Go look it up on dictionary.com and you will find in the dictionary. They are sourcing WordNet 1.6 Copyright 1997 by Princeton University which predates their use by a little while. I'd bet that it goes much farther back then that. They are going to have to try a lot harder than that if they intend on using a "dictionary" word.
I gave my Asus K7m to my brother and he loves it and my in-law's are still using an old Asus VX97 for a secondary machine. I've had a couple Asus boards but my latest board is an Abit KT7 Raid. I've always been a huge fan Asus and still am but I'm going to have to add Abit to my list now that I have seen it in action. I'm putting together an dual P3 R&D machine together for work. Right now I'm looking at an Abit VP6 but would love to pick an Asus if they made something like this.
Here's a picture of the Via KM133 reference board which has been making the rounds at review sites. It supposedly combines the Savage4 and Savage2000 chipsets into it according to Via's website. I'm not exactly sure what means but it should be decent performance in a lowend system. It also supports the usual ATA100, AC-97 audio, AGP4x slot, etc. I clicked to download the product brochure in PDF format and it gives me the one for the PM133 chipset which is the same thing for Intel chips.
Check the address before you click if your scared of a redirect.
Sure an Alpha/Sparc/Mips/etc. would be a faster way to go but it doesn't always make sense. The price tag on the Alpha/Sparc/Mips/et. may make you want to look around if you are on any kind of budget. I'm looking at putting together a render farm for my brother-in-law's graphic design company. They use Maya 3 for 3d animation. Maya 3 comes with a Linux batch renderer which you can run on unlimited machines but it only runs on x86. It supposedly only runs on Redhat too but we will see. The other option is buy some SGI Mips workstations with a full copy of Maya on each($7500.00 for Maya). x86 might not be the fastest solution but for the money is the best available solution for this at the moment. We will probably be going with 1U, dual P3, 2-4Gig RAM, U160 HD's, etc. Might use Supermicro 6010H 1U server for this.
Vmware seems to be adapting their business model. They are developing server products that are now in beta. They have 2 versions. One runs under Linux and the other runs directly on the hardware and both run the usual guest OS's. I believe there is plenty of room for both Plex86 and Vmware. Maybe Citrix should worry about losing some market to Vmware's server products (probably not).
Maybe I should clarify a little. When I said we've been using the areacode I mean 1+3digitAreacode+7digitnumber for everything that is long distance. We still use 7 digits for local calls.
What kind of latency do you typically have? I'm considering a wireless T1. It's the only option unless I want to pay a bunch of service taxes for ISDN because they main office isn't wired for it.
We have been promised cable by the end of the year. Of course we've had that same promise for last 2 years. Supposedly DSL is ready at the CO but the companies who are offering it can't seem to figure out if anyone is close enough. One ISP is offering home brew DSL 768k @$200/mo plus you buy all the equipment (They say $3000.00).
There is another company doing wireless T1 for $250/mo plus $600.00 for the install. They just started doing residential for $49.00/mo for one computer(IP) plus $500 for install. I'm really interested in this option and have been talking to them this week. I was hoping to here some feedback from some users but half the people here are talking about internet on wireless phones. I'd love to have a wireless T1 if ping times where better than a modem for $49/mo. I need to see if I can get them to pull the firewall out of the setup costs because I don't need it anyway.
Typically, if your call is within your area code, you don't need to dial the area code, just 1 followed by the last 7 digits
Even here in backwater Nebraska we been using the Area code even in the same Area code. It's been this way for a few years and I would expect more "progressive" states would have done the same thing already. Don't assume that your corner of the world(or even your country) is the same as everyone else.
It doesn't matter which ISP you use, they still have to get bandwidth from the phone company. I live in area that is serviced by Qwest. We use a different provider for long distance, WAN, Internet, etc. We still have to order our T1's from Qwest because everything has to go out through the local CO before we can connect to anything else. All the ISP's in town have to go through Qwest's network and pay Qwest for the bandwidth they use. They get $1200-$1500 a month for every T1 they setup loops for. They see plenty of dimes.
Try this out. Run traceroute and find out whose equipment you are really running through. You might be surprised at the results. Lookup who owns the IP's if you only get an IP on a hop. You are sadly misguided if you believe that they will let you use their equipment for free. You are billed even if it is indirectly through you ISP. You are paying the bill even if you aren't using their services directly.
The phone companies own the lines used for the internet. They sell the bandwidth to use to use. Now you think they should charge again for the bandwidth they already sold? This seems fair if you can't count how many times you are chared for the same thing. People seem to forget who owns the big pipes(Primarily the phone companies) that they are running traffic over and that these pipes are being paid for. "The last mile" is only part of the picture and you are paying for bandwidth you use and your ISP pays for bandwidth upstream.
What do you think about cell phone plans that give you unlimited long distance,no roaming, no peak usage, etc.? Are these unfair too? You pay for your time and use it how it suits your needs. Need more time, pay more money. Need more bandwidth, pay more money which ends up in the phone company's pocket. Even if you connect by satellite, cable, etc., it will still need to connect to the rest of the internet by the phone company's network somewhere upstream.
Just because that's the way its been doesn't mean that's the way it needs to stay. We used to pay for metered internet but now ISP's are thriving in unlimited use. Phone companies just have to make a shift to keep going strong. It may unfair to the way they used to do it but they can change how they do it and still be very profitable.
You have to buy bandwidth from the phone company to use VoIP. They are just getting their money from a slightly different source. I suppose you think that we should go back to hourly rates for our internet connections too? If a less than ideal service like AOL can go from hourly to unlimited then so can the phone companies.
How is getting across the coutry without using a T1, T3, OC3, etc. that the phone company does own and is being paid for? The company that owns the infrastructure sells the bandwidth to the users down the line. Connections to the internet are paid for and the phone company is being paid for the bandwidth you are using of theirs. If it doesn't cross their netwrok then they should be paid for it. People should be able to use the bandwidth the way they want.
People will find a way to work around it if they try to restrict VOIP. They will use email, irc, messaging, video over IP, etc. The list goes on and on. They will find a way to transfer voice over the internet in some other way.
I'd let the OpenBSD developers use ours, but it's kinda busy being a 24/7 file server under Slowaris:) A generous offer to be sure.
Seriously though we need get some of this hardware in the developers hand to get the support we want. The two questions should be: 1. What kind of hardware would you need to have donated or long a term loan? 2. What kind help do you need to code it and get these projects going?
Hotmail has finally limited it's number of blocked addresses and Yahoo will likely do the same thing soon. You got Wine to work with Outlook? oh right, Win9X/2K/etc.:{)
Your analogy is flawed. You should blame the maker of your clone sound card for not writing drivers that work and maybe you blame Creative if they keep changing the specs without letting anyone know..
Mandrake had no problems with this and they are a Red Hat dirivitive. How is this NOT a Red Hat issue. Athlons had been out for a while before RH6.2 was released. If they didn't bother to test it with AMD then it is their problem not AMD's. I seriously doubt that Red Hat didn't have any Athlons to test with.
I know you are just making fun but isn't it nice to have a better system with the money you saved? When you're not running StarOffice your computer will fly in everything else. Some better than others obviously but you get the point. You should be able to keep the upgrades you mentioned under $600.00(USD) and have a fairly nice system. Maybe you could build a Q3/UT server with your leftover Celeron 400 since you know have a sweet game. This is assuming you have a reasonably good video card (Geforce 2 MX under $100.00)
Who changes OS's just to get multiple workspaces? or at least that could be the arguement if we used the same logic as you themeable UI comment. Seriously though I like to be able to choose and customize whatever OS I'm running at the moment. I have several custom shells when I do run under Windows98/2000. You may try checking them out while you are running win2k. I think that KDE and Gnome are coming along nicely in the polish area. We used to get on users case when they would open a dozen windows then call up and complain that their system is slow. I hope you have plenty off RAM.
If you post as Anonymous Coward then that is how you will be addressed. Mr. Coward would be the appropriate salutation as would Mr. whateveryournameis would be is you where logged in as whateveryournameis. I realize people on/. don't use much manners but didn't realize doing so would get someone bent out shape. There is no call for you to call people idiots, linuxbots and swear. It doesn't offend me but I expect more from the intelligent and informed users.
Back to the topic. I didn't say FreeBSD but did say BSD. This includes Open, Free, Net, BSD/OS, etc. Obviously BSD/OS is the king of this list and probably FreeBSD is next(I could be wrong about NetBSD though). OpenBSD's SMP has a ways to go but they have been make good headway. FreeBSD's own developers don't think that there code is up to where it should be yet(Read the dicussions on the site). FreeBSD may be faster (looks like it is to me) on a dual CPU setup but there is one problem with SMP on FreeBSD. FreeBSD uses a giant kernel lock for SMP implementation. This means that one CPU must "own" the lock to use the kernel space which limits it to only one CPU at a time. This makes for quickly diminishing reuturns as you go over 2 CPU's. This will hamper performance that FreeBSD could be capable of when it is I/O intensive. This current setup limits how far FreeBSD can scale up with maximum efficency.
It doesn't matter whether or not FreeBSD or Linux is faster on 1 or 2 CPU systems. I still stand by my original opinion that you use Linux/BSD for systems up to 4 CPU's and need to consider the options if you are looking at the big iron.
There are plenty of comparisons for single vs dual Linux and FreeBSD. I don't know of any that compare both setup on both OS's but you can see how each compares effiencies on 1 vs 2 CPU's on the same hardware. Try to avoid absolutes, a lot of things have been that you don't know about. You can end up with egg on your face(hopefully not in front of the boss).
Calm down and take in a deep breath Mr. Coward. Ok, now that you are calm and ready to talk.
I'm not trying to say Linux is better than BSD. I personally prefer BSD and will be upgrading to 4.2 after it calms down a little but that really isn't the issue. FreeBSD on a single seems faster to me than a dual Linux box. The real point was they are both good if you are going up to 4 CPU's and Solaris/Irix will do better on the bigger iron. Sure they can go higher but this isn't where they shine. Things are changing and this might not always be so. IBM is working on Linux kernel patches for bigmem, etc. Linus won't accept it into the main tree but it will probably be available as a patch for those wanting to run on the big iron. I know that there are similar BSD projects out there too.
It all boils to using the right tool for the job. BSD kicks on a single CPU. Linux kicks on 2 to 4 CPU's. Solaris and Irix don't start to shine until you have more processors than fingers (I realize that this can vary slightly but you get the point). They can do very well at dual on up but I'm talking about really kicking it up on their native hardware. Even MS could be the right tool for the job. Of course the licensing, babysitting, etc. makes it more difficult to be the right tool for the job but not impossible. I realize that BSD/Linux are both working on major improvements in their respective areas concerning SMP and doing well from what I've seen.
This is fairly typical pricing of Intel CPU's on pricewatch time and time again. If history repeats itself then the price will hold at this prerelease price for quite awhile before slowly dropping. Perhaps Intel is ready to break from this trend to try to get it off the ground and this is what they need to do keep this chip from stalling at the beginning.
I agree that we should root for both to keep each other in check. Where is your source for the price? I have seen several sites that put the initial price at least over $900.00 including some hard-core Intel dealers.
Public perception is going to be the one that makes or breaks the P4. Public doesn't seem to be thrilled with RDRAM but Intel is finally realizing it and is working on DDR SDRAM chipset(s) for the P4. This is going to take a little bit of time to do properly. I think the biggest problem for Intel with this whole thing is the state of the current chipset. It doesn't support SMP and the market that it is going for is huge on SMP. The next revision of the chipset that supports SMP is not supposed to be out until later 2nd half 2001. This chip is aimed at workstation and server market. Dell said that wouldn't make a single CPU workstation model but supposedly have one on the way for the P4. Dell definitely has been loyal to Intel. The chances are very good that AMD will have a SMP chipset out before Intel and could let some of the steam out of the Intel SMP launch.
We run 250 users on Exchange. The server is a single PII 350 with 256Mb of RAM and a 3 drive raid 5. We have a lot of shared calendars, task lists, etc. and it hums along without any trouble.
I completely agree. There's no problem with camping in a good spot. My point really was about camping spawns for cheap frags. I've done plenty of sniping from good spots but prefer to mix it up to keep people off guard. Whatever you do, keep fragging and have some fun. If I'm not having fun then I would rather be working on a server to learn a new skill. I play games to have fun. I have fun working on servers too but it's a little different.
Slashdot Mirror
Go look it up on dictionary.com and you will find in the dictionary. They are sourcing WordNet 1.6 Copyright 1997 by Princeton University which predates their use by a little while. I'd bet that it goes much farther back then that. They are going to have to try a lot harder than that if they intend on using a "dictionary" word.
I gave my Asus K7m to my brother and he loves it and my in-law's are still using an old Asus VX97 for a secondary machine. I've had a couple Asus boards but my latest board is an Abit KT7 Raid. I've always been a huge fan Asus and still am but I'm going to have to add Abit to my list now that I have seen it in action. I'm putting together an dual P3 R&D machine together for work. Right now I'm looking at an Abit VP6 but would love to pick an Asus if they made something like this.
Check the address before you click if your scared of a redirect.
Sure an Alpha/Sparc/Mips/etc. would be a faster way to go but it doesn't always make sense. The price tag on the Alpha/Sparc/Mips/et. may make you want to look around if you are on any kind of budget. I'm looking at putting together a render farm for my brother-in-law's graphic design company. They use Maya 3 for 3d animation. Maya 3 comes with a Linux batch renderer which you can run on unlimited machines but it only runs on x86. It supposedly only runs on Redhat too but we will see. The other option is buy some SGI Mips workstations with a full copy of Maya on each($7500.00 for Maya). x86 might not be the fastest solution but for the money is the best available solution for this at the moment. We will probably be going with 1U, dual P3, 2-4Gig RAM, U160 HD's, etc. Might use Supermicro 6010H 1U server for this.
Vmware seems to be adapting their business model. They are developing server products that are now in beta. They have 2 versions. One runs under Linux and the other runs directly on the hardware and both run the usual guest OS's. I believe there is plenty of room for both Plex86 and Vmware. Maybe Citrix should worry about losing some market to Vmware's server products (probably not).
Maybe I should clarify a little. When I said we've been using the areacode I mean 1+3digitAreacode+7digitnumber for everything that is long distance. We still use 7 digits for local calls.
What kind of latency do you typically have? I'm considering a wireless T1. It's the only option unless I want to pay a bunch of service taxes for ISDN because they main office isn't wired for it.
There is another company doing wireless T1 for $250/mo plus $600.00 for the install. They just started doing residential for $49.00/mo for one computer(IP) plus $500 for install. I'm really interested in this option and have been talking to them this week. I was hoping to here some feedback from some users but half the people here are talking about internet on wireless phones. I'd love to have a wireless T1 if ping times where better than a modem for $49/mo. I need to see if I can get them to pull the firewall out of the setup costs because I don't need it anyway.
Even here in backwater Nebraska we been using the Area code even in the same Area code. It's been this way for a few years and I would expect more "progressive" states would have done the same thing already. Don't assume that your corner of the world(or even your country) is the same as everyone else.
Try this out. Run traceroute and find out whose equipment you are really running through. You might be surprised at the results. Lookup who owns the IP's if you only get an IP on a hop. You are sadly misguided if you believe that they will let you use their equipment for free. You are billed even if it is indirectly through you ISP. You are paying the bill even if you aren't using their services directly.
What do you think about cell phone plans that give you unlimited long distance,no roaming, no peak usage, etc.? Are these unfair too? You pay for your time and use it how it suits your needs. Need more time, pay more money. Need more bandwidth, pay more money which ends up in the phone company's pocket. Even if you connect by satellite, cable, etc., it will still need to connect to the rest of the internet by the phone company's network somewhere upstream.
Just because that's the way its been doesn't mean that's the way it needs to stay. We used to pay for metered internet but now ISP's are thriving in unlimited use. Phone companies just have to make a shift to keep going strong. It may unfair to the way they used to do it but they can change how they do it and still be very profitable.
You have to buy bandwidth from the phone company to use VoIP. They are just getting their money from a slightly different source. I suppose you think that we should go back to hourly rates for our internet connections too? If a less than ideal service like AOL can go from hourly to unlimited then so can the phone companies.
People will find a way to work around it if they try to restrict VOIP. They will use email, irc, messaging, video over IP, etc. The list goes on and on. They will find a way to transfer voice over the internet in some other way.
A generous offer to be sure.
Seriously though we need get some of this hardware in the developers hand to get the support we want. The two questions should be:
1. What kind of hardware would you need to have donated or long a term loan?
2. What kind help do you need to code it and get these projects going?
Hotmail has finally limited it's number of blocked addresses and Yahoo will likely do the same thing soon. You got Wine to work with Outlook? oh right, Win9X/2K/etc. :{)
Mandrake had no problems with this and they are a Red Hat dirivitive. How is this NOT a Red Hat issue. Athlons had been out for a while before RH6.2 was released. If they didn't bother to test it with AMD then it is their problem not AMD's. I seriously doubt that Red Hat didn't have any Athlons to test with.
I know you are just making fun but isn't it nice to have a better system with the money you saved? When you're not running StarOffice your computer will fly in everything else. Some better than others obviously but you get the point. You should be able to keep the upgrades you mentioned under $600.00(USD) and have a fairly nice system. Maybe you could build a Q3/UT server with your leftover Celeron 400 since you know have a sweet game. This is assuming you have a reasonably good video card (Geforce 2 MX under $100.00)
Who changes OS's just to get multiple workspaces? or at least that could be the arguement if we used the same logic as you themeable UI comment. Seriously though I like to be able to choose and customize whatever OS I'm running at the moment. I have several custom shells when I do run under Windows98/2000. You may try checking them out while you are running win2k. I think that KDE and Gnome are coming along nicely in the polish area. We used to get on users case when they would open a dozen windows then call up and complain that their system is slow. I hope you have plenty off RAM.
Back to the topic. I didn't say FreeBSD but did say BSD. This includes Open, Free, Net, BSD/OS, etc. Obviously BSD/OS is the king of this list and probably FreeBSD is next(I could be wrong about NetBSD though). OpenBSD's SMP has a ways to go but they have been make good headway. FreeBSD's own developers don't think that there code is up to where it should be yet(Read the dicussions on the site). FreeBSD may be faster (looks like it is to me) on a dual CPU setup but there is one problem with SMP on FreeBSD. FreeBSD uses a giant kernel lock for SMP implementation. This means that one CPU must "own" the lock to use the kernel space which limits it to only one CPU at a time. This makes for quickly diminishing reuturns as you go over 2 CPU's. This will hamper performance that FreeBSD could be capable of when it is I/O intensive. This current setup limits how far FreeBSD can scale up with maximum efficency.
It doesn't matter whether or not FreeBSD or Linux is faster on 1 or 2 CPU systems. I still stand by my original opinion that you use Linux/BSD for systems up to 4 CPU's and need to consider the options if you are looking at the big iron.
There are plenty of comparisons for single vs dual Linux and FreeBSD. I don't know of any that compare both setup on both OS's but you can see how each compares effiencies on 1 vs 2 CPU's on the same hardware. Try to avoid absolutes, a lot of things have been that you don't know about. You can end up with egg on your face(hopefully not in front of the boss).
I'm not trying to say Linux is better than BSD. I personally prefer BSD and will be upgrading to 4.2 after it calms down a little but that really isn't the issue. FreeBSD on a single seems faster to me than a dual Linux box. The real point was they are both good if you are going up to 4 CPU's and Solaris/Irix will do better on the bigger iron. Sure they can go higher but this isn't where they shine. Things are changing and this might not always be so. IBM is working on Linux kernel patches for bigmem, etc. Linus won't accept it into the main tree but it will probably be available as a patch for those wanting to run on the big iron. I know that there are similar BSD projects out there too.
P.S. Where are your numbers?
It all boils to using the right tool for the job. BSD kicks on a single CPU. Linux kicks on 2 to 4 CPU's. Solaris and Irix don't start to shine until you have more processors than fingers (I realize that this can vary slightly but you get the point). They can do very well at dual on up but I'm talking about really kicking it up on their native hardware. Even MS could be the right tool for the job. Of course the licensing, babysitting, etc. makes it more difficult to be the right tool for the job but not impossible. I realize that BSD/Linux are both working on major improvements in their respective areas concerning SMP and doing well from what I've seen.
Public perception is going to be the one that makes or breaks the P4. Public doesn't seem to be thrilled with RDRAM but Intel is finally realizing it and is working on DDR SDRAM chipset(s) for the P4. This is going to take a little bit of time to do properly. I think the biggest problem for Intel with this whole thing is the state of the current chipset. It doesn't support SMP and the market that it is going for is huge on SMP. The next revision of the chipset that supports SMP is not supposed to be out until later 2nd half 2001. This chip is aimed at workstation and server market. Dell said that wouldn't make a single CPU workstation model but supposedly have one on the way for the P4. Dell definitely has been loyal to Intel. The chances are very good that AMD will have a SMP chipset out before Intel and could let some of the steam out of the Intel SMP launch.