Again, I wonder if the benchmarks used AMD optimized code (they have to use the proper GCC backend). It seems that most of the time, the benchmarks for non-Intel processors are based on Intel optimized code.
I have never seen mentionned in the benchmarks if the tools were using the best machine code for the targetted processor... yeah... that smells bad.
That comes down to the part of your brain that was modelled working on the company product.
They cannot reasonnably claim that, at least in a free country...
The rule of the game, in our money world, would be to pay you enough to kill your temptation to quit and/or create a better product.
Also, if you worked in a specific field and you quit, no employer can forbid you to work again in that field, since that's would be the best trump card to find a new job! The only leverage allowed is "more money"... that's the master rule of our money world. But in that money world, quitting and making a better product won't help you getting corrupt clients acquired to your previous employer by your side... but that's the matter of defining "what" you can buy with money.
Right.
But the main issue is to remotely pilot through PCI express the complexity of a modern GPU from the Linux kernel on the host system.
Currently a lot of work is done in designing a set of layers:
- lowest GPU specific interface.
- GEM.
- Gallium3D.
I hardly can wait for 3D engines based on those interfaces, bypassing opengl 3...
Moreover ATI/AMD specs are opened... meaning you can code directly the hardware. That's times more powerfull and flexible than CUDA.
And there are frameworks in the works in order to have easy access to GPU lowlevel interfaces (see Intel/AMD GEM work in the mesa project).
Basically, nvidia behavior is generating a lot of hate in coders community...
They are putting a lot of C++, which has a "software cost"(size and complexity of the compiler) which is, as far as I am concerned, not reasonable.
Drizzle is the same: they chose C++ for the fork. I would love to see a mysql fork rewritting the C++ bits using C.
"At this moment, the headset only detects the gamer's level of concentration and relaxation by means of a single electrode placed on the forehead"... ONE electrode... magic?
My mistake, I missed the *not* for the distribution part. I do apologize.
Indeed, till you do not distribute (in a broad definition) GPL code, you are not mandated to publish your improvements and/or modifications.
Down to the point, those agreement does the same thing: make you give full rights on your code to somebody else. From there, only the behavior of the guy you give your rights is important, not the tone of the agreement.
You are right...
Actually, coding properly in C, is coding properly the memory model of computers.
So when learning the C syntax, what's important is to have a mental picture of what's done in the computer memories (RAM/cache/page). So C syntax is maybe very simple, the learner shoud be careful in mastering the computer memory model at the same time.
You cannot contribute(mysql/opensolaris/openoffice) without releasing your rights to Sun. So you cannot contribute without being screwed of the control of your code, and many GPL coders want their code to stay free and not be used in proprietary software, thing they lose if they contribute to such software. Some will say that the FSF is doing the same thing on GNU projects: assuming the behavior of the board of Sun will be the same that the FSF is quite misleading... as they do not have the same goals.
... there is no such thing since those licenses define quite different open source development model.
The most important is that (young) coders have to perceive on the long term how the license choice will influence the quality of open source software.
One of the ways to do so, is to checkout workarounds done by bad companies/people on open source licenses:
BSD does push for sub-optimal open source version of a software compared to proprietary forks. That what happen with darwin/macos for instance. Since that trend is just taking off, we will see more and more BSD projects having sub-optimal open source versions, and we will probably have to use a proprietary fork.
GPL, well if a set of authors of an GPLed project want to provide a proprietary version, then can. But the authors have to agree and have to hold rights on the whole code. This can be difficult to achieve on big projects (cf Linux). It happend with mysql/qt/opensolaris/lzo. The latter is interesting because the authors sells the proprietary version which is faster/better/stronger(TM) thant the GPL version! As far as I understood things, coders who choose GPL want the open source version to be THE optimal version. Well seems the GPL is missing some stuff to protect itself against its authors or basically of authors who try to enjoy the GPL aura without playing the game of code with the GPL spirit.
Well, young coder... choose well... let your choice be as enlightened as possible.
They will be able to know if there are backdoors in the hardware.
The will be able to known if there are backdoors in the software.
They will be able to replicate and improve the hardware they have the design for.
We may end-up will *all* hardware specifications (thinking of nvidia) for Linux.
If those companies want to produce chips using the cheap money from China... they will have to pay the real price in another way... actually I think that would be fair.
A new developer shall be aware he is now member of the "family", and has to protect the work of the "family"... but windows is not from the family, it's a parasite... young developer don't surrender to the dark side and all its short term bells and whistles...
This is the famous GPL "workaround": single author for the code, then he can provide the code with any license... even proprietary: mysql, openoffice, LZO(where the proprietary version is explicitly way better than the open source one...). Of course you cannot contribute to this software without *sharing*(my a...) your rights with Sun.
Basically, it ends up like a BSD license, but with one single author in control. If that author is trustable on the long term, ok... but there we are talking about the board of the "little microsoft...". Careful, or the open source community will get burnt. Solaris must die, or let the GPL workaround go and build a Linux spirit like community: basically to insure that the open source version will stay the best, and not a proprietary fork (cf Darwin/MacOS and the BSD license).
I think that's obvious... actually with hard disk of 1 terrabytes being broadband, reaching a petabyte is quite easy, even for a midsize organization.
Where I work, we build ourselves our disk matrixes, and reaching 1000 terabytes is about to put together just a few 1000's of disks, not a big deal.
Guys,
That was not the "minimal" I was talking about: I was talking about a minimal software stack.
It depends where your threshold is. As for myself, C is the one. Namely my software stack is :
Linux kernel + GNU C toolchain + C libs and that's it.
Slashdot Mirror
Again, I wonder if the benchmarks used AMD optimized code (they have to use the proper GCC backend). It seems that most of the time, the benchmarks for non-Intel processors are based on Intel optimized code. I have never seen mentionned in the benchmarks if the tools were using the best machine code for the targetted processor... yeah... that smells bad.
That comes down to the part of your brain that was modelled working on the company product. They cannot reasonnably claim that, at least in a free country... The rule of the game, in our money world, would be to pay you enough to kill your temptation to quit and/or create a better product. Also, if you worked in a specific field and you quit, no employer can forbid you to work again in that field, since that's would be the best trump card to find a new job! The only leverage allowed is "more money"... that's the master rule of our money world. But in that money world, quitting and making a better product won't help you getting corrupt clients acquired to your previous employer by your side... but that's the matter of defining "what" you can buy with money.
Moreover the mozdev web site seems to run on non-GPL software... even proprietary! Maybe it's time to switch to AGPLv3?
Right. But the main issue is to remotely pilot through PCI express the complexity of a modern GPU from the Linux kernel on the host system. Currently a lot of work is done in designing a set of layers: - lowest GPU specific interface. - GEM. - Gallium3D. I hardly can wait for 3D engines based on those interfaces, bypassing opengl 3...
The FBI is loosing its time and money to track video game crackers?? Is that a joke?? Have they no task more important on their priority list??
Moreover ATI/AMD specs are opened... meaning you can code directly the hardware. That's times more powerfull and flexible than CUDA. And there are frameworks in the works in order to have easy access to GPU lowlevel interfaces (see Intel/AMD GEM work in the mesa project).
Basically, nvidia behavior is generating a lot of hate in coders community...
NVIDIA still lagging behind Intel/AMD/Via... where are the programming specs? Keeping such specs hidden is an hate generator...
They are putting a lot of C++, which has a "software cost"(size and complexity of the compiler) which is, as far as I am concerned, not reasonable. Drizzle is the same: they chose C++ for the fork. I would love to see a mysql fork rewritting the C++ bits using C.
"At this moment, the headset only detects the gamer's level of concentration and relaxation by means of a single electrode placed on the forehead"... ONE electrode... magic?
My mistake, I missed the *not* for the distribution part. I do apologize. Indeed, till you do not distribute (in a broad definition) GPL code, you are not mandated to publish your improvements and/or modifications.
Down to the point, those agreement does the same thing: make you give full rights on your code to somebody else. From there, only the behavior of the guy you give your rights is important, not the tone of the agreement.
You are right... Actually, coding properly in C, is coding properly the memory model of computers. So when learning the C syntax, what's important is to have a mental picture of what's done in the computer memories (RAM/cache/page). So C syntax is maybe very simple, the learner shoud be careful in mastering the computer memory model at the same time.
You cannot contribute(mysql/opensolaris/openoffice) without releasing your rights to Sun. So you cannot contribute without being screwed of the control of your code, and many GPL coders want their code to stay free and not be used in proprietary software, thing they lose if they contribute to such software. Some will say that the FSF is doing the same thing on GNU projects: assuming the behavior of the board of Sun will be the same that the FSF is quite misleading... as they do not have the same goals.
Nope... because if that was the case, the LGPL would not need to exist...
Well, young coder... choose well... let your choice be as enlightened as possible.
They will be able to know if there are backdoors in the hardware. The will be able to known if there are backdoors in the software. They will be able to replicate and improve the hardware they have the design for. We may end-up will *all* hardware specifications (thinking of nvidia) for Linux. If those companies want to produce chips using the cheap money from China... they will have to pay the real price in another way... actually I think that would be fair.
... a spreadsheet software which does NOT do computation mistakes.
A new developer shall be aware he is now member of the "family", and has to protect the work of the "family"... but windows is not from the family, it's a parasite... young developer don't surrender to the dark side and all its short term bells and whistles...
This is the famous GPL "workaround": single author for the code, then he can provide the code with any license... even proprietary: mysql, openoffice, LZO(where the proprietary version is explicitly way better than the open source one...). Of course you cannot contribute to this software without *sharing*(my a...) your rights with Sun. Basically, it ends up like a BSD license, but with one single author in control. If that author is trustable on the long term, ok... but there we are talking about the board of the "little microsoft...". Careful, or the open source community will get burnt. Solaris must die, or let the GPL workaround go and build a Linux spirit like community: basically to insure that the open source version will stay the best, and not a proprietary fork (cf Darwin/MacOS and the BSD license).
Learn C (need to understand the computer memory model), and that's it. All the rest is bullsh... and fashionable stuff.
We are still waiting for those... you are the last. Linux needs the best graphic stack in order to proceed, crushing others, on the desktop.
A trading system without the control of the source code? Are they mad or insane?
Look at the nanojit code! Thank you for nothing... really.
I think that's obvious... actually with hard disk of 1 terrabytes being broadband, reaching a petabyte is quite easy, even for a midsize organization. Where I work, we build ourselves our disk matrixes, and reaching 1000 terabytes is about to put together just a few 1000's of disks, not a big deal.
Guys, That was not the "minimal" I was talking about: I was talking about a minimal software stack. It depends where your threshold is. As for myself, C is the one. Namely my software stack is : Linux kernel + GNU C toolchain + C libs and that's it.