I understand the goals of a 'real time' system, and how they may conflict with doing 'arbitrary' mathematical computation. The former attempts to bound time taken to process, the latter is unbounded generically. That being said, this is a legitimate quesion for, e.g. real-time data analysis- i.e. one chunk of data is acquired and cooked while you wait for the next chunk to arrive.
The question you need to be asking yourself is what real-time means for your application, and what calculations you need to perform in 'real time.' In the real-time data analysis example, if your data arrives every 10 ms, real time means cooking everything in 10ms. Fine. In comparison to a wimpy old 386, an RS6000 performs many more ops per 10mS cycle, and the e.g. FFT you need to take can be so much more accurate than it was before. If you intend on doing real-time mathematics, you should really be writing optimized assembly. Yep- instruction sets matter. And how your code is layed out matters. This will make much more of a difference than Athlon vs. PIII.
In the end the choice of which x86 processor will be nearly irrelevant. The goal of real-time is to get some realistically accurate calculation fitting in a bounded time interval. Once the processor is 'fast enough' or your code is 'fast enough' it doesn't matter.
So, what's wrong with n% of us calling it Linux, and the other (100-n)% of us calling it GNU/Linux, with both parties arguing consistently about RMS this and butt ugly that?
BTW- I don't know what to do. This is a forum, so people debate. People have an opinion and defend it, by definition.
In response to because RMS said so- many people who oppose GNU/linux monikor do so exactly because RMS, an egomaniac, said so. I throw those people out with the 'because RMS said so' crowd. With the people remaining, let's have a debate.
This is the only lgit reason to call it just Linux.
My objection to calling it just Linux are the ones stated in the article as reasons not to call it GNU/Linux. Linus has maybe 0.01% to do with my system as a whole (granted the most important.01%)... why not acknowledge that most of the software is GPL'd and openly acknowledge other's contributions in the name? Well, the counter to this is as you stated. It is the penultimate argument- what can I say to 'it sounds butt-ugly'? It does!
However, no one has an intellectual stake in fat/doughnut. It is reasonable, IMO, to have Bose-Einstein condensation, Bogoliubov-deGennes equations, etc (yes, I am a physics geek). Calling it GNU/Linux simply respects the fact that FSF software was/is an absolutely essential ingredient in both the creation of and the everyday use of the operating system known as Linux. Perhaps we should come up with some fancy symbol to replace the name alltogether ; )
Advice about the gtk+ libs- you _can_ keep your old libs around- you should just rename them to.old or something (glib.h, gtk directory and gdk dircetory in/usr/X11R6/include). When compiling, issue./configure --glib-exec-prefix= --glib-prefix=(where glib is> etc etc.
This leads me to my problem- can't get imlib to compile. Imlib 1.9.2 or something depends on some gtk+ routine that's only in the stable series (I grep'd the headers for both 1.1.15 and 1.0.6 and they didn't show up in 1.1.15 but did for 1.0.6). Compiling 1.8.? vs 1.0.6 doesn't help since gnome-libs will kvetch at me that imlib uses gtk 1.0.6 and it wants to use 1.1.15. I've had this problem for some time now.....
Slashdot Mirror
I understand the goals of a 'real time' system, and how they may conflict with doing 'arbitrary' mathematical computation. The former attempts to bound time taken to process, the latter is unbounded generically. That being said, this is a legitimate quesion for, e.g. real-time data analysis- i.e. one chunk of data is acquired and cooked while you wait for the next chunk to arrive.
The question you need to be asking yourself is what real-time means for your application, and what calculations you need to perform in 'real time.' In the real-time data analysis example, if your data arrives every 10 ms, real time means cooking everything in 10ms. Fine. In comparison to a wimpy old 386, an RS6000 performs many more ops per 10mS cycle, and the e.g. FFT you need to take can be so much more accurate than it was before. If you intend on doing real-time mathematics, you should really be writing optimized assembly. Yep- instruction sets matter. And how your code is layed out matters. This will make much more of a difference than Athlon vs. PIII.
In the end the choice of which x86 processor will be nearly irrelevant. The goal of real-time is to get some realistically accurate calculation fitting in a bounded time interval. Once the processor is 'fast enough' or your code is 'fast enough' it doesn't matter.
ps. I am about to flame you : )
So, what's wrong with n% of us calling it Linux, and the other (100-n)% of us calling it GNU/Linux, with both parties arguing consistently about RMS this and butt ugly that?
Why does the 'marketing angle' matter?
BTW- I don't know what to do. This is a forum, so people debate. People have an opinion and defend it, by definition.
In response to because RMS said so- many people who oppose GNU/linux monikor do so exactly because RMS, an egomaniac, said so. I throw those people out with the 'because RMS said so' crowd. With the people remaining, let's have a debate.
Just because that is what is accepted in society doesn't mean it's either the right thing to do or what should be done.
Yes, the plurality is unrecognized, but that's just like saying that the plurality of something is 'other'
lignux?
This is the only lgit reason to call it just Linux.
.01%)... why not acknowledge that most of the software is GPL'd and openly acknowledge other's contributions in the name? Well, the counter to this is as you stated. It is the penultimate argument- what can I say to 'it sounds butt-ugly'? It does!
My objection to calling it just Linux are the ones stated in the article as reasons not to call it GNU/Linux. Linus has maybe 0.01% to do with my system as a whole (granted the most important
That's a very good point.
However, no one has an intellectual stake in fat/doughnut. It is reasonable, IMO, to have Bose-Einstein condensation, Bogoliubov-deGennes equations, etc (yes, I am a physics geek). Calling it GNU/Linux simply respects the fact that FSF software was/is an absolutely essential ingredient in both the creation of and the everyday use of the operating system known as Linux. Perhaps we should come up with some fancy symbol to replace the name alltogether ; )
A plurality of the software is FSF stuff. OK, it's not the majority that FSF'ers would like us to think...
I'd bet if you looked at Solaris, etc. a majority of the software would not be written by SUN, but only a plurality.
Besides, do we really want to call it Unrecognized/Linux?
OK- here's my problem compiling the junk.
.old or something (glib.h, gtk directory and gdk dircetory in /usr/X11R6/include). When compiling, issue ./configure --glib-exec-prefix= --glib-prefix=(where glib is> etc etc.
Advice about the gtk+ libs- you _can_ keep your old libs around- you should just rename them to
This leads me to my problem- can't get imlib to compile. Imlib 1.9.2 or something depends on some gtk+ routine that's only in the stable series (I grep'd the headers for both 1.1.15 and 1.0.6 and they didn't show up in 1.1.15 but did for 1.0.6). Compiling 1.8.? vs 1.0.6 doesn't help since gnome-libs will kvetch at me that imlib uses gtk 1.0.6 and it wants to use 1.1.15. I've had this problem for some time now.....
shashank