bank and worked very closely with our as/400's). btw, the service ain't cheap, but when you are in a mission critical situation, it is worth it.

http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/forum/fairuce.nsf unfortunately, however, returns:

HTTP Web Server: Lotus Notes Exception - File does not exist

Perhaps it's already failed under /. response?

If you want a Java compiler that's already at that point, try Jikes.

The picture is Lindsay, not Bourne. See here for an earlier picture. I admit its a bit disturbing, but some CS people don't want to "waste" time shaving and getting their hair cut. I also need a haircut and a shave, but not nearly as bad as him. This picture has helped motivate me :)

They very well may not market them using the IBM name and logo, but rather simply market them as IBM's desktop solution. After all, IBM did scrapped its NetVista thin client line and started selling thin clients from Neoware. It's been done before.

I wonder, since the only place left for Intel chips at IBM will likely be in low-end servers, will IBM create a low-end PowerPC chip to compete with Wintel at some point?

In the 1980s, IBM opened representative offices in Beijing and Shanghai, followed in 1992 by establishment of the IBM China Company Limited, a wholly-owned subsidiary of IBM World Trade Corporation. The IBM China Research Laboratory was established in Beijing in 1995. Today, IBM China has offices in 11 cities and operates eight joint venture companies in China.
--PrimeUR

IBM built and operates a chip packaging plant in China (registration site), a Research Laboratory in China, and is eyeing upward of a 50 percent share of China's market for business computers. Even IBM mainframes are big in China

IBM is creating a chip ecosystem in China and expects that Asian manufacturers will represent the bulk of the new Power licensees

Eh, I think it'd be more fun to play chess with Deep Blue. Heck, how fast do you think Deep Blue could solve it?

Slow? The older Pentium M processor (400MHz bus, 1MB L2 cache) in an IBM T40 should be faster than any G4 processor in any Apple notebook.

If your not just bullshitting, then the T40 probably needs its memory upgraded from 256MB to 512MB. Enable your firewall, stop downloading/installing spyware, and don't run in Administrator mode all the time.

The poster you replied to got the dimensions of the IBM wrong, the T40 is about the same size as the 15" PB, a lot smaller than the 17" and it has a 14.1" screen, not 13.4 as you stated. I've no idea how you could call it a "boat anchor" relative to a PB. The PB has a aluminum case that looks nice, but dents a lot easier than whatever material IBM is using.

They would be fools to sell off the Thinkpad line!

Actually, maybe not so much. They are quite a bit more expensive and, if you've ever worked in a large corporation, will notice that they're not so popular anymore. Rather, they are popular with the users (largely because of the commercials (click film strips at top of screen). I was given a Dell D600 this time around the lease replacement merry-go-round and, it is garbage compared to a Thinkpad. But it was oodles cheaper even with the extra battery and AC adapter thrown in. HP/Compaq is even cheaper lately. I miss my third mouse button for scrolling.

But I keep my eye on who is using what laptop and I'm seeing lots of Dells and HPs. The Thinkpad era is over.

Twelve Step TrustABLE IT:
Virtualised Linux Standard Base (VLSB)
in Virtual Demilitarized Network Zones (VDNZ)
from Trusted Build Agents (TBA)

Back in August 11, 1998, Microsoft's Vinod Valloppillil and Josh Cohen released a memorandum titled Linux OS Competitive Analysis: The Next Java VM?, in which they predicted that Linux would become ubiquitous as a services platform. However, the title of the paper could be even more prophetic.

Consider the following.

[1] It is well known that Linux is quite portable, in fact only NETBSD comes close to the number of hardware platforms supported.

[2] What is less well known is that the Linux kernel has even been ported to run on itself, as client for a virtual Monitor platform, and even to run virtualised on other operating systems including Win2K and XP.

[3] Other operating systems, such as BSD and Sun's Solaris can also use a compatbility layer to run applications compiled for Linux directly, without the need for virtualisation.

[4]The Linux Standard Base Mission Statement is to

To develop and promote a

set of standards that will increase compatibility among Linux distributions and enable software applications to run on any compliant system. In addition, the LSB will help coordinate efforts to recruit software vendors to port and write products for Linux.

[5] The above standard also defines a generic subset of the standards for each hardware platform as a source level application interface. In fact for an application to be certified for the LSB it must be tested on two of the plaforms supported by the LSB, one chosen at random by the testing body. Following the standard, it's not that difficult a job to write portable C and C++ code : Write once, compile for each platfom.

[6] The GNU Compiler Collection's future GCC 4.0 Release Series now divides the task of compiling into two stages based around Static Single Assignment trees. It should be possible to use the new GCC front ends to compile each language into a SSA tree that represents the common generic subset of the Linux Standard Base: [5].The resulting SSA tree for a build could be dumped into files, analogous to Java's JVM intermediate format, and then complied to native code for the target platform: Write once, run everywhere.

Be it open or closed source, every binary or script you execute represents a risk. It is possible to introduce hostile code at any point along the build chain, before the point where the binary is checksummed and the result digitally signed.

[7] It is possible to use constraints built into any Linux or Unix like operating system to isolate and restrict what a binary executable has access to or can do. Even without employing SELinux's manditory access controls or chroot/jail'ed environments, it is possible to run a process under a different user identity and group identity. Unix servers have used this te

Twelve Step TrustABLE IT:
Virtualised Linux Standard Base (VLSB)
in Virtual Demilitarized Network Zones (VDNZ)
from Trusted Build Agents (TBA)

Back in August 11, 1998, Microsoft's Vinod Valloppillil and Josh Cohen released a memorandum titled Linux OS Competitive Analysis: The Next Java VM?, in which they predicted that Linux would become ubiquitous as a services platform. However, the title of the paper could be even more prophetic.

Consider the following.

[1] It is well known that Linux is quite portable, in fact only NETBSD comes close to the number of hardware platforms supported.

[2] What is less well known is that the Linux kernel has even been ported to run on itself, as client for a virtual Monitor platform, and even to run virtualised on other operating systems including Win2K and XP.

[3] Other operating systems, such as BSD and Sun's Solaris can also use a compatbility layer to run applications compiled for Linux directly, without the need for virtualisation.

[4]The Linux Standard Base Mission Statement is to

To develop and promote a

set of standards that will increase compatibility among Linux distributions and enable software applications to run on any compliant system. In addition, the LSB will help coordinate efforts to recruit software vendors to port and write products for Linux.

[5] The above standard also defines a generic subset of the standards for each hardware platform as a source level application interface. In fact for an application to be certified for the LSB it must be tested on two of the plaforms supported by the LSB, one chosen at random by the testing body. Following the standard, it's not that difficult a job to write portable C and C++ code : Write once, compile for each platfom.

[6] The GNU Compiler Collection's future GCC 4.0 Release Series now divides the task of compiling into two stages based around Static Single Assignment trees. It should be possible to use the new GCC front ends to compile each language into a SSA tree that represents the common generic subset of the Linux Standard Base: [5].The resulting SSA tree for a build could be dumped into files, analogous to Java's JVM intermediate format, and then complied to native code for the target platform: Write once, run everywhere.

Be it open or closed source, every binary or script you execute represents a risk. It is possible to introduce hostile code at any point along the build chain, before the point where the binary is checksummed and the result digitally signed.

[7] It is possible to use constraints built into any Linux or Unix like operating system to isolate and restrict what a binary executable has access to or can do. Even without employing SELinux's manditory access controls or chroot/jail'ed environments, it is possible to run a process under a different user identity and group identity. Unix servers have used this te

I had constructed a reply, but then found this link that said everything I was going to say:

Power

You're actually quite mistaken. The POWER family includes PowerPC along with a bunch of other processors.

SCO has chosen suicide by mortal combat. The victor is a foregone conclusion.

Erm, not sure if this is a joke or not, however, VB is a language and Visual Studio is the IDE. Not sure what you mean by "command line" language, unless you mean there's no good IDE for it. It's just a language. You can create GUI programs, you can create web pages with it, and you can even created compiled Windows programs using Visual Studio .NET.

IBM, the big blue company, decided a long time ago that Open Source isn't so bad.
Sun, the UltraSPARC Processors maker, decided that Open Source isn't so bad.
Intel, the 8086 Processor maker, decided that Open Source isn't so bad.
Munich, Germany's third-largest city, decided that Open Source isn't so bad.

"Microsoft decides Open Source isn't so bad" will be news.

Footprints project overview

Sun went after Microsoft because they had a contractual agreement which stated they had to produce a product with certain attributes before they can call it "Java".

Sun has never prevented alternative Java implementation, there are many.

As far as open-source there is Kaffe, GNU Classpath, GCJ, Jikes and others.

All those projects need help. And I am sure Sun is not the reason they are not getting it.

Put your money and time where your mouth is and support open-source Java

arm ("arm" - ARM , Ltd.)

Started life as Acorn RISC machine, designed by people from Acorn Computers Ltd, Cambridge, UK and Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino. Wikipedia has an excellent article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acorn_RISC_Machine

powerpc - PowerPC vendor neutral name

The name may be vendor neutral, the technology certainly isn't. Most of its history can be traced to a company you may have heard of called
IBM.

Because pr0n is addictive. And Pixie dust is just IBM's way of saying you've got too goddamn much pr0n.

However, in all of the "we'll bring you on as a contractor temp-to-perm" cases that I have seen, you'll be hired through a temp agency. Basically, you are a full-time (or part-time) emnployee of the agency (Manpower, etc.), and the agency is a contractor of the employer. This way you need worry about none of the extra taxes / paperwork. You just cash checks, as a regular employee does (some of the agencies even offer benefits). The tradeoff is that the agency skims off of every hour (sometimes by a rather large amount).

This is usually because, if a company hires "independent contractors" that do the same work in the same way as employees, the IRS tends to frown upon that. I had to do some work for a certain business machines company where I used to work full-time, and I had to get a temp agency because they don't deal in IC's for these reasons. (Boy, was it fun to convince the pimp to take me. "Look, you get to make money on every hour, and you didn't even have to hook me up with the job! I know they don't have a posting. Trust me, they already asked me, and nobody else in the world can do this job without a lot of training. Dammit, just talk to the manager!")

So IBM don't care about Linux, for instance?

$1 USD is ~ Rs. 48

That's a lot of money and significantly higher buying power.

Well, significantly higher buying power in significantly skewed areas. Food, for example is quite affordable. At 30Rs. for a decent-ish lunch in a city, that's significantly higher food buying power. However, anything coming from outside, especially tech, we're strapped in pretty hard. Which explains the state of Software piracy, for one, because the prices are the same worldwide, and it is a lot less fair for us than it is for the average American. Anything tech, in general, is a lot more tough for us to afford.

And then again, there is hardware. While there has been significant improvements of late, it's not all that uncommon to see prices like this on the crazy end. (That's 8000$+ for a sub 2000$ laptop)

oddly enough, there is an IBM research project involving putting two trackpoints on a single keyboard as evidenced below:
IBM pdf
Slashdot commentary on dual trackpoint keyboard

To toot my own horn a wee bit -- I'm writing a series of contest articles for the IBM developerWorks Power Architecture zone. This month's contest involves the most creative use of locator (GPS, RFID, etc.) chips. Come on over and send us some entries!

The link is:

http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/pa-c hipschall2.html

I think in order to survive the onslaught, it will be necessary to garner support elsewhere.

Here's my set of software predictions. Some more detail to fill in for that other guy's blog entry.

Here we go:

• Refactoring Browsers - let you change the name of a class, method, whatever- and have perfect replacement across the project. This is important, because it means that our API's can feature consistent naming schemes, without a whole lot of upfront planning. These exist today, but not in common use.
• Spatial Code Browsering - The ability to organize our textual code in a shared diagram, so that we can arrange it the way that we think of it. Most of our code is text, for various reasons. But we tend to think of spatial relationships between blocks of code. There's no reason why we can't lay out the files spatially, share those spatial layouts, and browse those spatial layouts.
• Replay Debugging - You can make programs run in a virtual machine that tracks deltas over time, or keeps time slices. You can "rewind" or "fast forward" a test execution, introspecting into the state of variables at different points of time. If your debugger is smart enough, it can answer the question: "now how did THAT come to happen?" "Why did you do X? Why didn't you do Y?"
• Publish-Subscribe - Is it just me, or is publish-subscribing becoming more important? That's because we're going to component systems.
• Tuple Space(s). By my limited understanding, this is a model of programming where you have: A gigantic data store, and little micro-programs that pull and push data to the store. For example: Let's say you have a web-app. The web server receives a request, and pushes it into the store, in the form of a graph. So, for instance, you get the "request" node, and it links up to a node representing the time it was received, and it links up to the URL, and it links up to the response to be filled out, etc., etc.,. Then if a program knows how to fill out the response, it starts filling out the response as much as it can. For things that aren't at it's level of abstraction, it leaves for other programs. When things are fleshed out enough for those programs, they automatically jump into play, and fill out the rest. When it's all fleshed out, the web server recognizes that the "done" flag's set, takes the whole thing, ships it out, and then clears everything. What's new here is that what triggers programs/procedures is the state of the tuple store, the shared graph- programs register states that they can metabolize, and then when conditions are right, the programs are invoked. Your programs are collections of traps. Mixes declarative programming with imperative programming, in step with development of the semantic web.
• Non-boxy interface, Deep visualization - Our GUI tools are all "boxy," and there haven't been any real UI advances since MFC, and I do blame the API. It's easy to imagine API's that allow you to specify call-outs, how icons that contain icons are specified, the ability to compose and connect icons, etc., etc.,. But we're still in the images, rectangles, buttons, and tree views days, as far as easy-to-use API's are concerned. As SVG matures, I believe that our API's will get less rectangular, and give us visual and interactive power on the cheap.
• Social Help Documentation - I think we'll see integrated help documentation linking up with things like wiki and programmer's forums. So you'll be able to read a function's documentation, and see 17 examples of real use of the function and commentary. It won't be a seperate open-a-web-browser and search thing, it'll be easily available and connected with the deployed documentatio

Moreover, the argument that the window management in Windows is at fault for GIMP's cluttered UI just doesn't hold water.

GIMP's interface is cluttered on Linux with every window manager I've used. Even on its own virtual desktop it has problems. Similarly, Paint Shop Pro 7 on Windows uses MDI, but it also suffers from similar problems due to the non-docking and ill-fitting tool windows. Fortunately, Jasc listened to their customers and improved this in PSP8.

Take a look at apps like Eclipse. Do you think Eclipse would be popular among the developer community if every one of those windows was a floater -- including each source file you were trying to edit? Yuck. Of course not.

The fact that tool panels can dock together is a start, but GIMP should go all the way. On all platforms.

On the other hand, GIMP should leave some things up to the OS, such as the common File Open/Save dialog. Users become accustomed to the dialogs for their own OS, and it would be trivial for GIMP to bypass GTK and call directly into platform-specific APIs for things like this and only fall back on the GTK dialog when GIMP is compiled on an 'unknown' platform. The file dialog in Windows is so much better than the one in GTK that I can see this alone turning people away from GIMP! I suspect the same is true for users using their favorite window managers on Linux and other supported platforms.

GIMP has a lot of potential. It's a few UI hurdles away from being the best 2D bitmap application in the $0 to $200 or so range. Those hurdles are extremely high for the end user, particularly on Windows, but they should be pretty easy for the developers to resolve.

Never mind that the grandparent was talking about CRT vs LCD technology for televisions, not workstation monitors. Why are we bringing up these ultra-high resolutions when HDTV is 1920x1080 and 1280x720? We should be talking about 1920x1080 LCDs like Sharp's LC-45GX6U AQUOS or direct-view HDTV CRTs like Sony's KD-36XS955.

Then we can argue about dark scene detail, sharpness, color range/accuracy, fast-motion scenes, etc.

I don't know about ArgoML or the latest version of Rational specifically.

The last time I looked at UML it had 2 drawbacks compared with Stateflow:

• At that time it organized your code, but you still had to write all the C code by hand. It might make some wrappers for you though.
• You couldn't debug in the graphical environment. You had to understand how it put the code together, and then keep the flowchart on your lap as you debugged in your normal debugger.

Stateflow makes code that can pretty hard to follow, but hopefully you've debugged before generating code and hopefully it generated C code faithful to your design.

Because I've occasionally seen things about Executable UML, I've always assumed there was some core deficiency to UML that prevented it from being directly compiled.

Looking over the Rational Rose Technical Developer product, they include the blurb Runtime model execution, fully executable code generation and visual debugging. so this product may now do what I ask of it.

I didn't find the paragraph at Argo about code generation.

The website for the book Executable UML has exercises based on BridgePoint by Project Technology. Just to throw another option out there.

The one think I always liked about The Mathworks suite was the ability to build dynamic models of the environment the code is meant to operate in. This is so much richer and easier than building test scripts and simple test benches. They have good tools for modelling the domain I work in, but I wouldn't find them useful if I were building a web app. But if I were building a web app, I'd look for a tool that lets me simulate a dynamic environment there as well.

Hopefully this is on topic enough:

Ever since I saw the Mandrake Globetrotter I have been really wanting to roll my own "portable linux virtual machine". I don't want to pay for the overpirced Globetrotter, so I bought a 200GB drive with an external Firewire/USB2.0 enclosure.

Now, I have found some excellent resources on installing Linux on an external firewire drive, but the thing is, this (and other articles) are written with the idea that the end result will be used on one system, my goal is to have something like the Globetrotter which is a FULL distro of Mandrake 10, with the awesome hardware detection of Knoppix at boot time (so it can used it on multiple machines with no problem, like a Knoppix disc).

My question is, how would one go about doing this? I have considered just using the Knoppix "install to hard drive" feature, but I would rather have a more robust fully featured distro from the get go. Mandrake does not make it clear on their site if Mandrake 10 has the inherant ability to detect hardware at bootime like the version that comes on the Globetrotter does...any ideas?

Actually, you are incorrect. The PowerPC architecture specifiction states that bit 0 is the MSB. Check out this page, or any of the datasheets and databooks for PowerPC products.

Actually, you are incorrect. The PowerPC architecture specifiction states that bit 0 is the MSB. Check out this page, or any of the datasheets and databooks for PowerPC products.

Thanks - the unusual Slashdot response that enlightens more about the subject than the poster :). Though I do think that you're nifty :).

Someone else pointed out other tools: ArgoML, a UML compiling IDE (apparently targeting Java, as well as C++ and PHP), and IBM's new version of Rational. ArgoUML seems more embryonic than Stateflow, though (if it actually compiles to compilable source) Rational might be exactly the "top layer" for flowcharting apps that are otherwise developed with the same tools (Eclipse, CVS, etc) we currently use. Any thoughts on comparisons?

Here and here. Hint: these days, we call it "UML".

I have disagree to some extent that the Internet is out for serious research, at least for CS. Citeseer is generally my first point of call for research papers. For journal articles, depending upon the publisher, an ACM or IEEE subscription may be required. However, I find that an increasing number of researchers are making their publications freely available on their home pages.

Either way, I generally find it useful to trawl Google - the sheer volume of indexed PDFs containing citations can often suggest other relevant papers. Of course, anything pre-1996 can be difficult to find, though companies such as IBM still provide online access to papers dating back to the early 1970's.