...but is it just me or did the hobbits not look very small in the scene with the company walking through the pass on the hill? After hearing about all of the special techniques they were using to get away from the cheesy actor stands on soundstage looking up at imaginary person, footage later montaged onto the shot of the actor on location looking down at imaginary person look, I was really anticipating more.
Gimli looks passable, as he looks very broad, but the hobbits didn't look at all short enough to be "halflings".
or any of the other "funky, trademarkable names" (translation: stupid, annoying, meaningless) that a lot of big companies have changed their name to over the last few years....
I've seen articles which describe the Serial ATA standard, and from what I've seen, the only extra cost is in getting a pci-based controller card, a new thin cable, and an adapter that converts existing parallel ATA connectors on the hard drive to the new serial connector format.
Existing ATA hard drives will work just fine, and as Serial ATa becomes more widespread, newer drives will come with the serial connector as an option.
The connection is a point-to-point connection, so there is no messing with master/slave jumpers. The number of drives sttached to the system is only limited to the number of ports on the card (or mobo, as this stuff takes off) and the number of cards in the system.
Actually, I was surprised when a co-worker showed me his new RH7 installation. He was looking through/etc, and said "hmm, there are symlinks to the various rc?.d dirs and init.d in/etc".
I said, "the rc?.d and init.d in/etc is the way debian and most of the SysV Unices have it". We got to looking through the box a little more, and it seems that even though the RedHat-isms exist, like/etc/sysconfig/* (which I like), they seem to be moving more toward the debian-like way of laying out the config files. Most of the packages install a subdir in/etc for their conf files, instead of dumping them all in/etc (/etc/bind/named.conf instead of/etc/named.conf for example). Leaves less clutter in the/etc dir.
Maybe the convergence on directories and config files is coming, who knows!? It would be fine with me.
Uhhh, that was a dude (pyro?). Last I checked, Jubilee was all female. I saw her name in the credits, too, but didn't catch a glimpse of her in the 3 showings I saw......
Actually, go to their website and you can download the compiler and associated command line tools for C++ v5.5. This is the exact same version as in their Builder IDE.
You thought that was wild, try loading raster's redesigned site on a regular modem. On the ISDN at work, it was a PITA, but I shudder to think about it on a modem. Looks cool on broadband, though....
How is this unethical? Helix merely packages GNOME, the same way SuSE, Debian, and RedHat package Linux + tons of other software. This is analogous to having an update saying "RedHat has kernel 2.4 packages already available" appended to an announcement about 2.4.
Sure, they also sell a CD with the packages on it, just like RedHat and SuSE, but you can also download for free (again, just like Debian and SuSE).
That's funny, I ran Helix-update almost immediately after I saw the story on Slashdot (before the update about helix was added), and I am running it on my laptop right now!
Re:Major differences between PR1 and milestones ?
on
Mozilla Milestone 15
·
· Score: 1
PR1 is a daily build of M14, with a lot of crap thrown in by AOL. Stick with milestones, unless you really *need* instant messenger, an "N" in the throbberinstead of the M/lizard, and all the other junk.
How will I justify a multihead setup if I only have one powershell with multiple tabs? Nothing is finer than having 5-6 gvim/Eterm/browser windows on each screen!
1/4 mile, huh? What's to stop a neighbor from plugging in his own wireless card and piggybacking off of you? Or the "black helicopters" from tapping your signal and looking at all of your porn or listening to your MP3's?
While asked in a jesting manner, privacy issues like these are the only thing stopping me from getting some of the new 11mb wireless gear for home and work (now that I have a laptop that lets me work for more than and hour on battery, yay!).
If a program is targeted for grandmas, and a group of "test grandmas" pans the UI, then the UI should be reworked. Free Software is not aimed at grandmas, unless said grandma is a technically-oriented person or who would like to become so.
Competent programmers _know_ that they sometimes have to throw out a design or code that doesn't really work, and excellent programmers do so on a regular basis. Many people complained when Raster and Mandrake threw out the code and design for Enlightenment and then redesigned and rewrote it, but it is now a kick-ass WM that has the highest "eye-candy" factorout there. But, on the other hand, throwing out everything about Linux that one guy didn't like, and reworking things even down to the very internals of the file system seems a tad drastic! For one thing, the reason that a lot of the designs that went into Unix 30 years ago are still around, is that they are well-thought out designs that have stood the test of time when other designs have failed. This is a point that I try to drive home with people who bash Linux by saying it is based on "old ideas from the seventies" or something similar. Unix works, and the design of all the pieces is rock-solid, having been fine-tuned, extended and even replaced here and there as new things come along. Is it the best design for every circumstance known to computing? A wholehearted "NO". But the Unix design philosophy and implementation is what works in most situations, so it is what so many people have come to know and love.
It is obvious that you don't know what you are talking about when you confuse the internals of the system with the UI. Journaling refers not to how the files are presented to the user, but how the system itself maintains the files so that they don't get lost or corrupted if the power is cut off.
The way the system works "under the hood" so to speak, is not how it has to be presented to the user. For example, the way that the system displays the layout of files as a "tree" of directories (or folders, for Mac and Windows people) has absolutely nothing to do with the way that a Unix/Mac/Windows computer actually stores files on the disk. If you wanted to have a UI that categorized files according to there type/use and kept them in containers that were operated "assigned" to individual programs, that's fine. Here we separate the UI from the actual operation of the system. That's what Unix people like, by the way, separation of data from presentation/manipulation of that data.
Also, just because you do not understand Unix and it's history, don't criticize it. The text based UI's have evolved tremendously over the years as we went from batch-oriented cardpunch machines to terminals to workstations, and the shells and text tools of today are very rich, powerful things. You denigrate them because you do not understand them. A GUI is good for many things, but there are some things that simply can not be done in a GUI environment. I like the ability to chain together half a dozen command line tools in an interactive shell session to perform complex tasks that I simply would not be able to do in a GUI program. I also like web browsing and graphic editing and other programs that are best suited for a GUI. I use several terminal windows alongside GNOME/KDE/X programs because I like the best of both worlds.
As far as competeing for the home desktop, well I'm sorry, you must have confused us for a tightly knit group of people. Where did you (or anyone else for that matter) get the idea that _every_ Linux user wants to "compete for the home desktop". That would be nice (IMHO) but not necessary, and groups like KDE and GNOME are trying to do help out, with the help of money from VA, Redhat, Corel, and SuSE. I use my Linux box to _WORK_ on, it is a tool. A lot of times that work is fun, because I am a geek. I also have a windows box for games, so I guess it is a $2000 playstation or something.
As far as your last cheap shot about DOS/Windows and Linux/X, please remember that Win3.x _attempted_ to provide a GUI and simulate a multitasking system on top of a weak single-tasking DOS kernel (mostly by working around it) and failed miserably. Windows 95/98/ME attempts to provide a more robust multitasking system, but ties the GUI to that multitasking system. Windows NT/2000 also tries this, and succeeds more often that 98. Unfortunately, the GUI _IS_ the system, so you can't have one without the other. I like how parts of NT are designed, but I can't drop in another UI to replace NT GUI, nor can I leave out the GUI altogether and get any meaningful work done. It would be nice if NT allowed one to go directly into a CLI and did not waste any CPU cycles on the GUI. Linux provides the system, X provides the GUI, and both are very well-designed for their targeted goals, and I can interchange them as necessary. Your "uber-GUI" that you describe above is doable on X without replacing the underlying OS layer. If it aint broke, don't fix it!
Let them eat cake, and run Windows and MacOS, I say! If they want to use Linux, they'll have to learn regular expressions.:)
Linux is, first and foremost, a hobbyists system. Then, it is a server-side OS. Then, and only then, it is an end-user workstation OS that looks pretty and holds your hand, and comes preconfigured out of the box. In fact, out of the box is exactly where this end-user convenience should come from. Let the people making money on Linux distros add that value. They're the ones who depend on a growing user base. "Hey you, in the red hat! Are you listening?"
Finally, someone in this thread who "gets it". As much as I enjoy the little niceties of easier installs, admin tools that (almost) don't suck, and other improvements to most distros out there, Linux has been (and always will be) about "software by the people, for the people". DIY is what it's all about. If Linux is supposed to "take on Microsoft for dominance in the desktop wars", then the people who have a vested interest in making Linux "point and drool" friendly need to cough up the dough to do so. Companies like Redhat, SuSE, and Corel are already putting a lot of money into the GNOME/KDE camps, and this is already paying off for them, but they need to go further. Either way, Linux developers will stay with "their baby" no matter what Infoworld or ZDNet say about it, even if it were to drop off of the "desktop playing field".
MS, ZDNet, and the others want appliances. I want a power tool.
If that happens, then _VA_ has broken the contract, and slashdot reverts to CmdrTaco and Hemos. Remember, both parties have to honor the deal, or it becomes (NULL && (void *)).
For example, the StrongARM achieves that low power rating (in part) because it leaves out a bunch of processing units typical of a desktop CPU - eg it is integer math only, no floating point unit. My suspicion is that Transmeta must be doing something similar to achieve this.
If you saw the presentation yesterday, you would know that nothing was "taken out", per se. The whole point of the Crusoe was to start from scratch, design a simple, elegant, low power, and fast VLIW CPU core, and then implement software that allows the CPU to be x86 compatible. It has floating point (which the StrongARM lacks), but it does not have a lot of things that you find on a "traditional" CPU like x86 and Sparc. All of the branching, out-of-order execution, and similar logic is implemented in the software translation, so that by the time the instructions reach actual silicon, they are already as optimized and in the the optimal order as they can be. Most CPUs have HUGE areas of the silicon devoted to such things, when causes them to draw more power and generate more heat.
Also, another advantage shown in the presentation is their "Long Run" power management system (which I supect came about as a side-effect of the code-morphing). Long Run continuously monitors the running code, and throttles both the speed _and_the_voltage_ of the CPU when the full performance of the CPU is not necessary. The example they showed (while running a DVD) was that by combining both, they were able to use only 25% of the power compared to a PIII. Cool.
The reason that they are focusing on the x86 compatibility is not to keep the x86 architecture alive. They made a point of emphasizing the fact that they want their OEM's to have real, working machines in the stores by summer, running all of the latest web software and browser plugins that most people are used to having. That means having a real, full version of Windows (or x86 Linux, yay!), instead of using a less predominant OS and having to get all of the software vendors to port to their platform. The ability to buy a palmtop and run the _exact_ same version of Office, Netscape, Quicken, etc... as on the desktop, instead of some crippled "Pocket" version (a la WinCE devices) from day one is the whole point of this. Similarly, if they wrote a new OS, they would still have to get vendors to port to it, and they would just be another handheld "platform" like Palm, WinCE, Magic Cap, Newton (remember these two?).
Of course, their tech allows them to upgrade their CPUs to new instruction sets, so if they wanted to they could make a PowerPC, Sparc, or DEC Alpha (I just can't say Compaq Alpha), compatible machine, or come up with the ultimate instruction set, free af all legacy code and able to leap over tall buildings with a single asm instruction.
The native VLIW set is not really the reason the CPU is so cool. It is the translation engine and the ability to optimize as it translates and adjust the power and speed settings optimally that makes this the CPU that will probably kill Intel in the laptop world. I just can't wait to get one of thesee things!
Slashdot Mirror
...but is it just me or did the hobbits not look very small in the scene with the company walking through the pass on the hill? After hearing about all of the special techniques they were using to get away from the cheesy actor stands on soundstage looking up at imaginary person, footage later montaged onto the shot of the actor on location looking down at imaginary person look, I was really anticipating more.
Gimli looks passable, as he looks very broad, but the hobbits didn't look at all short enough to be "halflings".
or Lucent,
or iBiblio,
or Agilent,
or any of the other "funky, trademarkable names" (translation: stupid, annoying, meaningless) that a lot of big companies have changed their name to over the last few years....
I've seen articles which describe the Serial ATA standard, and from what I've seen, the only extra cost is in getting a pci-based controller card, a new thin cable, and an adapter that converts existing parallel ATA connectors on the hard drive to the new serial connector format.
Existing ATA hard drives will work just fine, and as Serial ATa becomes more widespread, newer drives will come with the serial connector as an option.
The connection is a point-to-point connection, so there is no messing with master/slave jumpers. The number of drives sttached to the system is only limited to the number of ports on the card (or mobo, as this stuff takes off) and the number of cards in the system.
I'm really looking forward to this.
Perhaps 100 dpi is too big for your monitor.
With a 14" - 17" monitor you should try 75 dpi instead.
Just out of curiosity, where is your sig from?
Actually, I was surprised when a co-worker showed me his new RH7 installation. He was looking through /etc, and said "hmm, there are symlinks to the various rc?.d dirs and init.d in /etc".
/etc is the way debian and most of the SysV Unices have it". We got to looking through the box a little more, and it seems that even though the RedHat-isms exist, like /etc/sysconfig/* (which I like), they seem to be moving more toward the debian-like way of laying out the config files. Most of the packages install a subdir in /etc for their conf files, instead of dumping them all in /etc (/etc/bind/named.conf instead of /etc/named.conf for example). Leaves less clutter in the /etc dir.
I said, "the rc?.d and init.d in
Maybe the convergence on directories and config files is coming, who knows!? It would be fine with me.
*We* don't. The MPAA does, however, and that is the crux of this case.
Oh, shit!
You just gave them another idea....
Uhhh, that was a dude (pyro?). Last I checked, Jubilee was all female. I saw her name in the credits, too, but didn't catch a glimpse of her in the 3 showings I saw......
But in texas, only a crazy few consider the state to be a separate country....oh, yeah, it *is* just like texas!!!
I have a dual-head machine at work with ATI rage128 cards in it, one AGP and one PCI. I'll add another PCI to it later.
Runs sweeeet, but I haven't found any info on DRI with the ATI cards.
Actually, go to their website and you can download the compiler and associated command line tools for C++ v5.5. This is the exact same version as in their Builder IDE.
You thought that was wild, try loading raster's redesigned site on a regular modem. On the ISDN at work, it was a PITA, but I shudder to think about it on a modem. Looks cool on broadband, though....
How is this unethical? Helix merely packages GNOME, the same way SuSE, Debian, and RedHat package Linux + tons of other software. This is analogous to having an update saying "RedHat has kernel 2.4 packages already available" appended to an announcement about 2.4.
Sure, they also sell a CD with the packages on it, just like RedHat and SuSE, but you can also download for free (again, just like Debian and SuSE).
That's funny, I ran Helix-update almost immediately after I saw the story on Slashdot (before the update about helix was added), and I am running it on my laptop right now!
PR1 is a daily build of M14, with a lot of crap thrown in by AOL. Stick with milestones, unless you really *need* instant messenger, an "N" in the throbberinstead of the M/lizard, and all the other junk.
How will I justify a multihead setup if I only have one powershell with multiple tabs?
Nothing is finer than having 5-6 gvim/Eterm/browser windows on each screen!
1/4 mile, huh? What's to stop a neighbor from plugging in his own wireless card and piggybacking off of you? Or the "black helicopters" from tapping your signal and looking at all of your porn or listening to your MP3's?
While asked in a jesting manner, privacy issues like these are the only thing stopping me from getting some of the new 11mb wireless gear for home and work (now that I have a laptop that lets me work for more than and hour on battery, yay!).
Competent programmers _know_ that they sometimes have to throw out a design or code that doesn't really work, and excellent programmers do so on a regular basis. Many people complained when Raster and Mandrake threw out the code and design for Enlightenment and then redesigned and rewrote it, but it is now a kick-ass WM that has the highest "eye-candy" factorout there. But, on the other hand, throwing out everything about Linux that one guy didn't like, and reworking things even down to the very internals of the file system seems a tad drastic! For one thing, the reason that a lot of the designs that went into Unix 30 years ago are still around, is that they are well-thought out designs that have stood the test of time when other designs have failed. This is a point that I try to drive home with people who bash Linux by saying it is based on "old ideas from the seventies" or something similar. Unix works, and the design of all the pieces is rock-solid, having been fine-tuned, extended and even replaced here and there as new things come along. Is it the best design for every circumstance known to computing? A wholehearted "NO". But the Unix design philosophy and implementation is what works in most situations, so it is what so many people have come to know and love.
It is obvious that you don't know what you are talking about when you confuse the internals of the system with the UI. Journaling refers not to how the files are presented to the user, but how the system itself maintains the files so that they don't get lost or corrupted if the power is cut off.
The way the system works "under the hood" so to speak, is not how it has to be presented to the user. For example, the way that the system displays the layout of files as a "tree" of directories (or folders, for Mac and Windows people) has absolutely nothing to do with the way that a Unix/Mac/Windows computer actually stores files on the disk. If you wanted to have a UI that categorized files according to there type/use and kept them in containers that were operated "assigned" to individual programs, that's fine. Here we separate the UI from the actual operation of the system. That's what Unix people like, by the way, separation of data from presentation/manipulation of that data.
Also, just because you do not understand Unix and it's history, don't criticize it. The text based UI's have evolved tremendously over the years as we went from batch-oriented cardpunch machines to terminals to workstations, and the shells and text tools of today are very rich, powerful things. You denigrate them because you do not understand them. A GUI is good for many things, but there are some things that simply can not be done in a GUI environment. I like the ability to chain together half a dozen command line tools in an interactive shell session to perform complex tasks that I simply would not be able to do in a GUI program. I also like web browsing and graphic editing and other programs that are best suited for a GUI. I use several terminal windows alongside GNOME/KDE/X programs because I like the best of both worlds.
As far as competeing for the home desktop, well I'm sorry, you must have confused us for a tightly knit group of people. Where did you (or anyone else for that matter) get the idea that _every_ Linux user wants to "compete for the home desktop". That would be nice (IMHO) but not necessary, and groups like KDE and GNOME are trying to do help out, with the help of money from VA, Redhat, Corel, and SuSE. I use my Linux box to _WORK_ on, it is a tool. A lot of times that work is fun, because I am a geek. I also have a windows box for games, so I guess it is a $2000 playstation or something.
As far as your last cheap shot about DOS/Windows and Linux/X, please remember that Win3.x _attempted_ to provide a GUI and simulate a multitasking system on top of a weak single-tasking DOS kernel (mostly by working around it) and failed miserably.
Windows 95/98/ME attempts to provide a more robust multitasking system, but ties the GUI to that multitasking system. Windows NT/2000 also tries this, and succeeds more often that 98. Unfortunately, the GUI _IS_ the system, so you can't have one without the other. I like how parts of NT are designed, but I can't drop in another UI to replace NT GUI, nor can I leave out the GUI altogether and get any meaningful work done. It would be nice if NT allowed one to go directly into a CLI and did not waste any CPU cycles on the GUI. Linux provides the system, X provides the GUI, and both are very well-designed for their targeted goals, and I can interchange them as necessary. Your "uber-GUI" that you describe above is doable on X without replacing the underlying OS layer. If it aint broke, don't fix it!
Linux is, first and foremost, a hobbyists system. Then, it is a server-side OS. Then, and only then, it is an end-user workstation OS that looks pretty and holds your hand, and comes preconfigured out of the box. In fact, out of the box is exactly where this end-user convenience should come from. Let the people making money on Linux distros add that value. They're the ones who depend on a growing user base. "Hey you, in the red hat! Are you listening?"
Finally, someone in this thread who "gets it". As much as I enjoy the little niceties of easier installs, admin tools that (almost) don't suck, and other improvements to most distros out there, Linux has been (and always will be) about "software by the people, for the people". DIY is what it's all about. If Linux is supposed to "take on Microsoft for dominance in the desktop wars", then the people who have a vested interest in making Linux "point and drool" friendly need to cough up the dough to do so. Companies like Redhat, SuSE, and Corel are already putting a lot of money into the GNOME/KDE camps, and this is already paying off for them, but they need to go further. Either way, Linux developers will stay with "their baby" no matter what Infoworld or ZDNet say about it, even if it were to drop off of the "desktop playing field".
MS, ZDNet, and the others want appliances.
I want a power tool.
If that happens, then _VA_ has broken the contract, and slashdot reverts to CmdrTaco and Hemos. Remember, both parties have to honor the deal, or it becomes (NULL && (void *)).
(forgive the bad attempt C-geek humor, there...)
it leaves out a bunch of processing units typical of a desktop CPU - eg it is integer math only, no floating point unit. My
suspicion is that Transmeta must be doing something similar to achieve this.
If you saw the presentation yesterday, you would know that nothing was "taken out", per se. The whole point of the Crusoe was to start from scratch, design a simple, elegant, low power, and fast VLIW CPU core, and then implement software that allows the CPU to be x86 compatible. It has floating point (which the StrongARM lacks), but it does not have a lot of things that you find on a "traditional" CPU like x86 and Sparc. All of the branching, out-of-order execution, and similar logic is implemented in the software translation, so that by the time the instructions reach actual silicon, they are already as optimized and in the the optimal order as they can be. Most CPUs have HUGE areas of the silicon devoted to such things, when causes them to draw more power and generate more heat.
Also, another advantage shown in the presentation is their "Long Run" power management system (which I supect came about as a side-effect of the code-morphing). Long Run continuously monitors the running code, and throttles both the speed _and_the_voltage_ of the CPU when the full performance of the CPU is not necessary. The example they showed (while running a DVD) was that by combining both, they were able to use only 25% of the power compared to a PIII. Cool.
The reason that they are focusing on the x86 compatibility is not to keep the x86 architecture alive. They made a point of emphasizing the fact that they want their OEM's to have real, working machines in the stores by summer, running all of the latest web software and browser plugins that most people are used to having. That means having a real, full version of Windows (or x86 Linux, yay!), instead of using a less predominant OS and having to get all of the software vendors to port to their platform. The ability to buy a palmtop and run the _exact_ same version of Office, Netscape, Quicken, etc... as on the desktop, instead of some crippled "Pocket" version (a la WinCE devices) from day one is the whole point of this. Similarly, if they wrote a new OS, they would still have to get vendors to port to it, and they would just be another handheld "platform" like Palm, WinCE, Magic Cap, Newton (remember these two?).
Of course, their tech allows them to upgrade their CPUs to new instruction sets, so if they wanted to they could make a PowerPC, Sparc, or DEC Alpha (I just can't say Compaq Alpha), compatible machine, or come up with the ultimate instruction set, free af all legacy code and able to leap over tall buildings with a single asm instruction.
The native VLIW set is not really the reason the CPU is so cool. It is the translation engine and the ability to optimize as it translates and adjust the power and speed settings optimally that makes this the CPU that will probably kill Intel in the laptop world. I just can't wait to get one of thesee things!
here is the link. Interesting that this was posted almost simultaneously as the Gates/Ballmer one....
my cat's breath smell like cat food