So what everyone is basically saying, is that Free Software in general is a free market where the currency is basically backed by developer effort and not convertible to anything else?
This has an interesting overlap with Neal Stephenson's essay In The Beginning was The Command Line... Phil Fraering "Humans. Go Fig." - Rita
I don't really know for sure, but it seems to me that one of Intel's major problems is that they want to charge an extreme premium for performance, and don't want to wake up in a world where you can scale processor power by adding CPU's.
I find it odd that just when the PPC people will be removing the "SMP Premium" charge from their chips, and making very SMP-capable G4 chips, Be will be abandoning the PPC arena for Intel chips, where the only processors capable of scaling beyond two-way SMP are "non-consumer-grade" very expensive, very high-margin server chips.
Once someone comes out with a decent low cost multi-smp-scalable (beyond 2!) chip and motherboard system, the world will beat a path to their door. I think if that ever happens, Be will have to decide whether or not to stick with Intel and watch some more processor-agnostic SMP-capable OS (like Linux) seize the ground of becoming a "media OS." Phil Fraering "Humans. Go Fig." - Rita
The pipeline goes through Turkey and has to get to Western Europe.
In which case it could go through Greece, up through Romania/Bulgaria/whatever, thence northward around Yugoslavia... I have to admit, from what I know of pipelines, that this particular conspiracy theory doesn't make sense. Pipelines are too vulnerable. Hard to make, easy to break, and difficult to guard.
"The overland Caspian Sea pipeline either has to go through Yugoslavia, or through Russia..."
Since when? It could go any number of routes bypassing either... if it can go through Yugo- slavia, it can come down the other side of the Balkans through Romania to Greece, or just stop at the Black Sea somewhere in Ukraine...
If the terminus actually had to be in Yugoslavia, I hate to break the news to you, but controlling the terminus isn't of very much strategic value when the rest of the pipeline's thousands of miles of length isn't in your control.
The 117 was never meant to be "invisible," just somewhat "less visible."
If the air defenses shot down the plane because of luck instead of skill, they'd have also been able to shoot down the rescue helicopter, which is a much larger target, in both visible and radar wavelengths.
I have read a bit about the Farnsworth fusion devices.
They weren't crackpot "fringe science," but ultimately they lost funding when just about everything was focused onto magnetic confinement (pardon the accidental pun, please).
Farnsworth's device worked by rerouting electron beams and creating a spherically shaped region of electric potential that would trap protons and cause them to fuse.
I think if you fueled it with deuterium, it would produce neutrons but not break even.
There are about a zillion different ways of producing fusion at about this stage of development, i.e. throw a bit less than a million dollars at it, (probably in Farnsworth's case, a lot less), and produce neutrons, but not approach breakeven.
I think some of them might be a lot better than Tokamaks if they received Tokamak-level funding. Phil Fraering "Humans. Go Fig." - Rita
Even worse, Apple had something at least as good as the Pilot, and managed to destroy it, and then managed to refuse to let anyone else develop the technology. Phil Fraering "Humans. Go Fig." - Rita
To RMS and Others: Actually, it does help LinuxPPC
on
RMS on APSL
·
· Score: 1
Linux doesn't run on the new G3's to my knowledge. Apple has been less than forthcoming about the spec's. Hopefully the Linuxppc people can find the specs in the Darwin source code. Phil Fraering "Humans. Go Fig." - Rita
To RMS and Others: Actually, it does help LinuxPPC
on
RMS on APSL
·
· Score: 1
This is just a minor note on someting RMS said, which I'd mail to him if I knew his current email address.
The MacOSX bottom layer source release does help LinuxPPC; currently, they're still having problems with getting linuxppc to run on the "Blue G3's."
Apple should be doing what they can to help Linuxppc run on their machines, but they think they'd be losing OS sales to LinuxPPC. They don't understand that instead, they'd lose a HW sale to VA Research in addition to the lost sale of OS X, and not just an OSX sale.
Quite sad, don'tcha think? Phil Fraering "Humans. Go Fig." - Rita
Everyone here is taking the approach that IBM is some sort of monolithic entity, as if one person at IBM being interviewed is speaking for IBM as a whole.
I really doubt this is the case. IBM is, IMHO, more like a bunch of companies flying in loose formation. And fighting much of the time.
If IBM had any unity at all, OS/2 might have beaten Windows on the desktop.
This is just a way for one Pointy-Haired Manager to say something that serves two purposes:
For people who don't know much about linux, he's said something that makes it more likely that they'll avoid it, causing his division to prosper more than the division that was committing to linux.
Second, this will alienate linux users from buying from those same competing divisions of IBM that had committed to linux, thus making his division look even better by comparison.
I doubt this person cares at all for how IBM does; he'll trade that away just to see his division out in front.
His idea of "burying the competition" means taking market share (or simply destroying the market share) of a division down the hall.
This is why everyone uses Windows instead of OS/2, and why, if IBM as a whole doesn't do something to deal with its unity problems, it'll wind up like Digital is now, IF they're lucky. Phil Fraering "Humans. Go Fig." - Rita
Actually, the textbook definitions I've seen basically have socialism as a society where the state owns and/or controls the means of production.
Frankly, I'm unconvinced that this is the case with open source software, or that it's a desireable way of doing things. And it's the way most socialist experiments turned out so far.
Perhaps a more complicated way of putting it would be thusly: what did they call generosity before the late 18th/early 19th century, when socialist philosophers first sprang up? Phil Fraering "Humans. Go Fig." - Rita
Well, to the AC from Paraguay: The guy who invented Algorithms is Al-Kwarism, I think, and he was from a place that was a part of Iran at the time (sort of), but is now in one of the Turkish republics, south of the Sea of Azov. Phil Fraering "Humans. Go Fig." - Rita
You know, it occured to me that this might be a good time to try to benchmark the new server, using Linux 2.0, Linux 2.2, and FreeBSD, just to see how they all compare.
(I tried posting this from work, but it didn't get through. Then again, I was an AC at the time).
What do y'all think? Phil Fraering "Humans. Go Fig." - Rita
Has anyone heard the rumors going around that Intel might try to get the cable modem people to build the equivalent of "winmodems" that need a PIII to work?
That could be one way the PIII could enhance (quote unquote) your internet experience.
"and the form-factor is better than anything that's going to come from our newton-killing friends."
The Newton killing was driven in large part by spite. I look at the palmpilot, and my hands start to hurt. Oh well. Funny how everyone seems to want to rush to defend that particular choice of SJ's. Won't develop any more, won't sell it, won't develop similar products on a timeline that means anything to anyone. The man's starting to be a walking, talking advertisement for open source, whether he knows it or not.
Personally, I think IBM could make money selling _hardware_ at the low-cost workstation level that linux was very compatible with, perhaps with linux installed, and then selling (for instance) speech-recognition software for it. Although there is a loud minority that doesn't want commercial software on linux, look at Applixware to see that it can be successful. And by positioning linux on the desktop, it should compete less with AIX servers. Stop abandoning the desktop (see OS/2) to Microsponge!
"Sorry, but I can't even find an office PC that costs $4800, unless its a server. And while that 266Mhz G3 might be faster than the 266Mhz Cyrix in a $400 PC, I suspect it would be sadly embarrased by a 450Mhz PII. Yeah, they got pretty colors, but if they want to maintain some semblance of credibility, they should install some bullshit filters on their marketing dept. output!"
Uh, the 4800 dollar version is a special apple server model. You could buy one of the regular models for a _lot_ less and have a very nice server running Linux on a 300 Mhz PPC, or even a 400 Mhz PPC.
I'm lusting after firewire disk drives as we speak.
Slashdot Mirror
So what everyone is basically saying, is that Free Software in general is a free market where the currency is basically backed by developer effort and not convertible to anything else?
This has an interesting overlap with Neal Stephenson's essay In The Beginning was The Command Line...
Phil Fraering "Humans. Go Fig." - Rita
I don't really know for sure, but it seems to me that one of Intel's major problems is that they want to charge an extreme premium for performance, and don't want to wake up in a world where you can scale processor power by adding CPU's.
I find it odd that just when the PPC people will be removing the "SMP Premium" charge from their chips, and making very SMP-capable G4 chips, Be will be abandoning the PPC arena for Intel chips, where the only processors capable of scaling beyond two-way SMP are "non-consumer-grade" very expensive, very high-margin server chips.
Once someone comes out with a decent low cost multi-smp-scalable (beyond 2!) chip and motherboard system, the world will beat a path to their door. I think if that ever happens, Be will have to decide whether or not to stick with Intel and watch some more processor-agnostic SMP-capable OS (like Linux) seize the ground of becoming a "media OS."
Phil Fraering "Humans. Go Fig." - Rita
In which case it could go through Greece, up through Romania/Bulgaria/whatever, thence northward around Yugoslavia... I have to admit, from what I know of pipelines, that this particular conspiracy theory doesn't make sense. Pipelines are too vulnerable. Hard to make, easy to break, and difficult to guard.
Tankers would be easier.
Phil Fraering "Humans. Go Fig." - Rita
Um, this slashdot system seems like one heck of a computer program, if you ask me. Try customizing your home page. It's great.
What's even more impressive to me is the fact that he managed to write most of it in perl.
Phil Fraering "Humans. Go Fig." - Rita
Since when? It could go any number of routes
bypassing either... if it can go through Yugo-
slavia, it can come down the other side of the
Balkans through Romania to Greece, or just stop
at the Black Sea somewhere in Ukraine...
If the terminus actually had to be in Yugoslavia,
I hate to break the news to you, but controlling
the terminus isn't of very much strategic value
when the rest of the pipeline's thousands of
miles of length isn't in your control.
Phil Fraering "Humans. Go Fig." - Rita
The 117 was never meant to be "invisible," just
somewhat "less visible."
If the air defenses shot down the plane because
of luck instead of skill, they'd have also been
able to shoot down the rescue helicopter, which
is a much larger target, in both visible and
radar wavelengths.
Phil Fraering "Humans. Go Fig." - Rita
I have read a bit about the Farnsworth fusion devices.
They weren't crackpot "fringe science," but ultimately they lost funding when just about everything was focused onto magnetic confinement (pardon the accidental pun, please).
Farnsworth's device worked by rerouting electron beams and creating a spherically shaped region of electric potential that would trap protons and cause them to fuse.
I think if you fueled it with deuterium, it would produce neutrons but not break even.
There are about a zillion different ways of producing fusion at about this stage of development, i.e. throw a bit less than a million dollars at it, (probably in Farnsworth's case, a lot less), and produce neutrons, but not approach breakeven.
I think some of them might be a lot better than Tokamaks if they received Tokamak-level funding.
Phil Fraering "Humans. Go Fig." - Rita
Even worse, Apple had something at least as good as the Pilot, and managed to destroy it, and then managed to refuse to let anyone else develop the technology.
Phil Fraering "Humans. Go Fig." - Rita
Linux doesn't run on the new G3's to my knowledge.
Apple has been less than forthcoming about the
spec's. Hopefully the Linuxppc people can find
the specs in the Darwin source code.
Phil Fraering "Humans. Go Fig." - Rita
This is just a minor note on someting RMS said, which I'd mail to him if I knew his current email address.
The MacOSX bottom layer source release does help LinuxPPC; currently, they're still having problems with getting linuxppc to run on the "Blue G3's."
Apple should be doing what they can to help Linuxppc run on their machines, but they think they'd be losing OS sales to LinuxPPC. They don't understand that instead, they'd lose a HW sale to VA Research in addition to the lost sale of OS X, and not just an OSX sale.
Quite sad, don'tcha think?
Phil Fraering "Humans. Go Fig." - Rita
Everyone here is taking the approach that IBM is some sort of monolithic entity, as if one person at IBM being interviewed is speaking for IBM as a whole.
I really doubt this is the case. IBM is, IMHO, more like a bunch of companies flying in loose formation. And fighting much of the time.
If IBM had any unity at all, OS/2 might have beaten Windows on the desktop.
This is just a way for one Pointy-Haired Manager to say something that serves two purposes:
I doubt this person cares at all for how IBM does; he'll trade that away just to see his division out in front.
His idea of "burying the competition" means taking market share (or simply destroying the market share) of a division down the hall.
This is why everyone uses Windows instead of OS/2, and why, if IBM as a whole doesn't do something to deal with its unity problems, it'll wind up like Digital is now, IF they're lucky.
Phil Fraering "Humans. Go Fig." - Rita
Actually, the textbook definitions I've seen basically have socialism as a society where the state owns and/or controls the means of production.
Frankly, I'm unconvinced that this is the case with open source software, or that it's a desireable way of doing things. And it's the way most socialist experiments turned out so far.
Perhaps a more complicated way of putting it would be thusly: what did they call generosity before the late 18th/early 19th century, when socialist philosophers first sprang up?
Phil Fraering "Humans. Go Fig." - Rita
Why do leftists always want to see
anyone's act of generosity or voluntary
cooperation as a validation of
socialist thought?
Phil Fraering "Humans. Go Fig." - Rita
Well, to the AC from Paraguay: The guy
who invented Algorithms is Al-Kwarism, I
think, and he was from a place that was a
part of Iran at the time (sort of), but is
now in one of the Turkish republics, south
of the Sea of Azov.
Phil Fraering "Humans. Go Fig." - Rita
BTW, actually, MacOS 8.6, in beta testing now,
apparently has completely reworked SMP support.
So it's getting a lot better! Things are
looking up!
Phil Fraering "Humans. Go Fig." - Rita
You know, it occured to me that this might
be a good time to try to benchmark the
new server, using Linux 2.0, Linux 2.2, and
FreeBSD, just to see how they all compare.
(I tried posting this from work, but it didn't
get through. Then again, I was an AC at the
time).
What do y'all think?
Phil Fraering "Humans. Go Fig." - Rita
Has anyone heard the rumors going around that Intel might try to get the cable modem people to build the equivalent of "winmodems" that need a PIII to work?
That could be one way the PIII could enhance (quote unquote) your internet experience.
The Newton killing was driven in large part by spite. I look at the palmpilot, and my hands start to hurt. Oh well. Funny how everyone seems to want to rush to defend that particular choice of SJ's. Won't develop any more, won't sell it, won't develop similar products on a timeline that means anything to anyone. The man's starting to be a walking, talking advertisement for open source, whether he knows it or not.
The word "daemon," of course, comes from
ancient Greece and their mythology, not
Christianity. Oh well.
What do you mean? The gnome libraries and packages are in potato. I'm using gnome on a debian system *right now*. Check your facts.
Personally, I think IBM could make money selling
_hardware_ at the low-cost workstation level that
linux was very compatible with, perhaps with
linux installed, and then selling (for instance)
speech-recognition software for it. Although there
is a loud minority that doesn't want commercial
software on linux, look at Applixware to see that
it can be successful. And by positioning linux on
the desktop, it should compete less with AIX
servers. Stop abandoning the desktop (see OS/2) to Microsponge!
//"Was there something else you wanted..."
:-)
/"Yes. A standard."
Heck, the guy already mentioned both gnome and KDE. That's two standards right there. I'm sure someone could come up with a third if you wanted
"Sorry, but I can't even find an office PC that costs $4800, unless its a server. And while that 266Mhz G3 might be faster than the 266Mhz
Cyrix in a $400 PC, I suspect it would be sadly embarrased by a 450Mhz PII. Yeah, they got pretty colors, but if they want to maintain
some semblance of credibility, they should install some bullshit filters on their marketing dept. output!"
Uh, the 4800 dollar version is a special apple
server model. You could buy one of the regular
models for a _lot_ less and have a very nice
server running Linux on a 300 Mhz PPC, or
even a 400 Mhz PPC.
I'm lusting after firewire disk drives as we
speak.