I meant that "innocent_white_lamb" is being disingenuous, saying that Alan isn't trying to make a point, and that he's "genuinely concerned" about going to jail.
I don't see how anyone can fault Mr. Cox for taking action to insure that he does not get tossed into jail in the USA the next time he visits there, He's checked with a lawyer and been advised that there is a risk; he chooses not to take that risk.
No, he's just using his position of power to make a political point... and while there's nothing wrong with that, it's disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
(a) It is unlikely but not out-of-the-question that he would be arrested and incarcerated in the US for publishing the changelogs.
It is unlikely, but not out of the question that Alan will be struck by a meteorite. Perhaps he should be taking some precautions against that too?
The image shows the 32bit pci bus only running at 33Mhz!
Yeah, and like the submitter, I have a PC164 too... even it has 64-bit 33MHz PCI slots. I guess depending on what you want to do with the thing, it might not matter, but this seems like a really unbalanced board. Good for raw number crunching, but not so good as a database server (or anything else that wants a lot of disk I/O).
They're benchmarking Office on Win2K and WinXP, which is certainly a valid thing to do, but it's not the whole picture. Office does a lot of UI stuff, and with all the fancy alpha blending and whatnot in XP's UI, it's slower.
One of the MS guys posted a summary of Win2K vs. WinXP performance to one of the XP beta newsgroups, which I probably can't quote here (the NDA's expired now that XP's out, but I think newsgroup postings are still supposed to be kept private). It's message ID <#wiDogDGBHA.564@CPMSBNEWSW03.betanews.com> for any of you who have access to the XP beta newsgroups.
But to paraphrase, he said that:
XP boots much faster than 2K.
XP resumes from standby and from hibernate faster than 2K.
XP generally launches apps faster than 2K from a cold start. 2K is a bit faster if the app's been launched before and is cached.
Business Winstone 2001 and Content Creation Winstone 2001: XP is generally faster on modern machines (700MHz+ CPU, 128MB+ RAM, 16MB+ VRAM, 30GB+ disk). 2K is generally faster than XP on slower machines.
Webmark 2001: pretty much a tie. XP might be a tad faster.
Sysmark 2001: pretty much a tie. 2K might be a tad faster.
PC Worldbench 2000: 2K is faster by default. But if you turn off "Fade or slide menus into view" and "Show shadows under menus", XP will beat 2K. If you "Adjust for best performance" XP beats 2K by a wide margin.
I-Bench: 2K will probably win, but they haven't run it in a while.
OfficeBench: They've never tried it, but apparently anandtech has some numbers. (And I guess now InfoWorld has some too). He does mention that it doesn't test disk I/O, which is one of the areas where XP has significant improvements, so he sees it as a fairly narrow benchmark.
Anyways, the guy's posting was quite informative and got into some of the tech details...
Oh yeah, Linux uses the BSD socket API too, doesn't it? Surely that means they took BSD's freely-usable code, rather than reimplementing it, right? Well... maybenot. Despite those files having the samename as their BSD counterpart, they're nothing alike.
Since there are BSD copyright notices sprinkled throughout various of the internet utilites that ship with Windows, I think it's pretty clear that it's the latter. And why not? If you're going to include a socket/IP implementation, and there's freely-usable code out there, why reinvent the wheel?
There are BSD copyright notices in various userland utilities because Windows has an implementation of the BSD sockets API, which makes the BSD utilities relatively easy to port. The kernel is a different matter--while I haven't seen the source code to Windows, I have seen the DDK and the documentation for writing Windows device drivers. Windows device drivers are quite different from BSD device drivers; it would be a major undertaking to take BSD's TCP/IP stack and interface it with the rest of the Windows kernel. I don't think it'd be worth the effort... even with Unix-like OSes like *BSD and Linux, it's generally not worth the effort to actually take code; the other OS' code is just good as documentation. I think it's much more likely that MS reimplemented the sockets API to give programmers an interface they were familiar with.
Even if you want to go all out with the benefit of the doubt, and decide that they rewrote their own implementation of the API, it's still safe to say that MS' IP stack is based on BSD.
I don't see that that follows... the IP stack is the low level protocol implementation, not the API.
Re:Not only does XP have the command prompt
on
MS DOS: A Eulogy
·
· Score: 1
*wonders how this guy got a +1 bonus*
Slashdot really needs a -1, WRONG! moderation:)
Anyways, Windows 2000 still has good old File Manager (winfile.exe) for the people who don't like Explorer. I seem to recall that XP betas had it too, but it was finally yanked for some reason. Heh, I just tried running File Manager on a Win2K machine, and notice that WinZip 7.0 still knows how to integrate with it--there's a WinZip menu, and a couple of toolbar buttons.
Have you ever tried taking a screen capture while playing a DVD?
All you get it a black box.
Yeah, I tried and it works fine... my DVD player software, InterVideo WinDVD, even has a convenient keyboard shortcut you can type to save the current frame to a BMP file.
What the DVD Consortium decided what that a DVD video is sent directly to the video card as an overlay.
Someone must not've relayed that decision to InterVideo then, ah?
Does cygwin's telnetd support s/key one-time passwords? ssh would be much better, but at least s/key would prevent password sniffing. (Or at least make it useless, since as the name implies, the password only works once).
Normal CD's are red lasers. DVD's are blue. This thing is VIOLET.
Nah, normal CDs use an infrared laser, while DVDs use a red one.
A blue/violet laser small enough to be used in a DVD drive is pretty cool though; anyone know more about these things? I assume they use one of those frequency doubling crystals like the green laser pointers?
Hmmm... At first I thought the connection was hosed because of the weird "skippy" vocals. Then I realized it was deliberate.
Heh, I couldn't tell if RealPlayer was shifting to a lower bandwidth/lower sampling rate, or if the "electronic musicians" were just screwing with the cutoff frequency of their lowpass filter:)
Anyways, I agree... cool animation, but I'm not a big Daft Punk fan. Although I do like "Da Funk" or whatever that song is called... repetitive vocals = bad.
FWIW, XP isn't an n.0 OS--it's WinNT 5.1. Windows 2000 was 5.0.
And a pre-SP1 hotfix was just released earlier today... Q309521, although I can't actually find the KB article on MS's website, so I have no idea what it does. Affected files are:
Some might mention "Intent" here, but you don't give a damn in the good intentions if your family was killed.
Regardless of whether or not someone gives a damn, intent is the difference. Compare the punishments for manslaughter vs. murder, for example. In both cases, someone killed someone else. The difference is intent.
Anyone remember the deal about Hayes patenting (or something) the "guard time" before and after the +++? Some lame modems that didn't have the guard time would go into command mode if they saw +++ in the data stream, so you could kill your connection simply by uploading or downloading (depending on whose modem was sucky and misconfigured) a file that happened to contain a couple of +s in a row.
Nah, it's the modem. How else is the modem going to tell when a byte starts? Remember that there's no separate "idle" state on an async serial line; the tx/rx lines are either 0 or 1.
So anyways, it really is 10 bits/byte for 8N1. At least until the block-oriented error correction protocols, such as MNP and v.42 came long.
Slashdot Mirror
I meant that "innocent_white_lamb" is being disingenuous, saying that Alan isn't trying to make a point, and that he's "genuinely concerned" about going to jail.
No, he's just using his position of power to make a political point... and while there's nothing wrong with that, it's disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
(a) It is unlikely but not out-of-the-question that he would be arrested and incarcerated in the US for publishing the changelogs.
It is unlikely, but not out of the question that Alan will be struck by a meteorite. Perhaps he should be taking some precautions against that too?
Yes, there is.
an article on a new kernel version means there is one less article that can be posted on something else, no
Yes, it does. The editors go through the submissions and pick the ones they want to accept.
I want to see important Linux topics. Not a stream of minor kernel revisions.
Yup, XP was codenamed "Windows Whistler". Captain Crunch, anyone? :)
Yeah, and like the submitter, I have a PC164 too... even it has 64-bit 33MHz PCI slots. I guess depending on what you want to do with the thing, it might not matter, but this seems like a really unbalanced board. Good for raw number crunching, but not so good as a database server (or anything else that wants a lot of disk I/O).
One of the MS guys posted a summary of Win2K vs. WinXP performance to one of the XP beta newsgroups, which I probably can't quote here (the NDA's expired now that XP's out, but I think newsgroup postings are still supposed to be kept private). It's message ID <#wiDogDGBHA.564@CPMSBNEWSW03.betanews.com> for any of you who have access to the XP beta newsgroups.
But to paraphrase, he said that:
- XP boots much faster than 2K.
- XP resumes from standby and from hibernate faster than 2K.
- XP generally launches apps faster than 2K from a cold start. 2K is a bit faster if the app's been launched before and is cached.
- Business Winstone 2001 and Content Creation Winstone 2001: XP is generally faster on modern machines (700MHz+ CPU, 128MB+ RAM, 16MB+ VRAM, 30GB+ disk). 2K is generally faster than XP on slower machines.
- Webmark 2001: pretty much a tie. XP might be a tad faster.
- Sysmark 2001: pretty much a tie. 2K might be a tad faster.
- PC Worldbench 2000: 2K is faster by default. But if you turn off "Fade or slide menus into view" and "Show shadows under menus", XP will beat 2K. If you "Adjust for best performance" XP beats 2K by a wide margin.
- I-Bench: 2K will probably win, but they haven't run it in a while.
- OfficeBench: They've never tried it, but apparently anandtech has some numbers. (And I guess now InfoWorld has some too). He does mention that it doesn't test disk I/O, which is one of the areas where XP has significant improvements, so he sees it as a fairly narrow benchmark.
Anyways, the guy's posting was quite informative and got into some of the tech details...Oh yeah, Linux uses the BSD socket API too, doesn't it? Surely that means they took BSD's freely-usable code, rather than reimplementing it, right? Well... maybe not. Despite those files having the same name as their BSD counterpart, they're nothing alike.
% strings /mnt/dos/winnt/system32/drivers/tcpip.sys | grep Calif /mnt/dos/winnt/system32/winsock.dll | grep Calif /mnt/dos/winnt/system32/wsock32.dll | grep Calif /mnt/dos/winnt/system32/ws2_32.dll | grep Calif
% strings
% strings
% strings
There are BSD copyright notices in various userland utilities because Windows has an implementation of the BSD sockets API, which makes the BSD utilities relatively easy to port. The kernel is a different matter--while I haven't seen the source code to Windows, I have seen the DDK and the documentation for writing Windows device drivers. Windows device drivers are quite different from BSD device drivers; it would be a major undertaking to take BSD's TCP/IP stack and interface it with the rest of the Windows kernel. I don't think it'd be worth the effort... even with Unix-like OSes like *BSD and Linux, it's generally not worth the effort to actually take code; the other OS' code is just good as documentation. I think it's much more likely that MS reimplemented the sockets API to give programmers an interface they were familiar with.
Even if you want to go all out with the benefit of the doubt, and decide that they rewrote their own implementation of the API, it's still safe to say that MS' IP stack is based on BSD.
I don't see that that follows... the IP stack is the low level protocol implementation, not the API.
Often claimed, never substantiated. Got evidence?
Slashdot really needs a -1, WRONG! moderation :)
Anyways, Windows 2000 still has good old File Manager (winfile.exe) for the people who don't like Explorer. I seem to recall that XP betas had it too, but it was finally yanked for some reason. Heh, I just tried running File Manager on a Win2K machine, and notice that WinZip 7.0 still knows how to integrate with it--there's a WinZip menu, and a couple of toolbar buttons.
All you get it a black box.
Yeah, I tried and it works fine... my DVD player software, InterVideo WinDVD, even has a convenient keyboard shortcut you can type to save the current frame to a BMP file.
What the DVD Consortium decided what that a DVD video is sent directly to the video card as an overlay.
Someone must not've relayed that decision to InterVideo then, ah?
Does cygwin's telnetd support s/key one-time passwords? ssh would be much better, but at least s/key would prevent password sniffing. (Or at least make it useless, since as the name implies, the password only works once).
Nah, normal CDs use an infrared laser, while DVDs use a red one.
A blue/violet laser small enough to be used in a DVD drive is pretty cool though; anyone know more about these things? I assume they use one of those frequency doubling crystals like the green laser pointers?
Heh, I couldn't tell if RealPlayer was shifting to a lower bandwidth/lower sampling rate, or if the "electronic musicians" were just screwing with the cutoff frequency of their lowpass filter
Anyways, I agree... cool animation, but I'm not a big Daft Punk fan. Although I do like "Da Funk" or whatever that song is called... repetitive vocals = bad.
With a nickname like his, he's probably just Jung and Horney.
Yeah, what's a wasachu? Google knows absolutely nothing about 'em :)
DeCSS is for DVD movies. DVD-ROMs aren't encrypted, and don't require DeCSS.
Where'd you get that from? Look at the specs: 5GB hard disk drive.
And a pre-SP1 hotfix was just released earlier today... Q309521, although I can't actually find the KB article on MS's website, so I have no idea what it does. Affected files are:
Regardless of whether or not someone gives a damn, intent is the difference. Compare the punishments for manslaughter vs. murder, for example. In both cases, someone killed someone else. The difference is intent.
OK
ATH
NO CARRIER
Anyone remember the deal about Hayes patenting (or something) the "guard time" before and after the +++? Some lame modems that didn't have the guard time would go into command mode if they saw +++ in the data stream, so you could kill your connection simply by uploading or downloading (depending on whose modem was sucky and misconfigured) a file that happened to contain a couple of +s in a row.
So anyways, it really is 10 bits/byte for 8N1. At least until the block-oriented error correction protocols, such as MNP and v.42 came long.
Zero page, man! :)