I despise these Linux distro comparisons. Because it always ends up with assigning a number to the "goodness" of a distrobution and then showing who "comes out on top".
Maybe this is because they gave Slackware a 6. In the (incredibly short) review they had absolutely nothing bad to say about the distrobution except that one has to be computer savy to install it, and that it lacks written (and they really mean printed) documentation. Well, that's sort of the point. Slackware's for the us who don't like using hefty and involved package formats.
I don't think Slackware should have scored any higher than Debian or Red Hat whose goals are completely different. I'd just like to see a comaprison that says is the spectrum o' Linux and this is where this distrobution falls.
This review doesn't help me pick the distrobution I want if I want the one that's easiest to customize (i.e. in install things out the boundries set my package formats with dependancy checking etc.).
So my point is, this isn't like comparing some piece of software with the same goal. Each distrobution was created because they felt they had something to offer that is not found in the others.
In my opion this some book's algorithms are on the useless. Linked lists, while nessecary in some languages, are incredibly useless in perl. Hashes and dynamicly sized arrays eliminate the need for this. Sorting is covered, but perl has builtin sorting, and builtins are always faster than anything you'll write in perl. This is only the first 150 pages of the book. Those pages also include things like heaps and binary trees.
I have this book in my library, but don't think I'd buy it again if I had to rebuild it. It's one of the few perl books that collects any dust on my self.
Actually I think the V-Chip is a good idea. With it there is no reason for any censorship at the Network level. Now if they want to put full frontal nudity on TV what's stopping them? No child is going to stumble across it now, right?
Of course this still won't fly for broadcast TV, but it shouldn't be long before every cable channel becomes the Spice Channel.
The Intel® C/C++ Compiler, available as part of the VTune[tm] Performance Enhancement Environment CD, is designed for 32-bit Microsoft* Windows* applications. The compiler plugs into the Microsoft Visual Studio* and accepts Microsoft compiler options
This has little to do with Linux compiler suppoer.
Your right I full admit Intel's support is vaporware right now. Who knows what will actually turn out.
I'm missing your point, you could have just as easily s/OS/compiler/g in that comment. If I'm not going to pay a few hundred for a OS, and the OS I get come packaged with a compiler that works (well enough...) I'm going to go get a $500 compiler? Not likely. Like I said this doesn't make alphas anymore intresting than they were before.
The questions wasn't "will people pay for this software?"
It was more along the lines of "why does Compaq think this will sell hardware?" This is obviously a marketing move in order to get themselves inbed with the OSS crowd. It makes no sense to target the "I'll spend $500 on a compiler" crowd on linux. If we were into spending money on our software, we'd be running True64 anyhow because although I don't have any numbers to back this up I'm sure it runs oodles faster than Linux on an Alpha.
The entire point of my comment was to point out that Intel is one of the few hardware vendors that has their heads on straight on how to make money from us (nVidia being another). The whole goal should be to sell chips (and motherboards, and complete systems, etc.) and not compilers. I'm no closer to buying a Alpha then an hour ago before I saw this story. On the other hand I've been foaming at the mouth for a Mercede since Intel is throwing support towards projects that are things I care about.
This is not a story about the merits of their new compiler. It's a story about a half assed attempt by Compaq to rally support behind their chip.
Especially with the current economy. People who aren't in demad need unions because they are easily replaced. People with high tech skills are so in demand that if you want something the only thing stopping you is asking. I'm sure none of these companies force their workers to be there 24 hours a day. They do so because they either like what they do, or it's got so many benefits they don't want to go anywhere else.
I think you hit upon it right there. It's a curious design. It's a neat idea and all, but I haven't ever seen it put to any practical use. I don't need a Mach kernel on my mac all it does it add one more level of complexity to loading a single kernel.
There's a Preforma 6116CD here at work that we put mk on, but it's very sad. I'm such a mach-kernel bigot even if it ran 1000 times faster than anything else I'd still have to complain. I wish I I could get sbus support some other way though.
> Pinning support for hundreds(thousands?) of > users on one person in a company is just bad > policy. > Is there nobody at the company with the > required expertise?
As stated in the atricle, there is only one full time employee.
To answer your question, they now have no support available.
This is not some big conspiracy or anything. The guy decided to move on. This is a pitful of free software. On the other hand there's the fact that this software is not just going to disappear. The comunity will now have the job of maintaining it, and anyone who wants to can provide support.
As the other reply indicates you cannot recompile Netscape. Secondly the entire point is being missed here. I'm NOT using red hat. Netscape did, and because they did and because Red Hat is using non standard libraries that people are distributing dynamicly linked version of software for I'm SOL.
I'm talking about on non redhat systems. They compiled it on a redhat system and broke glibc versions for everyone else. I've also heard the same about the RealPlayer thingy.
People claiming that Red Hat only does not exist, and that Red Hat doesn't do anything to enforce that. Well what about the great libstdc++ fiasco? Right now because RedHat chose to make their version of it incompatable with everyone else's I can't use the latest version of Netscape.
Of course if I were using an open source browser in the first place I might have more luck.
Well this completely fits with the previou patents and the theories spring from them that Transmeta is producing chips with a completely new instruction set, but will also emulate other hardware.
Of course your kidding. Hacker is a subset of programmers and coders. A guy who writes OnMouse events in javascript for webpages is not a hacker. Wizard and guru two words that have often been used, but these are on the other extreme. These are hackers that are better than your average hacker. I think we all need to come over the jargon file and see if we can resurect some less used word, with a little background, instead of inventing new terms.
RSA's stuff is very secure because people know the alogorithm. People are able to examine it and find any flaws, and the usually they tell other people about those flaws and it gets fixed. DES had some features that allowed it to be easily cracked but they were fixed because everyone had the algorithm. Cryptology is where the Open Model began.
As far as the 2.5 miles goes if it's fiber optic, then it's not real scsi cables. Your going to have to have some sort of conversion device from electro-magnetic to light then back again.
Slashdot Mirror
I despise these Linux distro comparisons. Because it always ends up with assigning a number to the "goodness" of a distrobution and then showing who "comes out on top".
Maybe this is because they gave Slackware a 6. In the (incredibly short) review they had absolutely nothing bad to say about the distrobution except that one has to be computer savy to install it, and that it lacks written (and they really mean printed) documentation. Well, that's sort of the point. Slackware's for the us who don't like using hefty and involved package formats.
I don't think Slackware should have scored any higher than Debian or Red Hat whose goals are completely different. I'd just like to see a comaprison that says is the spectrum o' Linux and this is where this distrobution falls.
This review doesn't help me pick the distrobution I want if I want the one that's easiest to customize (i.e. in install things out the boundries set my package formats with dependancy checking etc.).
So my point is, this isn't like comparing some piece of software with the same goal. Each distrobution was created because they felt they had something to offer that is not found in the others.
In my opion this some book's algorithms are on the useless. Linked lists, while nessecary in some languages, are incredibly useless in perl. Hashes and dynamicly sized arrays eliminate the need for this. Sorting is covered, but perl has builtin sorting, and builtins are always faster than anything you'll write in perl. This is only the first 150 pages of the book. Those pages also include things like heaps and binary trees.
I have this book in my library, but don't think I'd buy it again if I had to rebuild it. It's one of the few perl books that collects any dust on my self.
Hrm, this in and of itself looks like a bug. Oh well. Just a way to have a little null subject fun!
Actually I think the V-Chip is a good idea. With it there is no reason for any censorship at the Network level. Now if they want to put full frontal nudity on TV what's stopping them? No child is going to stumble across it now, right?
Of course this still won't fly for broadcast TV, but it shouldn't be long before every cable channel becomes the Spice Channel.
The Intel compiler that you mention clearly says:
The Intel® C/C++ Compiler, available as part of the VTune[tm] Performance Enhancement Environment CD, is designed for 32-bit Microsoft* Windows* applications. The compiler plugs into the Microsoft Visual Studio* and accepts Microsoft compiler options
This has little to do with Linux compiler suppoer.
Your right I full admit Intel's support is vaporware right now. Who knows what will actually turn out.
I'm missing your point, you could have just as easily s/OS/compiler/g in that comment. If I'm not going to pay a few hundred for a OS, and the OS I get come packaged with a compiler that works (well enough...) I'm going to go get a $500 compiler? Not likely. Like I said this doesn't make alphas anymore intresting than they were before.
The questions wasn't "will people pay for this software?"
It was more along the lines of "why does Compaq think this will sell hardware?" This is obviously a marketing move in order to get themselves inbed with the OSS crowd. It makes no sense to target the "I'll spend $500 on a compiler" crowd on linux. If we were into spending money on our software, we'd be running True64 anyhow because although I don't have any numbers to back this up I'm sure it runs oodles faster than Linux on an Alpha.
The entire point of my comment was to point out that Intel is one of the few hardware vendors that has their heads on straight on how to make money from us (nVidia being another). The whole goal should be to sell chips (and motherboards, and complete systems, etc.) and not compilers. I'm no closer to buying a Alpha then an hour ago before I saw this story. On the other hand I've been foaming at the mouth for a Mercede since Intel is throwing support towards projects that are things I care about.
This is not a story about the merits of their new compiler. It's a story about a half assed attempt by Compaq to rally support behind their chip.
Hrm, this seems good and all, but why make their own compiler?
If all they did was create a compiler with Alpha specific optimizations then why not just throw those into gcc?
Intel seems to still know what (OSS) nerds want. Their development on the Mercede compiler with Cygnus is still way ahead in the OSS game.
Especially with the current economy. People who aren't in demad need unions because they are easily replaced. People with high tech skills are so in demand that if you want something the only thing stopping you is asking. I'm sure none of these companies force their workers to be there 24 hours a day. They do so because they either like what they do, or it's got so many benefits they don't want to go anywhere else.
I think you hit upon it right there. It's a curious design. It's a neat idea and all, but I haven't ever seen it put to any practical use. I don't need a Mach kernel on my mac all it does it add one more level of complexity to loading a single kernel.
There's a Preforma 6116CD here at work that we put mk on, but it's very sad. I'm such a mach-kernel bigot even if it ran 1000 times faster than anything else I'd still have to complain. I wish I I could get sbus support some other way though.
This comment doesn't make any sense at all...
> Pinning support for hundreds(thousands?) of
> users on one person in a company is just bad
> policy.
> Is there nobody at the company with the
> required expertise?
As stated in the atricle, there is only one full time employee.
To answer your question, they now have no support available.
This is not some big conspiracy or anything. The guy decided to move on. This is a pitful of free software. On the other hand there's the fact that this software is not just going to disappear. The comunity will now have the job of maintaining it, and anyone who wants to can provide support.
There are many X10 control proggies despite what other people have been posting. You can control your house with a Linux box. See freshmeat.
As the other reply indicates you cannot recompile Netscape. Secondly the entire point is being missed here. I'm NOT using red hat. Netscape did, and because they did and because Red Hat is using non standard libraries that people are distributing dynamicly linked version of software for I'm SOL.
I'm talking about on non redhat systems. They compiled it on a redhat system and broke glibc versions for everyone else. I've also heard the same about the RealPlayer thingy.
People claiming that Red Hat only does not exist, and that Red Hat doesn't do anything to enforce that. Well what about the great libstdc++ fiasco? Right now because RedHat chose to make their version of it incompatable with everyone else's I can't use the latest version of Netscape.
Of course if I were using an open source browser in the first place I might have more luck.
Well this completely fits with the previou patents and the theories spring from them that Transmeta is producing chips with a completely new instruction set, but will also emulate other hardware.
Of course your kidding. Hacker is a subset of programmers and coders. A guy who writes OnMouse events in javascript for webpages is not a hacker. Wizard and guru two words that have often been used, but these are on the other extreme. These are hackers that are better than your average hacker. I think we all need to come over the jargon file and see if we can resurect some less used word, with a little background, instead of inventing new terms.
RSA's stuff is very secure because people know the alogorithm. People are able to examine it and find any flaws, and the usually they tell other people about those flaws and it gets fixed. DES had some features that allowed it to be easily cracked but they were fixed because everyone had the algorithm. Cryptology is where the Open Model began.
As far as the 2.5 miles goes if it's fiber optic, then it's not real scsi cables. Your going to have to have some sort of conversion device from electro-magnetic to light then back again.
If they the OEM's refuse, MS could easily claim it's just because Windows is in demand, and that they are not forcing anything.