I'm really glad they're making strides on the performance of their Linux driver, but I really wish they'd focus on making it easier to install. On Fedora the Radeon driver is darn near impossible (without some serious binary hacking) to get the thing installed. They "officially support" CentOS 7, but not Fedora? Is it really that hard to support a modern kernel and modern version of X?
I usually end up just running the open source driver because the Radeon driver is so complicated to get working on a modern Linux system.
The AMD APUs really are a great melding of price vs performance. Sure Intel has faster CPUs, but they're also more than twice as much! The highest end APU is $150, and the highest i7 is $340. The i7 will have higher CPU performance, but most games aren't CPU bound, they're GPU bound. The AMD APUs have decent GPUs. They won't replace your high end GPU if you're playing Battlefield at 1080p, but if you're a mid-level gamer they perform great. Plus you can always add a decent GPU for $150 and you're still less than that 4700 i7!
This may be the most confusing article summary I've ever read. I read it 5 times before I gave up trying to understand it.
Headline: DDR4 May Replace Mobile Memory For Less Summary: LPDDR3, will further reduce that power consumption (probably by 35% to 40%), it will also likely cost 40% more than DDR4 memory."
I didn't think it was possible, but they already made a great pong remake. It was on the PS1 and had a ton of different tables/variations. They ever had a four player (2 vs 2) coop option!
It's only been six months since they announced the new release scheme. Things are already smoother than they were, and I think as time goes on the process will smooth out entirely. Of course there are going to be growing pains when you drastically change your release model like Mozilla did.
I think we're settling in to a browser renaissance here. With all the major browsers being mostly equivalent feature wise people will just choose what works best for them. I suspect we'll have a three way race for browser usage between Chrome, IE, and Firefox. I suspect the market share will level out, and there won't be a CLEAR winner like there was when IE6 dominated.
Even if Chrome gets market share Firefox will still have its place, and still be relevant.
I must admit I haven't really used Bing much until I read this article. Just as a test today I set my default search engine to Bing and it's surprisingly decent! It's a very decent alternative to Google now. Seeing as Microsoft loses money on search I don't mind using it either.
With Google being as big as it is, and having it's finger in EVERYTHING, makes me nervous. Having a viable alternative just serves to keep them honest.
My guess is this is a shot across the bow of Google. Letting Google know that it's pretty easy for them to switch the default search traffic to Bing is just good business. I'm sure Microsoft is going to be bidding pretty heavily to get Firefox's search user base.
In the end it's just going to keep Google honest and make sure they pay a fair price for the search traffic Firefox sends them. I think Google pays something like $60 or $70 million a year for all the Firefox user searches. That's chump change to someone like Google. I suspect after this, the next contract renewal might be a higher number.
The more I read about Chrome's design process the more I hear, "it's the Google way or no way at all". I don't have a problem with the tabs being on the top, but it seems like it would be very easy to have an option where you want the tab bar. Several of the comments had valid use cases for why you'd want tabs under, but Google isn't interested in adding it as an option?
I work for an ISP and we require rDNS records for all incoming mail. You will filter out a TON of spam email with that simple rule. It's much easier on the CPU load to filter on a simple reverse DNS check than to run spam assassin on that message. There are the occasional (not as many as you'd think) misconfigured servers that don't have rDNS. In those rare cases we contact the other end and let them know they're incorrectly setup, and usually add a temporary allow until they get the issue fixed.
I highly recommend requiring rDNS for incoming mail. 99.9% of legit mail servers will have those records, and only about 30% of spam servers will. We process over a million email messages a day with this method, it works.
Sure I spend of lot of time twiddling my thumbs waiting for my files to transfer too, but the bottleneck isn't my 1Gb/s network. It's my slow sata drive! I would venture a guess that if you were able to fully utilize that 10Gb/s connection thunderbolt gives you, you'll be entirely limited by what's on either end. Only high end SAS arrays will be able to write/read that fast.
In other words the only way to utilize all that bandwidth would be to aggregate 100s of connections, ala an ethernet switch. Which is an entirely DIFFERENT market than what they're targeting for thunderbolt.
I imagine if you're a gamer that DOESN'T drink, then you're not going to a bar to watch StarCraft anyway. The kind of person that is interested in both StarCraft, and watching it in a bar will most likely drink.
Did you read the link that was posted in the article? Mozilla clearly states that they are no going to responsible for implementing DRM, but that it's certainly feasible for a third party (i.e. Hulu) to implement something on top of the base the Mozilla provides. I think this is a "best of both worlds" attempt at DRM. Mozilla doesn't see value in DRM, but third parties might, if so they can implement their own.
I work for an ISP and if we tried to institute any limits as to what you can connect to our network our customers would go crazy. This would be like your ISP saying, "You pay $80 a month for unlimited DSL service, but don't connect your PS3. PS3 uses a lot of bandwidth and brings down the network for everyone else." Sure we'd love it if all our users did nothing but text email all day and didn't use any bandwidth, but that's not real world. If T-Mobile has a problem with some app sending too much bandwidth, or too many packets they need to add some intelligent filtering to prevent that. Or add some logic to selectively disconnect phones that are inadvertently causing a DOS, instead of an outright ban.
Occasionally we'll have a rogue user who'll get a malware infection and send out a TON of packets and cause havoc. We just shut down that port until we can contact that customer and have them clean things up. We certainly don't (and wouldn't want to) limit what we allow customers to connect to the ethernet jack on the other end of our pipe.
Just to be cool and reply to my own post... I get 24653.0ms with a FF4 night on Windows XP and 38106.4ms with FF4 nightly on Linux on the *SAME* hardware.
I'm guessing this is in response to the recent criticism of both the Sunspider and V8 benchmarks as not testing realisticworkloads. I'd be very curious to see an "acid" test of javascript that's developed with input from all the browser vendors and the community. It looks like maybe Microsoft of all people is moving in this direction with their JSMeter app? In all fairness this is kraken version 1.0, it could change drastically with more feedback from the community.
Also, did anyone verify the numbers in the original post? On my x86_64 linux box I get 28631.6ms with Chrome and 38106.4ms with FF4 nightly. It seems to me that Linux really gets the shaft in JS performance. It significant underperforms the Windows version on the same hardware.
If I were Mozilla I wouldn't worry about Google pulling the plug on their deal. Google has more to lose than Mozilla does if the default searches go to another provider. I'm sure Microsoft would LOVE to throw some dollars at Mozilla if it meant billions of searches coming their way.
Mozilla's revenue isn't from Google it's from internet searches. There are other players that just Google doing searching now.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm really glad they're making strides on the performance of their Linux driver, but I really wish they'd focus on making it easier to install. On Fedora the Radeon driver is darn near impossible (without some serious binary hacking) to get the thing installed. They "officially support" CentOS 7, but not Fedora? Is it really that hard to support a modern kernel and modern version of X?
I usually end up just running the open source driver because the Radeon driver is so complicated to get working on a modern Linux system.
The AMD APUs really are a great melding of price vs performance. Sure Intel has faster CPUs, but they're also more than twice as much! The highest end APU is $150, and the highest i7 is $340. The i7 will have higher CPU performance, but most games aren't CPU bound, they're GPU bound. The AMD APUs have decent GPUs. They won't replace your high end GPU if you're playing Battlefield at 1080p, but if you're a mid-level gamer they perform great. Plus you can always add a decent GPU for $150 and you're still less than that 4700 i7!
This may be the most confusing article summary I've ever read. I read it 5 times before I gave up trying to understand it.
Headline: DDR4 May Replace Mobile Memory For Less
Summary: LPDDR3, will further reduce that power consumption (probably by 35% to 40%), it will also likely cost 40% more than DDR4 memory."
I didn't think it was possible, but they already made a great pong remake. It was on the PS1 and had a ton of different tables/variations. They ever had a four player (2 vs 2) coop option!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=se5gYQ8wURQ
I wish I could mod this up +1000
It's only been six months since they announced the new release scheme. Things are already smoother than they were, and I think as time goes on the process will smooth out entirely. Of course there are going to be growing pains when you drastically change your release model like Mozilla did.
I think we're settling in to a browser renaissance here. With all the major browsers being mostly equivalent feature wise people will just choose what works best for them. I suspect we'll have a three way race for browser usage between Chrome, IE, and Firefox. I suspect the market share will level out, and there won't be a CLEAR winner like there was when IE6 dominated.
Even if Chrome gets market share Firefox will still have its place, and still be relevant.
I must admit I haven't really used Bing much until I read this article. Just as a test today I set my default search engine to Bing and it's surprisingly decent! It's a very decent alternative to Google now. Seeing as Microsoft loses money on search I don't mind using it either.
With Google being as big as it is, and having it's finger in EVERYTHING, makes me nervous. Having a viable alternative just serves to keep them honest.
My guess is this is a shot across the bow of Google. Letting Google know that it's pretty easy for them to switch the default search traffic to Bing is just good business. I'm sure Microsoft is going to be bidding pretty heavily to get Firefox's search user base.
In the end it's just going to keep Google honest and make sure they pay a fair price for the search traffic Firefox sends them. I think Google pays something like $60 or $70 million a year for all the Firefox user searches. That's chump change to someone like Google. I suspect after this, the next contract renewal might be a higher number.
The more I read about Chrome's design process the more I hear, "it's the Google way or no way at all". I don't have a problem with the tabs being on the top, but it seems like it would be very easy to have an option where you want the tab bar. Several of the comments had valid use cases for why you'd want tabs under, but Google isn't interested in adding it as an option?
I wrote a script to check a bunch of popular domains (or any domain) and see if they have a reverse DNS entry.
http://www.perturb.org/code/rdns_check.pl
The summary is that every one (100%) of the domains I checked had reverse DNS.
digg.com has 7 MX records
** (Good) aspmx.l.google.com = 74.125.65.27 / gx-in-f27.1e100.net
** (Good) alt1.aspmx.l.google.com = 74.125.113.27 / vw-in-f27.1e100.net
** (Good) alt2.aspmx.l.google.com = 209.85.143.27 / dy-in-f27.1e100.net
** (Good) aspmx2.googlemail.com = 74.125.43.27 / bw-in-f27.1e100.net
** (Good) aspmx3.googlemail.com = 74.125.127.27 / pz-in-f27.1e100.net
** (Good) mail.digg.com = 74.125.127.121 / pz-in-f121.1e100.net
** (Good) diggstage01.digg.com = 64.191.203.34 / diggstage01.digg.com
nytimes.com has 4 MX records
** (Good) NYTIMES.COM.S7A1.PSMTP.com = 64.18.6.14 / s7a1.psmtp.com
** (Good) NYTIMES.COM.S7A2.PSMTP.com = 64.18.6.13 / s7a2.psmtp.com
** (Good) NYTIMES.COM.S7B1.PSMTP.com = 64.18.6.11 / s7b1.psmtp.com
** (Good) NYTIMES.COM.S7B2.PSMTP.com = 64.18.6.10 / s7b2.psmtp.com
gmail.com has 5 MX records
** (Good) gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com = 74.125.65.26 / gx-in-f26.1e100.net
** (Good) alt1.gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com = 74.125.113.26 / vw-in-f26.1e100.net
** (Good) alt2.gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com = 209.85.143.26 / dy-in-f26.1e100.net
** (Good) alt3.gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com = 209.85.229.26 / ww-in-f26.1e100.net
** (Good) alt4.gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com = 74.125.79.26 / ey-in-f26.1e100.net
hotmail.com has 4 MX records
** (Good) mx3.hotmail.com = 65.54.188.110 / bay0-mc3-f.bay0.hotmail.com
** (Good) mx4.hotmail.com = 65.55.92.168 / mx4.hotmail.com
** (Good) mx1.hotmail.com = 65.54.188.72 / bay0-mc1-f.bay0.hotmail.com
** (Good) mx2.hotmail.com = 65.55.37.72 / col0-mc1-f.col0.hotmail.com
yahoo.com has 3 MX records
** (Good) mta6.am0.yahoodns.net = 98.137.54.238 / mta-v2.mail.vip.sp2.yahoo.com
** (Good) mta7.am0.yahoodns.net = 74.6.136.244 / mta-v3.mail.vip.sk1.yahoo.com
** (Good) mta5.am0.yahoodns.net = 98.139.175.224 / mta-v1.mail.vip.bf1.yahoo.com
fastmail.fm has 2 MX records
** (Good) in1.smtp.messagingengine.com = 66.111.4.71 / mx2.messagingengine.com
** (Good) in2.smtp.messagingengine.com = 82.145.212.142 / tmx2.messagingengine.com
comcast.net has 2 MX records
** (Good) mx1.comcast.net = 76.96.62.116 / imta.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net
** (Good) mx2.comcast.net = 76.96.30.116 / imta.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net
apple.com has 7 MX records
** (Good) mail-in13.apple.com = 17.254.13.11 / mail-in.apple.com
** (Good) mail-in14.apple.com = 17.254.13.13 / mail-in.apple.com
** (Good) mail-in11.apple.com = 17.254.13.7 / mail-in.apple.com
** (Good) mail-in12.apple.com = 17.254.13.10 / mail-in.apple.com
** (Good) mail-in2.apple.com = 17.254.13.5 / mail-in2.apple.com
** (Good) mail-in6.apple.com = 17.254.13.9 / mail-in6.apple.com
** (Good) mail-in3.apple.com = 17.254.13.8 / mail-in3.apple.com
google.com has 5 MX records
** (Good) aspmx.l.google.com = 74.125.65.27 / gx-in-f27.1e100.net
** (Good) alt1.aspmx.l.google.com = 74.125.113.27 / vw-in-f27.1e100.net
** (Good) alt2.aspmx.l.google.com = 209.85.143.27 / dy-in-f27.1e100.net
** (Good) alt3.aspmx.l.google.com = 209.85.229.26 / ww-in-f26.1e100.net
** (Good) alt4.aspmx.l.google.com = 74.125.79.26 / ey-in-f26.1e100.net
aol.com has 4 MX records
Agreed! Lots of servers on the net will require this, so the sending server will have a hard time getting mail to ANYWHERE.
I work for an ISP and we require rDNS records for all incoming mail. You will filter out a TON of spam email with that simple rule. It's much easier on the CPU load to filter on a simple reverse DNS check than to run spam assassin on that message. There are the occasional (not as many as you'd think) misconfigured servers that don't have rDNS. In those rare cases we contact the other end and let them know they're incorrectly setup, and usually add a temporary allow until they get the issue fixed.
I highly recommend requiring rDNS for incoming mail. 99.9% of legit mail servers will have those records, and only about 30% of spam servers will. We process over a million email messages a day with this method, it works.
Sure I spend of lot of time twiddling my thumbs waiting for my files to transfer too, but the bottleneck isn't my 1Gb/s network. It's my slow sata drive! I would venture a guess that if you were able to fully utilize that 10Gb/s connection thunderbolt gives you, you'll be entirely limited by what's on either end. Only high end SAS arrays will be able to write/read that fast.
In other words the only way to utilize all that bandwidth would be to aggregate 100s of connections, ala an ethernet switch. Which is an entirely DIFFERENT market than what they're targeting for thunderbolt.
That's the opposite of my experience. Every version has been more responsive. Whatever they're doing make it feel faster.
I love the awesome bar. It's made my browsing faster and more efficient.
I imagine if you're a gamer that DOESN'T drink, then you're not going to a bar to watch StarCraft anyway. The kind of person that is interested in both StarCraft, and watching it in a bar will most likely drink.
This would be awesome for validating SSH keys. You could flash up an image instead of:
RSA key fingerprint is e2:1b:ec:de:3e:72:1a:9a:4e:82:a0:5f:8f:d3:01:af.
And it would be a much better indicator if the key had changed.
Did you read the link that was posted in the article? Mozilla clearly states that they are no going to responsible for implementing DRM, but that it's certainly feasible for a third party (i.e. Hulu) to implement something on top of the base the Mozilla provides. I think this is a "best of both worlds" attempt at DRM. Mozilla doesn't see value in DRM, but third parties might, if so they can implement their own.
Finally someone on /. who gets it!
I work for an ISP and if we tried to institute any limits as to what you can connect to our network our customers would go crazy. This would be like your ISP saying, "You pay $80 a month for unlimited DSL service, but don't connect your PS3. PS3 uses a lot of bandwidth and brings down the network for everyone else." Sure we'd love it if all our users did nothing but text email all day and didn't use any bandwidth, but that's not real world. If T-Mobile has a problem with some app sending too much bandwidth, or too many packets they need to add some intelligent filtering to prevent that. Or add some logic to selectively disconnect phones that are inadvertently causing a DOS, instead of an outright ban.
Occasionally we'll have a rogue user who'll get a malware infection and send out a TON of packets and cause havoc. We just shut down that port until we can contact that customer and have them clean things up. We certainly don't (and wouldn't want to) limit what we allow customers to connect to the ethernet jack on the other end of our pipe.
Just to be cool and reply to my own post... I get 24653.0ms with a FF4 night on Windows XP and 38106.4ms with FF4 nightly on Linux on the *SAME* hardware.
I'm guessing this is in response to the recent criticism of both the Sunspider and V8 benchmarks as not testing realistic workloads. I'd be very curious to see an "acid" test of javascript that's developed with input from all the browser vendors and the community. It looks like maybe Microsoft of all people is moving in this direction with their JSMeter app? In all fairness this is kraken version 1.0, it could change drastically with more feedback from the community.
Also, did anyone verify the numbers in the original post? On my x86_64 linux box I get 28631.6ms with Chrome and 38106.4ms with FF4 nightly. It seems to me that Linux really gets the shaft in JS performance. It significant underperforms the Windows version on the same hardware.
Apple doesn't like Flash because it's proprietary Adobe technology and not an open platform? Hello pot meet kettle!
If I were Mozilla I wouldn't worry about Google pulling the plug on their deal. Google has more to lose than Mozilla does if the default searches go to another provider. I'm sure Microsoft would LOVE to throw some dollars at Mozilla if it meant billions of searches coming their way.
Mozilla's revenue isn't from Google it's from internet searches. There are other players that just Google doing searching now.