Okay, somebody at Apple screwed up and put an old bit in the update.
But you shouldn't be using CPAN to update your vendor perl. Period. (As is mentioned in threads below.)
Perl is easy to install your own copy of. The default install sets your own copy up in/usr/local where it is out of the way. That is what you should do with perl on _any_ OS that uses perl as a part of the OS. Why is that so hard to understand?
In fact, it's what you should do with Python, or with basically any piece of software that you want to customize.
Use CPAN to update and manage that install and let the OS tools manage the OS installs of whatever.
Bruce is not a personal friend, I do not belong to the cult of observers of famous people, ergo, I don't bother tracking his/. user id. And I do remember a sock puppet imitating his name with a fairly low id, low enough to surprise me enough that I remember. So I don't necessarily trust that that was Bruce.
Doesn't make any difference, drinking the kool-aid a big corporation's sales staff puts out is still drinking the kool-aid, whether in public or private. intel is still doing enough evil things that we shouldn't give them any slack for trying to sell us on x86 clusters-on-a-chip.
Arm-clusters-on-a-chip might be reasonable. Even Power3 or mcore clusters-on-a-chip would be interesting.
If you want the black market to be the largest piece of the market, you regulate the official market to death.
Which is part of the reason this hurts so much now. We should not have been so anxious to protect our market (all the while pretending it was free). We've been busy using a few abuses that needed temporary fixes become the excuses for excessive regulation (in the blind illusion that "we" and "our friends" would get a side-benefit, usually). What has collapsed was not a free market any more, in any sense.
We should have been taking the work, if not the jobs, overseas a long time ago. Basic sharing is also legal and workable in a truly free market. When the market was still free, we could have done so. We didn't.
Even the US treats family relationships like dirt reasons to let people move.
If I wanted to move my family to the US right now and do it by the rules, I'd have had to save my entire last three years' wages to use as a guarantee for my wife's visa. Fortunately, my kids have dual citizenship for now and wouldn't need a visa.
Well, okay, a couple or five years ago, they started this alternative waiting-for-a-visa visa.
Clearly, they don't want people to follow the rules.
Standard of living is probably the core issue, or the greed for it.
Well, that, and the number of people whose sense of security is all tangled up in how much "work" they can claim to have "accomplished". That could be considered another part of "standard of living", too.
I think part of the problem is that so many of our toys, we have quit calling them toys and started calling them necessities.
slashdot is my playground, but the internet connection itself?
It's definitely on the list of things I may have to look at cutting, to cut costs, but if I do that, I'll have to go install a certain webapp on the computer of a friend who currently uses the webapp on my personal site regularly in her business.
Not to mention do all my job searches from my cell phone.
And I call the cell phone a toy, and it's more expensive (especially pro-rated per person using it) than the land line, but the company I work for calls it a necessity.
We really need to re-examine all sorts of things. I think our greed has extended too far into our desire to do more "work" in less "time".
erm, I don't think anyone would save money moving workers to Japan (unless there were other factors with significantly more weight than wages). Look up what is happening to Toyota and Panasonic, for starters.
Or look up "average japanese wages" and check the conversion rates and work at the admin costs and moving costs.
Japan is not where they want to move people for wage savings.
I think the problem with paying the guys at the top millions is that it makes the guys at the bottom feel, you know, not worth that much.
So the union guys, since they need to justify the cost of union dues, point to the high wages at the top and tell the guys at the bottom they should be getting a part of that.
Bad math all around.
The real problem is the attitude of top vs. bottom. If the executives were willing to live like real people, the employees would (mostly) not be demanding to be treated like royalty, too.
(Lot's of problems here, but let's look at one thing at a time.)
And I agree. When you're moving long distances and/or at-speed under your own power, even a hundred grams can sometimes be the difference between getting to work worn out or just slightly sweaty.
Not in this context. It was not a settled-once-and-for-all decision, it was a your-contract-covered-it decision. The judge didn't find anything additional that they copied in MSW3 to be infringing, didn't find any reason the agreement relative to MSW1 should not apply to MSW3, etc.
MS and Apple later agreed to exchange tech. But that agreement also has limits.
New suits could definitely filed, if Apple saw something they thought was sufficiently flagrant.
Not that they will in this case.
I still don't really understand why Apple stood by and never got after Microsoft for all the cut-and-paste copying of actual code. Did the agreement relative to MSW1 allow that?
Your post explains precisely why I don't like USB.
Have you read comments from some of those who have been involved writing USB drivers for Linux?
But, yeah, just so you know, the CPU can actually handle polling. Plenty fast enough, as long as you don't mind the cycles it takes away from whatever you were wanting your computer to do.
But you WILL likely connect USB2.0 and 1.1 devices to a 3.0 port.
At this point in time that sounds more like posturing or threats than promises of a rosy future.
You do understand the logical fallacy of arguing from assumptions about the future? Six years ago, there were a lot of intel UWB camp guys claiming that, by this year, consumer devices would no longer use cables at all. Great silliness, especially considering intel's UWB spec.
No keyboard or mouse needs to transfer gigabytes of data, why not use a cheaper and lower power chip that matches it's actual requirements? I have a keyboard, mouse, tablet, and parallel port (all 1.1 devices) hung off of a 2.0 port now through a hub. There's nothing half baked about it, it's actually well thought out and it just works.
Bully for you. I have the same (well, no parallel port) and it likes to die when I hang a USB 2.0 disk drive on that hub. Admittedly, not the most recent devices (which benefit from a lot of consumer debugging and a lot of die-shrinkage that allows building more of a proper DMA interface into the same amount of chip real estate), but not first generation devices, either. Five year old tech.
I'm pretty sure that one of the reasons that hub hangs is the physical construction of the plug. It's really easy to lose electrical connection. And that's one of the glaring errors in the spec.
It's not a bad design for dongles and flash storage, makes for a great substitute for floppy disks. I'll give it that. (Unadorned flash RAM is not a good substitute for floppy disks. Physically too small.)
I have no reason to expect that USB 3 won't take ten years to work the bugs out of, or that we will be able to see the full effect of DMA at current chip design rules, or that we will ever actually see a decent, affordable implementation of both sides of the protocol in a single port, so that ordinary USB 3 devices can actually do proper peer-to-peer transfers like firewire devices can.
Not from intel's track record. They may have a comparatively decent track record on CPUs for the last three years, but they just don't get things. Things like, there's only so much trashing your own market you can do.
When I eventually upgrade and have USB 3.0 ports, I'll plug the very same hub in and it'll still just work.
You hope. Yeah, if it works, I'll eat some of my doubting words without too much complaint. But from this side of the future, I see no reason to make any business decisions relying on your assurances or intel's.
USB was designed specifically to allow for low cost implementation.
To a certain extent, designing down to the expectations of the current market is a good thing. But that's not what intel is doing, or they wouldn't be trying so hard to push perfectly good specs out of the market and replace them with their own.
You will never see a firewire mouse because the interface would exceed the cost of the mouse.
Huh?
At this point in time, chip design rules and available micro-controllers are just fine for packing a mouse or keyboard controller and firewire controller into a single chip at sub dollar prices. Maybe not pennies, but easily low enough prices to sell into the higher-end mouse market. By the time USB 3 is usable and you can plug a USB 1 mouse or keyboard into a USB 3 hub without degrading the performance of all the other devices on the hub, price parity with a cheap USB 3 keyboard or mouse controller will easily be possible.
And if that's not what you mean, the question is moot. 2 USB 2 ports + 2 USB 3 ports on a lightweight laptop is not substantially different from 2 USB + 2 Firewire. Temporary hook-ups mean moving cables anyway.
I don't think illusion is the right word anyway since if you DID plug a 3.0 device into a 2.0 port, it would actually work just as well as any 2.0 devi
I mean, from the point of view of the software using the USB port, not the software running in OS user mode, it looks like that.
But from what I've read, actual implementations tend to push most of the handshake onto the (software) drivers. That means the CPU has to do a lot of, you guessed it, polling states. Even USB hardware that supports interrupt mode tends to be so kludgy that it is often more effective to use low-level polling. And the standard allows that.
From what I've read.
And it shows. USB devices, especially cheap ones, tend to consume an awful lot of CPU time compared to proper DMA implemented interfaces like SCSI or firewire. (Although I'll acknowledge that there were a number of cheap Macs that did that with the SCSI interfaces. Not something they could have gotten away with at all with x86 chips of the same era, but not something they should really have done, either. With the SCSI interface, you could at least say that the design did not meet standard.)
Maybe you don't notice it so much when all you have is the old IDE/pATA interfaces to compare it with.
And maybe you don't notice it so much when the CPU is actually two, so that one CPU can be busying itself with polling the interface while the other is doing your work. (Which would be one reason intel is so enamored of multiple cores.)
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, somebody at Apple screwed up and put an old bit in the update.
But you shouldn't be using CPAN to update your vendor perl. Period. (As is mentioned in threads below.)
Perl is easy to install your own copy of. The default install sets your own copy up in /usr/local where it is out of the way. That is what you should do with perl on _any_ OS that uses perl as a part of the OS. Why is that so hard to understand?
In fact, it's what you should do with Python, or with basically any piece of software that you want to customize.
Use CPAN to update and manage that install and let the OS tools manage the OS installs of whatever.
Some of us think PCI, USB, and SATA are more of a testament to intel's very stubborn NIMBY than evidence of some dedication to openness.
Bruce is not a personal friend, I do not belong to the cult of observers of famous people, ergo, I don't bother tracking his /. user id. And I do remember a sock puppet imitating his name with a fairly low id, low enough to surprise me enough that I remember. So I don't necessarily trust that that was Bruce.
Doesn't make any difference, drinking the kool-aid a big corporation's sales staff puts out is still drinking the kool-aid, whether in public or private. intel is still doing enough evil things that we shouldn't give them any slack for trying to sell us on x86 clusters-on-a-chip.
Arm-clusters-on-a-chip might be reasonable. Even Power3 or mcore clusters-on-a-chip would be interesting.
But, x86?
Anonymous shill.
I don't care who you call yourself, you've been drinking too much intel kool-aid.
I don't think that's called ars taking the argument seriously.
Maybe not treating it as complete bag-of-wind, but still not taking it seriously.
If you want the black market to be the largest piece of the market, you regulate the official market to death.
Which is part of the reason this hurts so much now. We should not have been so anxious to protect our market (all the while pretending it was free). We've been busy using a few abuses that needed temporary fixes become the excuses for excessive regulation (in the blind illusion that "we" and "our friends" would get a side-benefit, usually). What has collapsed was not a free market any more, in any sense.
We should have been taking the work, if not the jobs, overseas a long time ago. Basic sharing is also legal and workable in a truly free market. When the market was still free, we could have done so. We didn't.
We're paying the price now.
Yeah.
Even the US treats family relationships like dirt reasons to let people move.
If I wanted to move my family to the US right now and do it by the rules, I'd have had to save my entire last three years' wages to use as a guarantee for my wife's visa. Fortunately, my kids have dual citizenship for now and wouldn't need a visa.
Well, okay, a couple or five years ago, they started this alternative waiting-for-a-visa visa.
Clearly, they don't want people to follow the rules.
intel?
Microsoft?
But I've already posted here.
Standard of living is probably the core issue, or the greed for it.
Well, that, and the number of people whose sense of security is all tangled up in how much "work" they can claim to have "accomplished". That could be considered another part of "standard of living", too.
I think part of the problem is that so many of our toys, we have quit calling them toys and started calling them necessities.
slashdot is my playground, but the internet connection itself?
It's definitely on the list of things I may have to look at cutting, to cut costs, but if I do that, I'll have to go install a certain webapp on the computer of a friend who currently uses the webapp on my personal site regularly in her business.
Not to mention do all my job searches from my cell phone.
And I call the cell phone a toy, and it's more expensive (especially pro-rated per person using it) than the land line, but the company I work for calls it a necessity.
We really need to re-examine all sorts of things. I think our greed has extended too far into our desire to do more "work" in less "time".
Or are you just arguing the metaphor in metaphor?
erm, I don't think anyone would save money moving workers to Japan (unless there were other factors with significantly more weight than wages). Look up what is happening to Toyota and Panasonic, for starters.
Or look up "average japanese wages" and check the conversion rates and work at the admin costs and moving costs.
Japan is not where they want to move people for wage savings.
I think the problem with paying the guys at the top millions is that it makes the guys at the bottom feel, you know, not worth that much.
So the union guys, since they need to justify the cost of union dues, point to the high wages at the top and tell the guys at the bottom they should be getting a part of that.
Bad math all around.
The real problem is the attitude of top vs. bottom. If the executives were willing to live like real people, the employees would (mostly) not be demanding to be treated like royalty, too.
(Lot's of problems here, but let's look at one thing at a time.)
<shrug />
It took this thread to make it clear to me what the fascination in that poor substitute for a joystick is.
I can't imagine doing real work with such a pointer device.
I suppose, if you're just running CLI on your GUI, maybe, but why bother?
Now I know.
Or the way it rides in your backpack.
And I agree. When you're moving long distances and/or at-speed under your own power, even a hundred grams can sometimes be the difference between getting to work worn out or just slightly sweaty.
fedora on ppc? Or ubuntu?
I mean, really, how many geeks does it take to miss a point?
Not bleeding edge use, though.
I don't think that's exactly accurate.
Not in this context. It was not a settled-once-and-for-all decision, it was a your-contract-covered-it decision. The judge didn't find anything additional that they copied in MSW3 to be infringing, didn't find any reason the agreement relative to MSW1 should not apply to MSW3, etc.
MS and Apple later agreed to exchange tech. But that agreement also has limits.
New suits could definitely filed, if Apple saw something they thought was sufficiently flagrant.
Not that they will in this case.
I still don't really understand why Apple stood by and never got after Microsoft for all the cut-and-paste copying of actual code. Did the agreement relative to MSW1 allow that?
By the infinities, man, "religion" is not a monolith.
(Posting here mostly because the ACs are still at 0.)
LOL
You realize something?
Your post explains precisely why I don't like USB.
Have you read comments from some of those who have been involved writing USB drivers for Linux?
But, yeah, just so you know, the CPU can actually handle polling. Plenty fast enough, as long as you don't mind the cycles it takes away from whatever you were wanting your computer to do.
But you WILL likely connect USB2.0 and 1.1 devices to a 3.0 port.
At this point in time that sounds more like posturing or threats than promises of a rosy future.
You do understand the logical fallacy of arguing from assumptions about the future? Six years ago, there were a lot of intel UWB camp guys claiming that, by this year, consumer devices would no longer use cables at all. Great silliness, especially considering intel's UWB spec.
No keyboard or mouse needs to transfer gigabytes of data, why not use a cheaper and lower power chip that matches it's actual requirements? I have a keyboard, mouse, tablet, and parallel port (all 1.1 devices) hung off of a 2.0 port now through a hub. There's nothing half baked about it, it's actually well thought out and it just works.
Bully for you. I have the same (well, no parallel port) and it likes to die when I hang a USB 2.0 disk drive on that hub. Admittedly, not the most recent devices (which benefit from a lot of consumer debugging and a lot of die-shrinkage that allows building more of a proper DMA interface into the same amount of chip real estate), but not first generation devices, either. Five year old tech.
I'm pretty sure that one of the reasons that hub hangs is the physical construction of the plug. It's really easy to lose electrical connection. And that's one of the glaring errors in the spec.
It's not a bad design for dongles and flash storage, makes for a great substitute for floppy disks. I'll give it that. (Unadorned flash RAM is not a good substitute for floppy disks. Physically too small.)
I have no reason to expect that USB 3 won't take ten years to work the bugs out of, or that we will be able to see the full effect of DMA at current chip design rules, or that we will ever actually see a decent, affordable implementation of both sides of the protocol in a single port, so that ordinary USB 3 devices can actually do proper peer-to-peer transfers like firewire devices can.
Not from intel's track record. They may have a comparatively decent track record on CPUs for the last three years, but they just don't get things. Things like, there's only so much trashing your own market you can do.
When I eventually upgrade and have USB 3.0 ports, I'll plug the very same hub in and it'll still just work.
You hope. Yeah, if it works, I'll eat some of my doubting words without too much complaint. But from this side of the future, I see no reason to make any business decisions relying on your assurances or intel's.
USB was designed specifically to allow for low cost implementation.
To a certain extent, designing down to the expectations of the current market is a good thing. But that's not what intel is doing, or they wouldn't be trying so hard to push perfectly good specs out of the market and replace them with their own.
You will never see a firewire mouse because the interface would exceed the cost of the mouse.
Huh?
At this point in time, chip design rules and available micro-controllers are just fine for packing a mouse or keyboard controller and firewire controller into a single chip at sub dollar prices. Maybe not pennies, but easily low enough prices to sell into the higher-end mouse market. By the time USB 3 is usable and you can plug a USB 1 mouse or keyboard into a USB 3 hub without degrading the performance of all the other devices on the hub, price parity with a cheap USB 3 keyboard or mouse controller will easily be possible.
And if that's not what you mean, the question is moot. 2 USB 2 ports + 2 USB 3 ports on a lightweight laptop is not substantially different from 2 USB + 2 Firewire. Temporary hook-ups mean moving cables anyway.
I don't think illusion is the right word anyway since if you DID plug a 3.0 device into a 2.0 port, it would actually work just as well as any 2.0 devi
I mean, from the point of view of the software using the USB port, not the software running in OS user mode, it looks like that.
But from what I've read, actual implementations tend to push most of the handshake onto the (software) drivers. That means the CPU has to do a lot of, you guessed it, polling states. Even USB hardware that supports interrupt mode tends to be so kludgy that it is often more effective to use low-level polling. And the standard allows that.
From what I've read.
And it shows. USB devices, especially cheap ones, tend to consume an awful lot of CPU time compared to proper DMA implemented interfaces like SCSI or firewire. (Although I'll acknowledge that there were a number of cheap Macs that did that with the SCSI interfaces. Not something they could have gotten away with at all with x86 chips of the same era, but not something they should really have done, either. With the SCSI interface, you could at least say that the design did not meet standard.)
Maybe you don't notice it so much when all you have is the old IDE/pATA interfaces to compare it with.
And maybe you don't notice it so much when the CPU is actually two, so that one CPU can be busying itself with polling the interface while the other is doing your work. (Which would be one reason intel is so enamored of multiple cores.)
But it's there.