"Reused"? As in multiple files sharing the same inode number? Not within the context of a single filesystem. However, wouldn't it be easy enough to just use a single value that is a combination of the device ID (major/minor or whatever) and the inode number? Or maybe the filesystem UUID and the inode number?
Then why is it, every time this comes up, there are plenty of disgruntled XiG customers who stand up and refute XiG's "faster/better/more stable" claims? It may be faster on _some cards_. But as unstable as I've found it to be, I can hardly classify it as "better".
How about, OR NOT. I will not support XiG, for any reason.
I don't like their advertising practices. I've tried their products before, and their claims about "better stability" are so much bullshit. If you want to buy their products, fine, be my guest; however, if I was going to go for a commercial Xserver (which I'm not, I like XFree just fine, thanks), I'd go for MetroX first - they support the free software community, instead of slamming it and (seemingly) trying to generate ill will.
Well, considering DirectX is only available on WinXX platforms... I somehow doubt that. And I'd suggest laying off the crack, it's probably bad for your health, not to mention your reasoning.
The same sort of people who would switch to using a service like iMacFloppy.com because it eliminates the need for someone to admin a server, replacing a 100 Mbps LAN with dialups?
I actually copied off a testimonial from imacfloppy.com where someone said they did this. Seems pretty stupid, huh? It amazes me, but people will give up a whole lot of control, and security, for the illusion of convenience. (Yes, I said the illusion of convenience. It doesn't have to be more convenient - if you can convince the average moron that it's more convenient, whether it is or not, they'll probably go for it - whatever it is.)
Yes, but it doesn't have the latest core improvements, just the updated DRI subsystem and drivers - the base code is the same as XF4.0. The XFree86 Group has actually fixed bugs and made some improvemeents to the codebase, which are destined to become part of XF 4.0.1 soon here. (Along with the improved DRI subsystem and drivers.)
I have to admit that "platform independence" stuff scares me a bit. I hope they don't do anything stupid and define word lengths or byte orderings.
You mean like they did with the Win16 API? And the Win32 API?
I don't like VB. I think extending BASIC was, and is still, a poor idea. I don't think Microsoft has done a good job of designing their APIs (considering every generation, they have to do an almost complete API rewrite). The c|net article basically makes this sound, to me, like something somewhere between Java and VB (I'm no big fan of Java either, though I believe it does have its place.)
If they're going to try to be a better Java than Java, forget it. (Probably end up about as laughable as their attempt at making a "better UNIX than UNIX".) If they're going to create another crappy API in the tradition of Win16 and Win32 to run on a bastardized, stripped-down C++ compiler, then forget it.
If I know Microsoft, it's gonna be one of the two. (I would love to be proven wrong, though.)
For a while, I remember hearing "COOL" was supposed to be the "next big language" that Microsoft was developing. Yet another one that never materialized. They sure do talk a lot about developing programming languages, don't they?
I don't think it's a matter of 'can'. Looks like he just did. And besides, it sounded like, from the majority understanding before, that this was not only doable, but the likely outcome. It just gets pushed from the federal appeals circuit directly up to the top.
Of course, of the Supreme Court declines to hear it, I don't know what'd happen next.
Because Microsoft is leveraging one monopoly to hold onto another? Pull them apart, and the whole thing could crumble. (I'm not saying that they'll just disappear. Just wait and see.)
Nod... I've oft wondered why they couldn't just go with jewel boxes like CDs. It's not like they need an alternate packaging format. (I personally just use a CD case to store my DVDs - but not one with the stupid soft plastic pages... I've seen so many CDs ruined that way.)
I agree, the packaging issue is important - the packaging of software NEEDS to be slimmed down. But I also think that having a printed manual is useful. (One reason I like ApplixWare - I actually get a manual.) So many programs have gone to the "gee, let's put ALL the docs on the CD!" mode - it makes sense, in a way, but sometimes nothing can replace a good printed manual that you can thumb through, and mark if necessary.
Not if Microsoft "persuades" them to (a) cease targeting the Macintosh as a release platform, and (b) disallow porting contracts (like the one they had with Loki for Myth II). I for one was rather hoping that their next 2 games, Halo and Oni, would have a chance of getting ported to Linux - now it looks like only one will have that opportunity, maybe (that being Oni - Take 2 apparently holds distribution rights on Oni, but I don't know if that'll mean a chance at a Linux port of the game, or not)...
No, the "Titan" was built because the humans knew the Drej were going to attack, and because they knew these aliens would stop at nothing, including elminating Earth, to eliminate the human race.
The reason why the Drej wanted to destroy all humans was because humans were some sort of perceived threat to them (the story is never very specific as to how so)...
It may be less a matter of "who CAN port to the X-Box" than "who WANTS to"... If they have to go BUY a company to get games on their new baby, it just might mean that programming for it is so evil, no third-party developer is willing. That'd certainly make some sense. And of course, knowing Microsoft, it'd certainly fit...
Yes, because that's what it was intended for (and does a damn good job of it too, btw - I love my Vx:). You can't run Windows CE on a Palm, either. CE is too bloated, besides - the Dragonball '328 runs @ ~16 MHz, the EZ runs at ~20 - typical CE-based palmtops run on a MIPS R4x00 or StrongARM (SA-1100 is a favorite, iirc) in the 150-200 MHz range typically, so it's also a very different architecture. The Palms also have significantly less RAM - current models carry 2-8 MB, whereas CE units typically carry 16-64 MB (again, iirc). And, that memory is used a lot differently on CE units than on Palms.
Make sure you know your gear before you troll, so you can at least be somewhat convincing.:)
Re:Address space is going to kill off the x86
on
Is The x86 Obsolete?
·
· Score: 1
There is a 64-bit extension to the PCI bus (it's used on many Alphas and PPC systems). There are cards currently that support it (NICs, SCSI controllers, etc). It's not a bus limitation, per se, it's just the implementation that's widely used in x86 systems that's limited. Check out a PCI bus pinout to see what I mean.
Exactly - this was a sympathy ploy to the court, nothing more. If he was REALLY, I mean REALLY sick enough that he COULD NOT give a deposition, his lawyers certainly could've gotten a delay.
Besides, I've been sick before. I've had fevers and other such things. Being sick don't make you stupid. And this was only a deposition, man... it's not near as stressful as a full court proceeding, I'll bet.
No doubt... considering he's the guy who helped lobby DMCA, you'd think he'd know something about it (not to mention that he's the head of the MPAA, which, as you said, he also seems to know nothing about)...
He's either a moron or a liar. All I can say is, if he perjured himself, I hope he goes to jail. If he's REALLY that stupid, I hope he goes to jail. (Come ON, it's GOT to be criminal to be that stupid.)
First of all - it's not "X Windows". It's "X", or "the X Window System". Also, X is not at version 4 - X is at release 6.4. XFree86 is at version 4, and that's just one implementation of the X Window System (aimed at Unix and Unix-alike systems (and OS/2) on Intel, and now some other, hardware). X itself has not been modularized, it's XFree86's implementation of the X Window System.
Also, the problem with fonts in X is less an issue of patent/copyright/etc. than X's horribly outdated font handling, mostly the fact that X fonts can only be depth 1 bitmaps (all pixels either on or off), making hinting, anti-aliasing and other niceties impossible. X can handle several font formats (PCF bitmap fonts, PS Type1, TrueType (in XF4), and a few vector font formats that are little-used).
One of the features of XFree86 4's modularization push is portable drivers for display cards, both in binary (portable across OSes on a single hardware platform) and source (portable across all, if coded right) forms. Hopefully, since less drivers need to be written, there will be fewer bugs (since one driver codebase can be focused on, instead of having to maintain several) and more platforms will be supported (since fewer drivers will have to be built, in the case of binary drivers).
Check on the Hungry Programmers' site. They're the guys who developed it (or started developing it - I have no idea what stage it's at, if it's finished/unfinished, etc.)...
It may happen yet, from the sound of things. We can only hope that the process to get the Supreme Court to hear it will go through, and then they'll decide they want to hear it.
IMO, it's important enough that they should. Doesn't mean they will, of course. But let's hope they do...
Slashdot Mirror
"Reused"? As in multiple files sharing the same inode number? Not within the context of a single filesystem. However, wouldn't it be easy enough to just use a single value that is a combination of the device ID (major/minor or whatever) and the inode number? Or maybe the filesystem UUID and the inode number?
Then why is it, every time this comes up, there are plenty of disgruntled XiG customers who stand up and refute XiG's "faster/better/more stable" claims? It may be faster on _some cards_. But as unstable as I've found it to be, I can hardly classify it as "better".
I must say, I like the .sig. :)
How about, OR NOT. I will not support XiG, for any reason.
I don't like their advertising practices. I've tried their products before, and their claims about "better stability" are so much bullshit. If you want to buy their products, fine, be my guest; however, if I was going to go for a commercial Xserver (which I'm not, I like XFree just fine, thanks), I'd go for MetroX first - they support the free software community, instead of slamming it and (seemingly) trying to generate ill will.
Well, considering DirectX is only available on WinXX platforms... I somehow doubt that. And I'd suggest laying off the crack, it's probably bad for your health, not to mention your reasoning.
The same sort of people who would switch to using a service like iMacFloppy.com because it eliminates the need for someone to admin a server, replacing a 100 Mbps LAN with dialups?
I actually copied off a testimonial from imacfloppy.com where someone said they did this. Seems pretty stupid, huh? It amazes me, but people will give up a whole lot of control, and security, for the illusion of convenience. (Yes, I said the illusion of convenience. It doesn't have to be more convenient - if you can convince the average moron that it's more convenient, whether it is or not, they'll probably go for it - whatever it is.)
Yes, but it doesn't have the latest core improvements, just the updated DRI subsystem and drivers - the base code is the same as XF4.0. The XFree86 Group has actually fixed bugs and made some improvemeents to the codebase, which are destined to become part of XF 4.0.1 soon here. (Along with the improved DRI subsystem and drivers.)
I have to admit that "platform independence" stuff scares me a bit. I hope they don't do anything stupid and define word lengths or byte orderings.
You mean like they did with the Win16 API? And the Win32 API?
I don't like VB. I think extending BASIC was, and is still, a poor idea. I don't think Microsoft has done a good job of designing their APIs (considering every generation, they have to do an almost complete API rewrite). The c|net article basically makes this sound, to me, like something somewhere between Java and VB (I'm no big fan of Java either, though I believe it does have its place.)
If they're going to try to be a better Java than Java, forget it. (Probably end up about as laughable as their attempt at making a "better UNIX than UNIX".) If they're going to create another crappy API in the tradition of Win16 and Win32 to run on a bastardized, stripped-down C++ compiler, then forget it.
If I know Microsoft, it's gonna be one of the two. (I would love to be proven wrong, though.)
Apparently this guy doesn't see the humor. However, even tho I've never seen Speed Racer, I think it's pretty humorous... :)
Not bad. Has a certain ring to it. :)
For a while, I remember hearing "COOL" was supposed to be the "next big language" that Microsoft was developing. Yet another one that never materialized. They sure do talk a lot about developing programming languages, don't they?
I don't think it's a matter of 'can'. Looks like he just did. And besides, it sounded like, from the majority understanding before, that this was not only doable, but the likely outcome. It just gets pushed from the federal appeals circuit directly up to the top.
Of course, of the Supreme Court declines to hear it, I don't know what'd happen next.
Because Microsoft is leveraging one monopoly to hold onto another? Pull them apart, and the whole thing could crumble. (I'm not saying that they'll just disappear. Just wait and see.)
Nod... I've oft wondered why they couldn't just go with jewel boxes like CDs. It's not like they need an alternate packaging format. (I personally just use a CD case to store my DVDs - but not one with the stupid soft plastic pages... I've seen so many CDs ruined that way.)
I agree, the packaging issue is important - the packaging of software NEEDS to be slimmed down. But I also think that having a printed manual is useful. (One reason I like ApplixWare - I actually get a manual.) So many programs have gone to the "gee, let's put ALL the docs on the CD!" mode - it makes sense, in a way, but sometimes nothing can replace a good printed manual that you can thumb through, and mark if necessary.
Not if Microsoft "persuades" them to (a) cease targeting the Macintosh as a release platform, and (b) disallow porting contracts (like the one they had with Loki for Myth II). I for one was rather hoping that their next 2 games, Halo and Oni, would have a chance of getting ported to Linux - now it looks like only one will have that opportunity, maybe (that being Oni - Take 2 apparently holds distribution rights on Oni, but I don't know if that'll mean a chance at a Linux port of the game, or not)...
No, the "Titan" was built because the humans knew the Drej were going to attack, and because they knew these aliens would stop at nothing, including elminating Earth, to eliminate the human race.
The reason why the Drej wanted to destroy all humans was because humans were some sort of perceived threat to them (the story is never very specific as to how so)...
It may be less a matter of "who CAN port to the X-Box" than "who WANTS to"... If they have to go BUY a company to get games on their new baby, it just might mean that programming for it is so evil, no third-party developer is willing. That'd certainly make some sense. And of course, knowing Microsoft, it'd certainly fit...
Yes, because that's what it was intended for (and does a damn good job of it too, btw - I love my Vx :). You can't run Windows CE on a Palm, either. CE is too bloated, besides - the Dragonball '328 runs @ ~16 MHz, the EZ runs at ~20 - typical CE-based palmtops run on a MIPS R4x00 or StrongARM (SA-1100 is a favorite, iirc) in the 150-200 MHz range typically, so it's also a very different architecture. The Palms also have significantly less RAM - current models carry 2-8 MB, whereas CE units typically carry 16-64 MB (again, iirc). And, that memory is used a lot differently on CE units than on Palms.
:)
Make sure you know your gear before you troll, so you can at least be somewhat convincing.
There is a 64-bit extension to the PCI bus (it's used on many Alphas and PPC systems). There are cards currently that support it (NICs, SCSI controllers, etc). It's not a bus limitation, per se, it's just the implementation that's widely used in x86 systems that's limited. Check out a PCI bus pinout to see what I mean.
Exactly - this was a sympathy ploy to the court, nothing more. If he was REALLY, I mean REALLY sick enough that he COULD NOT give a deposition, his lawyers certainly could've gotten a delay.
Besides, I've been sick before. I've had fevers and other such things. Being sick don't make you stupid. And this was only a deposition, man... it's not near as stressful as a full court proceeding, I'll bet.
No doubt... considering he's the guy who helped lobby DMCA, you'd think he'd know something about it (not to mention that he's the head of the MPAA, which, as you said, he also seems to know nothing about)...
He's either a moron or a liar. All I can say is, if he perjured himself, I hope he goes to jail. If he's REALLY that stupid, I hope he goes to jail. (Come ON, it's GOT to be criminal to be that stupid.)
First of all - it's not "X Windows". It's "X", or "the X Window System". Also, X is not at version 4 - X is at release 6.4. XFree86 is at version 4, and that's just one implementation of the X Window System (aimed at Unix and Unix-alike systems (and OS/2) on Intel, and now some other, hardware). X itself has not been modularized, it's XFree86's implementation of the X Window System.
Also, the problem with fonts in X is less an issue of patent/copyright/etc. than X's horribly outdated font handling, mostly the fact that X fonts can only be depth 1 bitmaps (all pixels either on or off), making hinting, anti-aliasing and other niceties impossible. X can handle several font formats (PCF bitmap fonts, PS Type1, TrueType (in XF4), and a few vector font formats that are little-used).
One of the features of XFree86 4's modularization push is portable drivers for display cards, both in binary (portable across OSes on a single hardware platform) and source (portable across all, if coded right) forms. Hopefully, since less drivers need to be written, there will be fewer bugs (since one driver codebase can be focused on, instead of having to maintain several) and more platforms will be supported (since fewer drivers will have to be built, in the case of binary drivers).
Check on the Hungry Programmers' site. They're the guys who developed it (or started developing it - I have no idea what stage it's at, if it's finished/unfinished, etc.)...
It may happen yet, from the sound of things. We can only hope that the process to get the Supreme Court to hear it will go through, and then they'll decide they want to hear it.
IMO, it's important enough that they should. Doesn't mean they will, of course. But let's hope they do...