Why emulate? Why not go out an buy one? You would need some pretty hefty hardware to emulate one. Aren't these consoles supposed to cost about $200? That's not too much, if you ask me.
What I would find much cooler is 4 of these CPU's on a 64-bit PCI card, combined with say 256 MB RAM. Put 6 of these babies in a Sun Ultra Enterprise 450 with enough RAM and 4 CPU's to keep these boards busy. Also, the UE450 has enough PCI slots and space to add a RAID5 array. Cooling would be a problem though:(
Might this be the most rendering power per square inch?
I am now goofing w/Solaris and thinking about playing with FreeBSD and/or VAX.
Is that goofing with NetBSD on VAX hardware or with VMS? Before you start messing with VMS, please consider the fact that there is an (unproven) relationship between the usage of VMS and the development of braintumors:) VMS is however one of the most stable OS-es out there and is still used today.
So, before you get yourself a nice uVAX II (or maybe even an 11/760 or 11/780) roomheater, take a look at VMS. It does run NetBSD though.
FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, etc.. They are all free and seem pretty similar at first glance.
That's because they are, especially NetBSD and OpenBSD. Most of the source for OpenBSD comes from NetBSD. (OpenBSD is kind of a paranoid version of NetBSD.)
FreeBSD runs on Intel and Alpha CPU's and is probably your first choice if your using a x86 machine.
NetBSD and OpenBSD run on just about any CPU, so if you've got hardware like a SGI Indy or a nice Sun, you want to get one of these.
The difference between NetBSD and OpenBSD is mostly that OpenBSD is more security minded (hope Theo doesn't see this;)
FreeBSD has a bit better support for x86 hardware than NetBSD/OpenBSD.
In the end, these BSD variants have more similarities than differences. It doesn't really matter which one you choose. It's more a matter of taste, I guess.
If your using x86 hardware, go with FreeBSD. If you're really 'paranoid' (are is that 'sane'?), go with OpenBSD, since it tends to be more secure.
I'm using Linux on my workstation because Linux had support for the most outlandish hardware. Linux is much more bleeding edge ( suprise) and (in my opinion) has a number of very good devicedrivers (take Donald Beckers line of NIC drivers). If there is a little tweak that will make a device go 5% faster, than it will be used. It does make the Linux kernel a bit less stable. However, if you stay away from 'new' and 'experimental' kernel options, that is usually not a problem.
I use FreeBSD as a server. The kernel is more modular (especially NetBSD/OpenBSD) and the source is easier to understand. FreeBSD is usually more a coherent mass (like the article states). A small example: glibc 2.0.7 implements writev(2) with write(2), while the linux kernel supports writev(2). Not very efficient. However, this is more of a small problem with glibc than a problem with the linux kernel. (Maybe the Hurd kernel doesn't implement writev.)
Please don't get me wrong. I like FreeBSD a lot. I use it at work, actually.
"We chose not to use Windows NT, since it's Linux support is still in it's infancy. Instead, we're now using FreeBSD as a cheaper alternative for Linux." -- The future?
What I meant was that in some twisted future, Linux might be more popular than Windows. Microsoft would have to add Linux support to keep Windows a viable alternative. FreeBSD on the other hand runs Linux programs just nicely. And why FreeBSD as a cheaper alternative? I see the commercialisation of Linux with mixed feelings. The competence of users is droping (a lot of Redhat and OpenLinux users can't compile their own kernels), which I find, by lack of a betrer word, a bit sad. But I guess that's the price we have to pay for more mainstream acceptance. A couple of years ago you were weird of you used Linux, now your cool!
Excuse the typos. And for those Redhat (I use Redhat) and OpenLinux users out there, start your flametrowers, but do it to my email adres and not this forum.
Since they mention using terminal emulators somewhere in the article, NT probably wasn't even a serious contendor. Since x86 hardware is dirt cheap, they probably looked at UnixWare, Solaris x86 and Linux (maybe FreeBSD). That's not a difficult choice:)
"We chose not to use Windows NT, since it's Linux support is still in it's infancy. Instead, we're now using FreeBSD as a cheaper alternative for Linux." -- The future?
I don't see any real mention of how annoying users can be. They give fague descriptions of problems and expect you to know exactly what they're talking about. They call every five minutes when a server has crashed, hoping that will speed things up. They repeatedly wreck the contents of their homedir and expect you to immediately restore their homedir from tape. They expect you to work 28/7 without any vacation. They expect you to know the answer to just about any goofball question they can com up with. In other words, they're really annoying.
On the other hand, it would be pretty boring without these (sometimes misguided) individuals...
(How the hell did you get your pencil stuck in the diskdrive?!)
And people have wrapped OpenGL around the Direct3D interface (with at least some success).
Run that by me again? Why would someone do this? Any decent videocard is supplied with an OpenGL ICD. What would be the advantage of emulating OpenGL, when the real thing is available?
1. Windows is the dominant OS. Any hardware vendor who writes a windows driver is guaranteed 90% of the market. It's not cost-effective to write a UDI (or whatever) driver to get the other 10% of the market.
For hardware vendors targeting a small section of the server market, the UDI is still pretty interesting. For instance, it would allow companies like Mylex and DPT to write only a single driver for their RAID controllers. In the mid- to high-end servermarket you see a lot less NT boxes.
On the other hand, you would expect both performance and stability from a product like a RAID controller (what other reason is there to use one). Personally, I think a Linux `native' driver will be able to provide better performance and stability than the UDI drivers. If a hardware vendor can develop a single UDI driver and distribute only the binary, where's the incentive to provide access to external driver developers to specifications? I fear the UDI will give hardware vendors an excuse to stop providing support to Linux driver developers.
I know a Cisco Pix (high-end firewall) uses a P2-233. Also, it uses 32 or 64 MB of RAM and uses flashram cards for storage. The OS is probably living in a flashram too.
I wonder how much non-pc hardware is in a Pix. On the other hand, it can take a maximum of 4 interfaces with a 155 mbit ATM interface being the fastest it can handle. A properly configured Linux box could do the same job.
I haven't seen the GUI tool for configurating the Pix, but the text-interface (via telnet) sux and is more complex than ipchains. Also, the documentation leaves something to be desired. I think I would prefer a Linux box with some reliable hardware.
The Pix does have fail-over capabilities. Something similar can probably done under Linux, but right now I haven't a clue. Anyone any ideas?
Mathijs
No mention of unix workstation/server vendors
on
Troubles with Merced
·
· Score: 1
I wonder how much time the author of this article took to research the matter.
I see no mentioning of any of the unix vendors. Both HP and SGI are going to use the IA64. HP will be fasing out it's PA-RISC CPU in favour of the IA64. (Don't know about SGI's use of MIPS CPU's.) Both vendors have extensive experience with multi-scalar RISC CPU's. Also, Intel has it's own RISC CPU's and the are several 3rd party compiler developers probably just waiting for a break.
Also, he starts comparing Joe Average's IA64 system with real server machines (HP PA-RISC, Alpha AXP, MIPS R10K, Sun UltraSparc). An IA64-based system is going to cost more that Joe makes in a year! He can't even buy a machine based on one the the currently popular server architectures (except maybe Intel IA32/Xeon). Also, the comment about just adding an extra CPU is also valid for current SMP Windows NT based systems, since almost all software is multi-threaded. (I really like my dual P150 running Linux...)
I think we need a new perl manpage: perllyrics. It should contain the lyrics to all the greats like 'Harvey the wonder hamster', 'It\'s living in the fridge' and 'Like a surgeon'. Would give us perl nutters something to read during a much needed break;)
Slashdot Mirror
What I would find much cooler is 4 of these CPU's on a 64-bit PCI card, combined with say 256 MB RAM. Put 6 of these babies in a Sun Ultra Enterprise 450 with enough RAM and 4 CPU's to keep these boards busy. Also, the UE450 has enough PCI slots and space to add a RAID5 array. Cooling would be a problem though :(
Might this be the most rendering power per square inch?
Mathijs
Is that goofing with NetBSD on VAX hardware or with VMS? Before you start messing with VMS, please consider the fact that there is an (unproven) relationship between the usage of VMS and the development of braintumors :) VMS is however one of the most stable OS-es out there and is still used today.
So, before you get yourself a nice uVAX II (or maybe even an 11/760 or 11/780) roomheater, take a look at VMS. It does run NetBSD though.
Mathijs
FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, etc.. They are all free and seem pretty similar at first glance.
;)
That's because they are, especially NetBSD and OpenBSD. Most of the source for OpenBSD comes from NetBSD. (OpenBSD is kind of a paranoid version of NetBSD.)
FreeBSD runs on Intel and Alpha CPU's and is probably your first choice if your using a x86
machine.
NetBSD and OpenBSD run on just about any CPU, so if you've got hardware like a SGI Indy or a nice Sun, you want to get one of these.
The difference between NetBSD and OpenBSD is mostly that OpenBSD is more security minded (hope Theo doesn't see this
FreeBSD has a bit better support for x86 hardware than NetBSD/OpenBSD.
In the end, these BSD variants have more similarities than differences. It doesn't really matter which one you choose. It's more a matter of taste, I guess.
If your using x86 hardware, go with FreeBSD. If you're really 'paranoid' (are is that 'sane'?), go with OpenBSD, since it tends to be more secure.
Hope this helps.
Mathijs
I'm using Linux on my workstation because Linux had support for the most outlandish hardware. Linux is much more bleeding edge ( suprise) and (in my opinion) has a number of very good devicedrivers (take Donald Beckers line of NIC drivers). If there is a little tweak that will make a device go 5% faster, than it will be used. It does make the Linux kernel a bit less stable. However, if you stay away from 'new' and 'experimental' kernel options, that is usually not a problem.
I use FreeBSD as a server. The kernel is more modular (especially NetBSD/OpenBSD) and the source is easier to understand. FreeBSD is usually more a coherent mass (like the article states). A small example: glibc 2.0.7 implements writev(2) with write(2), while the linux kernel supports writev(2). Not very efficient. However, this is more of a small problem with glibc than a problem with the linux kernel. (Maybe the Hurd kernel doesn't implement writev.)
Mathijs
Please don't get me wrong. I like FreeBSD a lot. I use it at work, actually.
"We chose not to use Windows NT, since it's Linux support is still in it's infancy. Instead, we're now using FreeBSD as a cheaper alternative for Linux." -- The future?
What I meant was that in some twisted future, Linux might be more popular than Windows. Microsoft would have to add Linux support to keep Windows a viable alternative. FreeBSD on the other hand runs Linux programs just nicely. And why FreeBSD as a cheaper alternative? I see the commercialisation of Linux with mixed feelings. The competence of users is droping (a lot of Redhat and OpenLinux users can't compile their own kernels), which I find, by lack of a betrer word, a bit sad. But I guess that's the price we have to pay for more mainstream acceptance. A couple of years ago you were weird of you used Linux, now your cool!
Excuse the typos. And for those Redhat (I use Redhat) and OpenLinux users out there, start your flametrowers, but do it to my email adres and not this forum.
Mathijs
Since they mention using terminal emulators somewhere in the article, NT probably wasn't even a serious contendor. Since x86 hardware is dirt cheap, they probably looked at UnixWare, Solaris x86 and Linux (maybe FreeBSD). That's not a difficult choice :)
"We chose not to use Windows NT, since it's Linux support is still in it's infancy. Instead, we're now using FreeBSD as a cheaper alternative for Linux." -- The future?
Mathijs
I don't see any real mention of how annoying users can be. They give fague descriptions of problems and expect you to know exactly what they're talking about. They call every five minutes when a server has crashed, hoping that will speed things up. They repeatedly wreck the contents of their homedir and expect you to immediately restore their homedir from tape. They expect you to work 28/7 without any vacation. They expect you to know the answer to just about any goofball question they can com up with. In other words, they're really annoying.
On the other hand, it would be pretty boring without these (sometimes misguided) individuals...
(How the hell did you get your pencil stuck in the diskdrive?!)
Mathijs
Run that by me again? Why would someone do this? Any decent videocard is supplied with an OpenGL ICD. What would be the advantage of emulating OpenGL, when the real thing is available?
Mathijs
For hardware vendors targeting a small section of the server market, the UDI is still pretty interesting. For instance, it would allow companies like Mylex and DPT to write only a single driver for their RAID controllers. In the mid- to high-end servermarket you see a lot less NT boxes.
On the other hand, you would expect both performance and stability from a product like a RAID controller (what other reason is there to use one). Personally, I think a Linux `native' driver will be able to provide better performance and stability than the UDI drivers. If a hardware vendor can develop a single UDI driver and distribute only the binary, where's the incentive to provide access to external driver developers to specifications? I fear the UDI will give hardware vendors an excuse to stop providing support to Linux driver developers.
Mathijs
I know a Cisco Pix (high-end firewall) uses a P2-233. Also, it uses 32 or 64 MB of RAM and uses flashram cards for storage. The OS is probably living in a flashram too.
I wonder how much non-pc hardware is in a Pix. On the other hand, it can take a maximum of 4 interfaces with a 155 mbit ATM interface being the fastest it can handle. A properly configured Linux box could do the same job.
I haven't seen the GUI tool for configurating the Pix, but the text-interface (via telnet) sux and is more complex than ipchains. Also, the documentation leaves something to be desired. I think I would prefer a Linux box with some reliable hardware.
The Pix does have fail-over capabilities. Something similar can probably done under Linux, but right now I haven't a clue. Anyone any ideas?
Mathijs
I wonder how much time the author of this article
took to research the matter.
I see no mentioning of any of the unix vendors.
Both HP and SGI are going to use the IA64. HP
will be fasing out it's PA-RISC CPU in favour of
the IA64. (Don't know about SGI's use of MIPS
CPU's.) Both vendors have extensive experience
with multi-scalar RISC CPU's. Also, Intel has
it's own RISC CPU's and the are several 3rd party
compiler developers probably just waiting for a
break.
Also, he starts comparing Joe Average's IA64
system with real server machines (HP PA-RISC,
Alpha AXP, MIPS R10K, Sun UltraSparc). An
IA64-based system is going to cost more that Joe
makes in a year! He can't even buy a machine
based on one the the currently popular server
architectures (except maybe Intel IA32/Xeon).
Also, the comment about just adding an extra CPU
is also valid for current SMP Windows NT based
systems, since almost all software is
multi-threaded. (I really like my dual P150
running Linux...)
Mathijs
I think we need a new perl manpage: perllyrics. ;)
It should contain the lyrics to all the greats
like 'Harvey the wonder hamster', 'It\'s living
in the fridge' and 'Like a surgeon'. Would give
us perl nutters something to read during a much
needed break
Mathijs
This guy means Mylex.
Mathijs