Quick show of hands here: who here has the skills, time and patience to analyze the performance of your computer and actually find a way to improve the microcode performance on their computer?
You're absolutely right, but I think the point is that Intel could upgrade the microcode in the event of new performance research, security fixes, or another show-stopper division bug. An perfectly reasonable idea, IMHO.
On the other hand, I've written some very simple microcode for a scaled-down x86 instruction set, and the ability to run it on a live machine, rather than under emulation, would make a great academic tool for graduate-level students.
My slashdot ID (13487) is 70,000 lower than yours (82141), isn't it.:) I've been around long enough.
It was funny respoding to anti-MS posts when I was working there. On the one hand, I was the guy running the Linux boxes at work, and had to defend *that* to my colleagues. On the other, I was the guy posting on Slashdot saying that MS wasn't *all* that bad...
Do you have first-hand personal knowledge that Microsoft employees would do something "moronic" like downloading a trojan?
As I've mentioned before, I used to be a program manager at Microsoft. As a whole, I found my co-workers there to be some of the most computer-literate, intelligent, and most capable people I've ever worked with (rivalled perhaps by my new company, Avacet). I can not think of a single one who was not educated about the dangers associated with blindly running executables that come in email.
Also, Microsoft's network security was rather strong, especially considering that they have something like 25,000 employees worldwide and hundreds of thousands of machines to deal with.
Seriously, feel free to critique MS technologies -- I do it myself all the time. But an uniformed criticism of everybody who works there is just inappropriate.
I've found my home LAN to be relatively secure. I started with these two things:
One) Purchase a WatchGuardSOHO Firewall/Gateway device. Only $350 at Outpost.com (free overnight shipping!). This little beauty does DCHP and NATs your LAN as well. You can plug 5 machines directly into it, or extend it with a hub. There is also a VPN option if you want it. It is configurable via a web interface, and can basically upgrade itself from their website.
Two) Start running iptables on the 2.4 Linux boxes, and ipchains on the 2.2 boxes. Here is a version of the firewall.sh script that I run to configure iptables to keep the box reasonably safe, without going overboard.
I completely agree that C++ is one of the most versitile and prevalent languages in use today.
However, Java and C# were both designed to *add* value to C++. Sure, Java should have had enums, and C# is Windows only (for now) but the concepts of both are pretty clear -- take the best of C/C++ and extend it to create a new, more powerful language. For example, both Java and C# run on a virtual machine and offer memory management.
While Internet C++ may seem like a pretty nifty idea, it is missing the point a bit. The fact that C++ is hardly a standard (trying writing an application for both g++ and VisualC++) should *not* be addressed by creating a C++ virtual machine. It should be addressed by aggressive co-operation between compiler vendors and with standards bodies that move in internet time, not academic time. And since MS seems unlikely to co-operate with GNU (and vice versa), there is a definite need for new languages such as Java.
If Internet C++'s objective was to create a new language that a) ran on a cross-platform VM, b) added new language features such as garbage collection or invariants, and c) was a free standard, unencumbered by MSFT or Sun, then they would have my blessing. However, they're simply trying to add more overhead to solve an already weighty problem. In other words, this company is about 10 years behind the curve.
(Disclaimer, I'm ex-Microsoft. I think C# is a great step forward for programming languages. I just won't start using it until it runs on my OS of choice.)
Those stores, among many others, try to get your personal information even if you want to pay cash. I remember arguing with a sales clerk for twenty minutes about whether or not I *had* to give my name and address to buy something with cash. He claimed that he couldn't complete the sale without the data. We finally had to call over a manager to deal with the issue.
Experiences like that just leave me feeling icky...
As a footnote, I believe this is also why C2Net was acquired by Red Hat. C2Net could no longer show a revenue model licensing their Stronghold software for a fee that is now available for free (as Apache/mod_ssl). Red Hat liked C2Net's management team and their technical expertise and chose to pick them up at the right price.
I want a 'soup' of documents I created that can be searched, sorted, sliced and diced by a local search engine.
Speaking of that -- is there a good Unix/Linux based mechanism for searching local documents? I mean, slocate, find, and grep get the job done. But what I'd really like is a little search engine (perhaps ht://dig?) that can scan my filesystem once a night and give me an interface like any decent web search engine. In other words, type in a few keywords and out pops the location of the file and a brief excerpt.
Ideally it would record file permissions and ownerships like slocate does. But I'd settle for indexing just my own documents.
I've noticed a few posts asking what the advantage of rewriting the kernel in a language like C++. I don't know the answer, but in the linux kernel mailing list faq, question 1.4 states:
Why don't we rewrite the Linux kernel in C++?
(ADB [Andrew D. Balsa]) Again, this has to do with practical and theoretical reasons. On the practical side, when Linux got started gcc didn't have an efficient C++ implementation, and some people would argue that even today it doesn't. Also there are many more C programmers than C++ programmers around. On theoretical grounds, examples of OS's implemented in Object Oriented languages are rare (Java-OS and Oberon System 3 come to mind), and the advantages of this approach are not quite clear cut (for OS design, that is; for GUI implementation KDE is a good example that C++ beats plain C any day).
and
(REW [Roger E. Wolff]) In the dark old days, in the time that most of you hadn't even heard of the word "Linux", the kernel was once modified to be compiled under g++. That lasted for a few revisions. People complained about the performance drop. It turned out that compiling a piece of C code with g++ would give you worse code. It shouldn't have made a difference, but it did. Been there, done that.
And question 1.5:
Why is the Linux kernel monolithic? Why don't we rewrite it as a microkernel?
(ADB) No opinions here, just a few pointers. Linux has been implemented as a "personality" on top of a modified version of the Mach3 microkernel. This is a fully functional piece of code, known as MkLinux. The project was in part funded by Apple, and as such it was running at first on PowerPC Macs. But an x86 version is available, with fully open source code. Similarly, the Hurd (the GNU kernel) is being implemented on top of Mach3.
There is a historical Usenet thread related to this subject, dating back from 1992, with posts from Linus, Andrew Tanenbaum, Roger Wolff, Theodore Y T'so, David Miller and others. Nice reading on a rainy afternoon. It's fascinating to see how some predictions (which seemed rather reasonable at the time) have proved wrong over the years (for example, that we would all be using RISC chips by 1998).
Hi -- quick question about the RSA patent, as this topic is particularly relevant to me right now. I just finished moving a development system from c2net's Apache/Stronghold server to a Apache/mod_ssl/openSSL server, and I am now considering moving it into production.
From what I can tell, the openSSL version is going to be a better choice -- especially considering how much easier it is to build heavily modified versions of apache if one stays with exclusively open source/GPL'd components.
However, I'm a little worried that the openSSL version is using the RSA algorithm and that we could be violating their patent if we start using this commercially. It seems that all c2net Stronghold offers is the fact that they went through the hassle of licensing the RSA code.
My question is do we need it anyway, or are we fine using mod_ssl/openSSL?
Just over four weeks ago I ordered a Precision 410 Pentium III 500, 256MB RAM, SCSI, the works, from Dell with RH5.2 preinstalled.
It arrived two weeks ago and kicks ass -- booted it on the first go around (just like you could with their NT boxes) and started rocking.
Oh, the price was just shy of $3500, with 17" monitor. Not the cheapest way of getting this linux box, but I think Dell's online ordering is great, and they have a good support contract.
I'm a program manager in developer tools at Microsoft, and while I obviously can't speak for the whole company, I can say that I've experienced absolutely *nothing* like that here.
Some slashdotters have legitimate criticisms of Microsoft -- but that sort of behavior would definitely not be endorsed or even condoned.
I'm an avid Linux user (both here and at home) and I feel that I'm a part of the slashdot community, but sometimes I have to wonder if the anti-Microsoft sentiment is taken a little to far.
On occasion, I have to take what some of you say personally, and that sucks. Those who know me from the slashdot IRC know that I'm an alright guy who loves technology and innovation. And I can tell you that if I felt that Microsoft was up to half the shit that is suggested on slashdot, I wouldn't work here.
Sure. Microsoft's days are numbered. But the number is probably higher than you can count.
All empires must fall. But now is not the time for Microsoft.
Linux is fantastic, no doubt. But have you noticed that Microsoft makes dozens of fantastic products, that appeal to millions of people, and they are releasing more each day?
Probably not, because the applications and OS don't appeal to you personally.
Have you considered that other people may actually like their products?
How about the Brontë sisters? Cain and Abel? Michael, Jackie, Marlon, Jermaine, Tito, LaToya and Janet Jackson? Click and Clack (Tom and Ray Magliozzi)? The Marx brothers -- Groucho, Chico, Harpo and Karl? The Hansons? Elayne, Galad, and Gawyn? The Everly Brothers? The Allman Brothers? The Chemical Brothers?
Slashdot Mirror
Try:
http://tuxracer.sourceforge.net/
Good pointer to the DivX codec.
Just a quick correction on the URL:
http://avifile.sourceforge.net/
Which really points you to:
http://divx.euro.ru/
Quick show of hands here: who here has the skills, time and patience to analyze the performance of your computer and actually find a way to improve the microcode performance on their computer?
You're absolutely right, but I think the point is that Intel could upgrade the microcode in the event of new performance research, security fixes, or another show-stopper division bug. An perfectly reasonable idea, IMHO.
On the other hand, I've written some very simple microcode for a scaled-down x86 instruction set, and the ability to run it on a live machine, rather than under emulation, would make a great academic tool for graduate-level students.
My slashdot ID (13487) is 70,000 lower than yours (82141), isn't it. :) I've been around long enough.
It was funny respoding to anti-MS posts when I was working there. On the one hand, I was the guy running the Linux boxes at work, and had to defend *that* to my colleagues. On the other, I was the guy posting on Slashdot saying that MS wasn't *all* that bad...
This is obviously bait, but I'll bite.
Do you have first-hand personal knowledge that Microsoft employees would do something "moronic" like downloading a trojan?
As I've mentioned before, I used to be a program manager at Microsoft. As a whole, I found my co-workers there to be some of the most computer-literate, intelligent, and most capable people I've ever worked with (rivalled perhaps by my new company, Avacet). I can not think of a single one who was not educated about the dangers associated with blindly running executables that come in email.
Also, Microsoft's network security was rather strong, especially considering that they have something like 25,000 employees worldwide and hundreds of thousands of machines to deal with.
Seriously, feel free to critique MS technologies -- I do it myself all the time. But an uniformed criticism of everybody who works there is just inappropriate.
Hi,
I've found my home LAN to be relatively secure. I started with these two things:
One) Purchase a WatchGuard SOHO Firewall/Gateway device. Only $350 at Outpost.com (free overnight shipping!). This little beauty does DCHP and NATs your LAN as well. You can plug 5 machines directly into it, or extend it with a hub. There is also a VPN option if you want it. It is configurable via a web interface, and can basically upgrade itself from their website.
Two) Start running iptables on the 2.4 Linux boxes, and ipchains on the 2.2 boxes. Here is a version of the firewall.sh script that I run to configure iptables to keep the box reasonably safe, without going overboard.
I completely agree that C++ is one of the most versitile and prevalent languages in use today.
However, Java and C# were both designed to *add* value to C++. Sure, Java should have had enums, and C# is Windows only (for now) but the concepts of both are pretty clear -- take the best of C/C++ and extend it to create a new, more powerful language. For example, both Java and C# run on a virtual machine and offer memory management.
While Internet C++ may seem like a pretty nifty idea, it is missing the point a bit. The fact that C++ is hardly a standard (trying writing an application for both g++ and VisualC++) should *not* be addressed by creating a C++ virtual machine. It should be addressed by aggressive co-operation between compiler vendors and with standards bodies that move in internet time, not academic time. And since MS seems unlikely to co-operate with GNU (and vice versa), there is a definite need for new languages such as Java.
If Internet C++'s objective was to create a new language that a) ran on a cross-platform VM, b) added new language features such as garbage collection or invariants, and c) was a free standard, unencumbered by MSFT or Sun, then they would have my blessing. However, they're simply trying to add more overhead to solve an already weighty problem. In other words, this company is about 10 years behind the curve.
(Disclaimer, I'm ex-Microsoft. I think C# is a great step forward for programming languages. I just won't start using it until it runs on my OS of choice.)
Have you been to a Radio Shack or Sears lately?
Those stores, among many others, try to get your personal information even if you want to pay cash. I remember arguing with a sales clerk for twenty minutes about whether or not I *had* to give my name and address to buy something with cash. He claimed that he couldn't complete the sale without the data. We finally had to call over a manager to deal with the issue.
Experiences like that just leave me feeling icky...
As a footnote, I believe this is also why C2Net was acquired by Red Hat. C2Net could no longer show a revenue model licensing their Stronghold software for a fee that is now available for free (as Apache/mod_ssl). Red Hat liked C2Net's management team and their technical expertise and chose to pick them up at the right price.
How exactly do static screenshots prove that the game is rendering in realtime? :)
Just kidding, I think it rocks.
Speaking of that -- is there a good Unix/Linux based mechanism for searching local documents? I mean, slocate, find, and grep get the job done. But what I'd really like is a little search engine (perhaps ht://dig?) that can scan my filesystem once a night and give me an interface like any decent web search engine. In other words, type in a few keywords and out pops the location of the file and a brief excerpt.
Ideally it would record file permissions and ownerships like slocate does. But I'd settle for indexing just my own documents.
Any ideas?
I've noticed a few posts asking what the advantage of rewriting the kernel in a language like C++. I don't know the answer, but in the linux kernel mailing list faq, question 1.4 states:
Why don't we rewrite the Linux kernel in C++?
(ADB [Andrew D. Balsa]) Again, this has to do with practical and theoretical reasons. On the practical side, when Linux got started gcc didn't have an efficient C++ implementation, and some people would argue that even today it doesn't. Also there are many more C programmers than C++ programmers around. On theoretical grounds, examples of OS's implemented in Object Oriented languages are rare (Java-OS and Oberon System 3 come to mind), and the advantages of this approach are not quite clear cut (for OS design, that is; for GUI implementation KDE is a good example that C++ beats plain C any day).
and
(REW [Roger E. Wolff]) In the dark old days, in the time that most of you hadn't even heard of the word "Linux", the kernel was once modified to be compiled under g++. That lasted for a few revisions. People complained about the performance drop. It turned out that compiling a piece of C code with g++ would give you worse code. It shouldn't have made a difference, but it did. Been there, done that.
And question 1.5:
Why is the Linux kernel monolithic? Why don't we rewrite it as a microkernel?
(ADB) No opinions here, just a few pointers. Linux has been implemented as a "personality" on top of a modified version of the Mach3 microkernel. This is a fully functional piece of code, known as MkLinux. The project was in part funded by Apple, and as such it was running at first on PowerPC Macs. But an x86 version is available, with fully open source code. Similarly, the Hurd (the GNU kernel) is being implemented on top of Mach3.
There is a historical Usenet thread related to this subject, dating back from 1992, with posts from Linus, Andrew Tanenbaum, Roger Wolff, Theodore Y T'so, David Miller and others. Nice reading on a rainy afternoon. It's fascinating to see how some predictions (which seemed rather reasonable at the time) have proved wrong over
the years (for example, that we would all be using RISC chips by 1998).
Hi -- quick question about the RSA patent, as this topic is particularly relevant to me right now. I just finished moving a development system from c2net's Apache/Stronghold server to a Apache/mod_ssl/openSSL server, and I am now considering moving it into production.
From what I can tell, the openSSL version is going to be a better choice -- especially considering how much easier it is to build heavily modified versions of apache if one stays with exclusively open source/GPL'd components.
However, I'm a little worried that the openSSL version is using the RSA algorithm and that we could be violating their patent if we start using this commercially. It seems that all c2net Stronghold offers is the fact that they went through the hassle of licensing the RSA code.
My question is do we need it anyway, or are we fine using mod_ssl/openSSL?
Just over four weeks ago I ordered a Precision 410 Pentium III 500, 256MB RAM, SCSI, the works, from Dell with RH5.2 preinstalled.
It arrived two weeks ago and kicks ass -- booted it on the first go around (just like you could with their NT boxes) and started rocking.
Oh, the price was just shy of $3500, with 17" monitor. Not the cheapest way of getting this linux box, but I think Dell's online ordering is great, and they have a good support contract.
Hi,
I'm a program manager in developer tools at Microsoft, and while I obviously can't speak for the whole company, I can say that I've experienced absolutely *nothing* like that here.
Some slashdotters have legitimate criticisms of Microsoft -- but that sort of behavior would definitely not be endorsed or even condoned.
I'm an avid Linux user (both here and at home) and I feel that I'm a part of the slashdot community, but sometimes I have to wonder if the anti-Microsoft sentiment is taken a little to far.
On occasion, I have to take what some of you say personally, and that sucks. Those who know me from the slashdot IRC know that I'm an alright guy who loves technology and innovation. And I can tell you that if I felt that Microsoft was up to half the shit that is suggested on slashdot, I wouldn't work here.
Anyway, just felt the need to post.
Yup. :)
I'm currently running NT4, but most of the day I run the latest builds of NT5. Occasionally, I run linux here at work.
And yes, I do work in Redmond, too.
Sure. Microsoft's days are numbered. But the number is probably higher than you can count.
All empires must fall. But now is not the time for Microsoft.
Linux is fantastic, no doubt. But have you noticed that Microsoft makes dozens of fantastic products, that appeal to millions of people, and they are releasing more each day?
Probably not, because the applications and OS don't appeal to you personally.
Have you considered that other people may actually like their products?
No. Microsoft will be around for a long time...
How about the Brontë sisters? Cain and Abel? Michael, Jackie, Marlon, Jermaine, Tito, LaToya and Janet Jackson? Click and Clack (Tom and Ray Magliozzi)? The Marx brothers -- Groucho, Chico, Harpo and Karl? The Hansons? Elayne, Galad, and Gawyn? The Everly Brothers? The Allman Brothers? The Chemical Brothers?
I could go on forever.