I used MP3 to create a jukebox in my stereo cabinet. Why buy a 500 CD changer? I've got the HD, so I am using it.
The only *questionable* recordings I have, are several recording that are damaged.. so getting MP3's of them is the only way to replace them. (And since I own the RIGHT to listen to this music I don't care.. fair use IMHO as I already purchased it)
In fact, MP3 is a tool. I am against people that make new tools only to detriment the existance of tools so that they can lock up information.
Even if WMA or LiquidAudio was 200% better than MP3, I'd rather use MP3. I want to be able to edit, cut, splice, dice and chop my music up. It's my choice to use my tools and equipment. Isn't that what musicians want as well?
No, I am not deluded. I like buying my music. If I could download tracks (that were clear of DmCA protection mechanisms) I would gladly pay 1 shiney golden dollar for it.
But you try to lock up your music, and I'll stick to CD's.. thanks.
The problem with NSAPI is that finding well written code is impossible. It doesn't have hardly any useful debugging tools. And, yes, whatever handler you write must be thread safe.
Apache, by contrast, supports decent debugging tools, and has the ability to run forked or threaded, (or even forked and threaded, IIRC).
Most of the hard academic research on GUI's has already been "done." (Meaning that people going from government grants will find it hard to compete with some of the other new technologies)
The most research is being done on 3D desktops. (Microsoft has one, Berlin, SGI, etc) that take the traditional file managers and twist and turn.
MIT has a textual "GUI." It's really not so much a GUI as it is a different way to present large sets of data in a minimalist fashion. (Think the Matrix..it maps text on 3D curves. Books essentially "rotate" pages constantly... at least that's what I remember it as).
Another minimalist was Rob Pikes 8 1/2 (used on the Plan9 OS). This reminds me of emacs on crack. But it is a very effective way of managine text content.
But to be fair, people are pretty much in love with their buttons and menus et cetera. Most of the GUI work being done is implementations and fancifull type stuff.
I'm on the implementation side. I'm working on getting GTK on the X server side. That way you shift the drawing operations to the server and keep the client happy just handling events and widget control. The amount of communications between processes will DRAMATICALLY be reduced. Plus it will be 100% backwards compatable.
Then maybe I can convince someone to rewrite XIE into something more like imlib2;-)
The increased memory comes from the fact that X mmap's the card buffer and registers. (Typical windows are 32-64 Mb)
So, typically, top doesn't consider whether the memory is your RAM, or the 64 MBytes that your card is mapped.. it is just counting what the kernel has mapped.
So top is only counting mmaped pages used by the process and doing a simple (numPages * pagesize).
So, your X server consumes about 4Mb, plus the 64Mb AGP window = 68Mb.
There are other factors in the card's memory model and X server that may also increase the size quite a bit (running textured gtk/e type apps will use a bit of SHM and also caches pixmaps)
Well, I have run both products for 3 years. PSQL is *finally* stable.
The fact that for 2 years PSQL was a cratering ship has always turned me off for even thinking about using it with my customers.
My last web site does over a million dollars of computer part sales a month on MySQL. (Granted, the enterprise database is informix.. but MySQL does all the rest).
I might consider using PSQL now.. but first it MUST be faster, and it had better not CRATER!!
"I say all voting processes should stay on paper. Everyone can understand marking papers and counting them, while most can't understand cryptography and digital signatures."
You sound like Cokie Roberts.
While on some level, I can agree that this is changes the balance, that's what AMERICA has always been about. Checks and balances will prevail soon enough.
What this can do is use the interhnet to level the playing field between multi-million dollar PAC sponsered initiatives to match John Deer and Jane Doe's grassroot bill.
Besides, anything that may re-invigorate the voting public might not be a bad thing.
Okay, I'll conceed you are right.. TECHNICALLY they could have used an MMU.
Howevere, most companies rolled their own MMU (Research Sun's PMMU, National, etc..)
The 68451 wasn't even configured for paging... to do it you needed multiple 68451's.
The first real usable MMU from moto was the 68851 and it wasn't cheap. Considering that the first mac came out for what.. 1,500 bucks (At a time when a car was 5 - 10k). A higher price would have possibly bust the platform. (Look at the LISA for a reference on that)
In other words, you couldn't use it UNLESS you were apollo or sun... because it was expensive. Besides, the MMU's moto designed ate up alot of bus time... not very good for an already slow system.
Also, moto wasn't getting good yield on these 68451 MMU's until mid 85.. a whole year after the MacOS and the AmigaOS were released. To change to an MMU in the kernel would have requred a big rewrite, and it didn't fit into the plane of having a cheap adaptable OS.
In other words, no PC ever manufactured included the 68451 or the 68851.. so it's kinda moot anyhow. Lots of people had 68k MMU's.. but they wern't viable for consumer products. (Remember, the CPU costs a whold lot of the product at the time)
(unrelated to MMU) As far as to whether the Apple II was a personal computer.. well they didn't call it that. They called it a HOME computer.
Look at electric fence.. it is essentially the same thing. What EF does (IIRC) is mmap the memory regions that the prog is not allowed to access. When your pointer tripps over that area, your program will hit a page fault generated by the MMU.
The article mixes apple's marketspeak with technical features. It uses "first personal computer" (tm) as a statement of oppinion of marketing claims, as opposed to the first IBM PC (aka personal computer) which was in actuality the real first personal computer.
Secondly, the Mac debuted only a couple of months before the Amiga. (Amiga was a separate company) It DID have multi-tasking (but it was non-prioritized). It did NOT have protected memory (The 68000 didn't support a MMU.. only the 68030 actually did. So there was no real way to detect page faulting)
The fact is that this paper is written by soneone who was probably 5 years old when the first Mac was released. He's probably never seen an original Mac.
The MacOS (as most people know it) began as a small loader (and various user/system programs. The REAL OS always lived in the ROM chip(s) inside the system. (Probably the real reason Macs were always slow, because the ROMs ran at half the speed of the system bus) The real OS has windowing and widgets mixed in with the i/o system. And the original MacOS was written in...
um
pascal and some assembly required.
Yep.. that's right. So MacOS has come a long way baby. And I am really happy that they are decidedly going towards MacOS X.
But they have real hurdles to jump over. In order to not alienate their developer base, they have to present Carbon as being a step up from the old API.
And Mac developers are a bunch of whiners when it comes to change.. JUST LIKE US *nix guys.. so have some sympathy. There's alot of work before MacOS X is going to work for your grandmother AND live on the *nix guys desk also.
Totally agree.. (Begine a non-oop kinda guy, who happens to occaisionally whip out oop code.)
As far as I can tell, Objective C is really better than C++ for large scale development because of this. Compare and contrast Taligent and NeXT. Boom.
But then again, I still think C was given to K&R by God himself.
Not to say that C++ isn't a fantastic language. But I think Objective C is better when larger. ( I've never even gotten to touch a NeXT box.;-( ) Ofcourse I don't have alot of concrete examples like the wonderful post above. It's just what I think.
(Strapping on asbestos suite, flipping on cooling switch).
Actually I remember the first time I could download Plan9 (before inferno was ever talked about).
It came as floppies and installed into a dos file or a seemingly "empty" partition. (Which happened to be my friends linux partition.. we're talking 1995 or so..)
Anyhow, I really enjoyed the work they did. 8 1/2 was an interresting project (Rob obviously enjoyed that immensly). And it was the first time I ever got to write Dennis Ritchie. (I was working on embedded systems at the time, and saw a bit opportunity for palm-top type systems at the time.. I ended up going with Linux because of the ability to customize it so well)
Anyhow, my problem with Plan9 was that there was little to no sample source code. Docs were fairly scarce. And.. worstly of all.. no kernel source code!!!
What was impressive was that on 3 floppies they fit the kernel, boot, installation, tcp stack, several services (ftp, etc) and a development environment with a GUI to boot.
You know.. that's the problem with generalization. You end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
"If you refuse to use non open source OS'es, what did you use before about 10 years ago (when there were NO open source OS'es)? Or did you just recently jump on the bandwagon so you can be trendy and fashionable?", VAXman
And besides being an asshole, what is your point? I was writing my own operations system (Called Zeus.. it was "open sourcish..") It was a graphics bases operating system.. then I found minix and started tannenbaum's code.
Then I found this linux thing. (BSD wasn't alive on x86).
I hate to admit it (especially in response to a chrisd message.. what's wrong with me!), but the original apple finder and the NT4 explorer have a special place in my heart for being simple.
gmc, ie, win98, etc.. they are all too complicated. Give me structure instead of content. If I want content, then maybe a middle-button event should quickly preview the file in a pop-up window. I dunno.
Anyhow, one of these days I'll have my working replacement for X windows.
Slashdot Mirror
I think he's saying that noone would buy a car that used 5 times the materials to produce the same efficiency used today.
I think that Ford does promote smaller, more efficient cars. Look at the Taurus. It's priced very low, and it has always had good efficiency.
Pan
I prefer mmHg, thanks.
Ohhh please....
I used MP3 to create a jukebox in my stereo cabinet. Why buy a 500 CD changer? I've got the HD, so I am using it.
The only *questionable* recordings I have, are several recording that are damaged.. so getting MP3's of them is the only way to replace them. (And since I own the RIGHT to listen to this music I don't care.. fair use IMHO as I already purchased it)
In fact, MP3 is a tool. I am against people that make new tools only to detriment the existance of tools so that they can lock up information.
Even if WMA or LiquidAudio was 200% better than MP3, I'd rather use MP3. I want to be able to edit, cut, splice, dice and chop my music up.
It's my choice to use my tools and equipment. Isn't that what musicians want as well?
No, I am not deluded. I like buying my music. If I could download tracks (that were clear of DmCA protection mechanisms) I would gladly pay 1 shiney golden dollar for it.
But you try to lock up your music, and I'll stick to CD's.. thanks.
Pan
Apache 2.0 is multithreaded.. so pfffth!
The problem with NSAPI is that finding well written code is impossible. It doesn't have hardly any useful debugging tools. And, yes, whatever handler you write must be thread safe.
Apache, by contrast, supports decent debugging tools, and has the ability to run forked or threaded, (or even forked and threaded, IIRC).
See ya!
Pan
It really depends.. it's kindof mushy.
;-)
Most of the hard academic research on GUI's has already been "done." (Meaning that people going from government grants will find it hard to compete with some of the other new technologies)
The most research is being done on 3D desktops. (Microsoft has one, Berlin, SGI, etc) that take the traditional file managers and twist and turn.
MIT has a textual "GUI." It's really not so much a GUI as it is a different way to present large sets of data in a minimalist fashion. (Think the Matrix..it maps text on 3D curves. Books essentially "rotate" pages constantly... at least that's what I remember it as).
Another minimalist was Rob Pikes 8 1/2 (used on the Plan9 OS). This reminds me of emacs on crack. But it is a very effective way of managine text content.
But to be fair, people are pretty much in love with their buttons and menus et cetera. Most of the GUI work being done is implementations and fancifull type stuff.
I'm on the implementation side. I'm working on getting GTK on the X server side. That way you shift the drawing operations to the server and keep the client happy just handling events and widget control. The amount of communications between processes will DRAMATICALLY be reduced. Plus it will be 100% backwards compatable.
Then maybe I can convince someone to rewrite XIE into something more like imlib2
Pan
Nyet.. sorry. bang wrong.
The increased memory comes from the fact that X mmap's the card buffer and registers. (Typical windows are 32-64 Mb)
So, typically, top doesn't consider whether the memory is your RAM, or the 64 MBytes that your card is mapped.. it is just counting what the kernel has mapped.
So top is only counting mmaped pages used by the process and doing a simple (numPages * pagesize).
So, your X server consumes about 4Mb, plus the 64Mb AGP window = 68Mb.
There are other factors in the card's memory model and X server that may also increase the size quite a bit (running textured gtk/e type apps will use a bit of SHM and also caches pixmaps)
Enjoy,
Pan
Well, I have run both products for 3 years. PSQL is *finally* stable.
The fact that for 2 years PSQL was a cratering ship has always turned me off for even thinking about using it with my customers.
My last web site does over a million dollars of computer part sales a month on MySQL. (Granted, the enterprise database is informix.. but MySQL does all the rest).
I might consider using PSQL now.. but first it MUST be faster, and it had better not CRATER!!
Pan
"I say all voting processes should stay on paper. Everyone can understand marking papers and counting them, while most can't understand cryptography and digital signatures."
You sound like Cokie Roberts.
While on some level, I can agree that this is changes the balance, that's what AMERICA has always been about. Checks and balances will prevail soon enough.
What this can do is use the interhnet to level the playing field between multi-million dollar PAC sponsered initiatives to match John Deer and Jane Doe's grassroot bill.
Besides, anything that may re-invigorate the voting public might not be a bad thing.
Pan
Okay, I'll conceed you are right.. TECHNICALLY they could have used an MMU.
Howevere, most companies rolled their own MMU (Research Sun's PMMU, National, etc..)
The 68451 wasn't even configured for paging... to do it you needed multiple 68451's.
The first real usable MMU from moto was the 68851 and it wasn't cheap. Considering that the first mac came out for what.. 1,500 bucks (At a time when a car was 5 - 10k). A higher price would have possibly bust the platform. (Look at the LISA for a reference on that)
In other words, you couldn't use it UNLESS you were apollo or sun... because it was expensive. Besides, the MMU's moto designed ate up alot of bus time... not very good for an already slow system.
Also, moto wasn't getting good yield on these 68451 MMU's until mid 85.. a whole year after the MacOS and the AmigaOS were released. To change to an MMU in the kernel would have requred a big rewrite, and it didn't fit into the plane of having a cheap adaptable OS.
In other words, no PC ever manufactured included the 68451 or the 68851.. so it's kinda moot anyhow. Lots of people had 68k MMU's.. but they wern't viable for consumer products. (Remember, the CPU costs a whold lot of the product at the time)
(unrelated to MMU) As far as to whether the Apple II was a personal computer.. well they didn't call it that. They called it a HOME computer.
Pan
Look at electric fence.. it is essentially the same thing. What EF does (IIRC) is mmap the memory regions that the prog is not allowed to access. When your pointer tripps over that area, your program will hit a page fault generated by the MMU.
That's one way to do it atleast...
pan
Come On...
The article mixes apple's marketspeak with technical features. It uses "first personal computer" (tm) as a statement of oppinion of marketing claims, as opposed to the first IBM PC (aka personal computer) which was in actuality the real first personal computer.
Secondly, the Mac debuted only a couple of months before the Amiga. (Amiga was a separate company) It DID have multi-tasking (but it was non-prioritized). It did NOT have protected memory (The 68000 didn't support a MMU.. only the 68030 actually did. So there was no real way to detect page faulting)
The fact is that this paper is written by soneone who was probably 5 years old when the first Mac was released. He's probably never seen an original Mac.
The MacOS (as most people know it) began as a small loader (and various user/system programs. The REAL OS always lived in the ROM chip(s) inside the system. (Probably the real reason Macs were always slow, because the ROMs ran at half the speed of the system bus) The real OS has windowing and widgets mixed in with the i/o system. And the original MacOS was written in...
um
pascal and some assembly required.
Yep.. that's right. So MacOS has come a long way baby. And I am really happy that they are decidedly going towards MacOS X.
But they have real hurdles to jump over. In order to not alienate their developer base, they have to present Carbon as being a step up from the old API.
And Mac developers are a bunch of whiners when it comes to change.. JUST LIKE US *nix guys.. so have some sympathy. There's alot of work before MacOS X is going to work for your grandmother AND live on the *nix guys desk also.
Panaflex
Beware of the 4.0 release.. I don't think the tags will match exactly correctly.
pan
get gCVS..
pan
The merges are almost done. Calm down..
pan
Bravo!!!
;-( )
Totally agree.. (Begine a non-oop kinda guy, who happens to occaisionally whip out oop code.)
As far as I can tell, Objective C is really better than C++ for large scale development because of this. Compare and contrast Taligent and NeXT. Boom.
But then again, I still think C was given to K&R by God himself.
Not to say that C++ isn't a fantastic language. But I think Objective C is better when larger.
( I've never even gotten to touch a NeXT box.
Ofcourse I don't have alot of concrete examples like the wonderful post above. It's just what I think.
(Strapping on asbestos suite, flipping on cooling switch).
Happy Hacking,
Pan
Actually I remember the first time I could download Plan9 (before inferno was ever talked about).
It came as floppies and installed into a dos file or a seemingly "empty" partition. (Which happened to be my friends linux partition.. we're talking 1995 or so..)
Anyhow, I really enjoyed the work they did. 8 1/2 was an interresting project (Rob obviously enjoyed that immensly). And it was the first time I ever got to write Dennis Ritchie. (I was working on embedded systems at the time, and saw a bit opportunity for palm-top type systems at the time.. I ended up going with Linux because of the ability to customize it so well)
Anyhow, my problem with Plan9 was that there was little to no sample source code. Docs were fairly scarce. And.. worstly of all.. no kernel source code!!!
What was impressive was that on 3 floppies they fit the kernel, boot, installation, tcp stack, several services (ftp, etc) and a development environment with a GUI to boot.
You know.. that's the problem with generalization. You end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Pan
Make copyrights 30 years for companies and 70 years for individuals.
I'm sorry, but 10 years of software copyright is draconian. Can you imagine the code from Lotus 123 or Wordstar? How useful is it today?
As far as fir "Pirates".. I think they should all be burned at the stake. (More than likely they would have never bought your software anyhow.)
Panaflex
Nonono...
Take X core and stick it in a kernel module. That's what BE, NT, etc are doing.
Also, they should of had toolkits (GTK, Motif, etc). executable by the X server instead of the application. (Atlease make it an option.. jeez)
Incedentally, that's what I am doing to X.. heheh
;-)
Pan
"If you refuse to use non open source OS'es, what did you use before about 10 years ago (when there were NO open source OS'es)? Or did you just recently jump on the bandwagon so you can be trendy and fashionable?", VAXman
And besides being an asshole, what is your point? I was writing my own operations system (Called Zeus.. it was "open sourcish..") It was a graphics bases operating system.. then I found minix and started tannenbaum's code.
Then I found this linux thing. (BSD wasn't alive on x86).
Life is beautiful.
Pan
That's terrible.
Obviously, you had a tough time reading the story.
Pan
I wish... Unfortunatly, I could never get it to run anywhere else other than my PCjr.
I just remember the sound it played when you picked up something.. it startled me.
Pan
YEAH!!!
I hate to admit it (especially in response to a chrisd message.. what's wrong with me!), but the original apple finder and the NT4 explorer have a special place in my heart for being simple.
gmc, ie, win98, etc.. they are all too complicated. Give me structure instead of content. If I want content, then maybe a middle-button event should quickly preview the file in a pop-up window. I dunno.
Anyhow, one of these days I'll have my working replacement for X windows.
pan
What you really mean, is it won't be unix.
;-(
I miss group passwords
pan
17 Q. What was the difference in time, if
18 you remember, between the time you downloaded the
19 DeCSS and you downloaded the materials?
20 A. It was infinite.
21 Q. Did you do it the same day?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Which did you do first, to the best
24 of your recollection?
25 A. I'm sorry. I did not download the
INTERIM COURT REPORTING
40
1 Schumann
2 materials I reviewed that is attached here. I did
3 not do the downloading. I reviewed downloaded
4 materials, which is what I said in my affidavits,
5 but I did not, myself, download these materials.
6 Q. Your colleagues did?
7 A. They did not.
8 Q. Who did?
9 A. My client did.
10 Q. Which client?
11 A. That would have been MPAA.
I got lost here.. is he saying that he worked for
the MPAA?
Pan
Atrifact of stenographer , probably...
Pan