That's an over-simplified view of the situation. Because the Duron's cache is smaller than the Athlon's, there will be more cache misses and there will therefore be more memory bandwidth consumed by it.
The whole idea of cache is to reduce the memory bandwidth requirements. Because the Duron is more memory bandwidth hungry than the Athlon, they will scale less well when put in dual CPU configurations.
To be honest, I imagine spending what you'd spend on 2 Durons on 1 Athlon XP would get you equal or better performance overall. Because Durons have a smaller L2 cache (64K vs. 256K), I would also imagine they need more memory bandwidth, leading to a not insignificant loss in scaling compaired to 2 Athlon XPs.
"Does settings->configure konqueror->stylesheet looks difficult ? I would not think so."
That's got nothing to do with what I'm on about. I'm talking about site which have more than one stylesheet suited for different people. How do you select between them in Konqueror?
Konqueror from KDE 2.2.2 is quite stable on my machine. I don't use Mozilla in Linux but on Windows it seems quite stable as well. I don't think one has a huge advantage over the other in this area.
Which was my point, Konqueror does not beat Mozilla in this area any more. Back when I first started using Konqueror, this was true.
And Mozilla isn't available on AtheOS;-).
And neither is Konqueror, only KHTML.
Your points about Qt are somewhat valid, but you'd need to port KDE to be able to port Konqueror to another platform. Mozilla doesn't need this.
I don't know where you might get data to show this one way or the other
Try here and take a look here. Notice the mouse hover over the side elements doesn't work correctly in Konqueror. Also, how do I select alternate stylesheets in Konqueror?
It works on many sites that Mozilla doesn't even try to run
Such as?
"Just" a web browser/file manager? It rips CDs, it interfaces with digital cameras, it browses Windows networks, it browses the web, it manages files, it does FTP, it burns CDs, it manages MP3s on your Nomad Jukebox, it browses your RPM database, it is totally integrated with KDE and previews tons of file types. "Just" a browser/file manager indeed! I think KMail is a great mail client, and I prefer the concept of Quanta+ to a WYSIWYG html editor.
Fair enough, but at that point you're getting somewhat less impressive, since you're saying "KDE does more than Mozilla" rather than "Konqueror as a web browser spanks Mozilla", which still hasn't been proven.
For the life of me I can't understand what the big fuss is about tabs, but they'll be in KDE 3.1.
I will not use a browser without tabs as long as I don't have to. And as for "It'll be in 3.1", 3.0 isn't even out yet.
I'm not passing personal experience as facts. There are no valid tests that show Konqueror to have anywhere near the standards support of Mozilla. Where is Konqueror's support for MathML? How about decent DOM1? Has anyone written support for XSLT for Konqueror yet?
I tell you what, go to http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/ in KDE/Konqueror 2.2.2 and Mozilla 0.9.9. Which renders the site correctly?
Speed? Mozilla's not the fastest, although if you use Galeon it is comparable to Konqueror.
Mozilla 0.9.9 does support font AA.
As for stability, do you have any evidence the MTBF of Konqueror is any better than Mozilla's?
Err...speaking about the web browser part of Konqueror, it has not kicked Mozilla's arse in any way, shape or form. Here's why:
1) Stability. You can not honestly say Konqueror is any more stable than Mozilla 2) Cross-platform support. Konqueror is not available on Windows or Mac OS 3) Standards support. Mozilla has better support for more standards than Konqueror 4) Scope. Konqueror is just a web browser/file manager. Mozilla has a mail client and an HTML composer. Some people may not want them, but others do. I think the mail part of Mozilla kicks KMail all the way to next Tuesday. 5) Tabs:)
What's to stop people just using Mozilla or Netscape? Besides, despite AOL switching, IE will still have such a large market share that such a thing would become unworkable.
I don't want to see a one-option browser market, whether it's Gecko, IE, Opera or Konqueror based. By having competition in the browser market, there's more pressure to support standards in order to get sites viewable by as many people as possible.
No, I do not fix security bugs immediately. If a bug is reported to me, I will fix it in my own good time. I'm giving people my software, they have no right to demand anything of me.
If my software crashes the operating system, that is the operating system's fault. Why? The operating system should not allow a non-root user space process to cause any harm to the OS.
If somebody reports a security bug and supplies a fix, I will probably apply it immediately. However, if you've paid me fuck all and report a bug, don't expect me to fix it in any time shorter than "when I can be arsed."
I'm the maintainer of a piece of open source software, and no way in hell will I ever say any of my releases are bug free.
I'm giving my code away, you don't have to pay a penny for it. How can I possibly be held liable for it breaking? How would I ever get anything out of beta if I had the constant threat of being sued if my "release" code contained a bug?
Well, with all those people who go to the doctor's because they've got a head-ache, they'd save the country (Or themselves in the case of the US) so much more money if they just took a paracetamol and only go to the doctor's if it lasts more than several hours.
It can never entirely be one way or the other. To a certain extent, hardware is designed for the software, and software is designed for the hardware. Although, more often than not, this leads to nasty backwards compatibility hacks (Why do you think x86 is still around?).
AA has always been a matter of preference. My first computer had RISC OS on it, which had anti-aliased font rendering by default from the get-go. I guess I just got used to it and expect it. The one place I don't like AA is in my X terminals, which is funny since the one place RISC OS never had anti-aliasing was its command line:)
I'm no XFree expert, but this is what I think is going on.
The anti-aliasing is a small part of what is the XRender extension. XRender is not so much an ordinary extension but a whole new rendering system the XFree developers are developing.
The standard X11 protocol requires 1-bit bitmapped fonts and the XFree team couldn't just up and break it so fundamentally, so they did XRender. While they were at it, they implimented things like alpha-blending (Which is pretty much needed for proper AA anyway) and some other things, but I don't know specifics.
The AA has gotten a lot of attention simply because it solved a major shortcoming of X, whereas the others are just nice.
Now, because the AA is part of XRender and not a replacement font subsystem, each individual toolkit has to be adapted to use The XRender font system, as opposed to the normal X11 font subsystem. With the advent of GNOME2, both major toolkits will have support for AA fonts, which is good enough for me:)
Seeing as it seems that many companies are willing to hurl a million lawyers at open source projects as soon as they get so much as a mis-guided whiff of copyright/DMCA violation, why should the open source developers not do the same?
For a start, Paypal don't accept Switch. Since I only have a Switch card (Which is a debit card BTW), even if I wanted to subscribe I couldn't. To be honest, I'd sooner subscribe to Transgaming than Slashdot, but once again they don't take Switch.
You really should know better than to use version numbers as a sign of progression. First, Direct3D only appeared in DirectX 3. Second, there was no DirectX 4 (God knows why). Third, the first few itterations of Direct3D were awful.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, but then you end up with the situation of "obfuscated" vs "clean and readable."
/ +,{}r/*de}+,/*{*+,/w{%+,/w #q#n+,/#{l,+,/n{n+\ :'d*'3,}{w+K w'K:'+}e#';dq#'l q#'+d'K#!/\) #}w'){){nl]'/ +#n';d}rw' i;# ){n\ :{nl]'/*{q#'ld;r'}{nlwb!/*de}'c \
# 'rdq#w! nr'/ ') }+}{rl#'{n' ')# }'+}##(!!/") .vpbks,fxntdCeghiry"),a+1);}
Look at this:
#include <stdio.h>
main(t,_,a)
char *a;
{return!0<t?t<3?main(-79,-13,a+main(-87,1-_,
main(-86, 0, a+1 )+a)):1,t<_?main(t+1, _, a ):3,main ( -94, -27+t, a
)&&t == 2 ?_<13 ?main ( 2, _+1, "%s %d %d\n" ):9:16:t<0?t<-72?main(_,
t,"@n'+,#'/*{}w+/w#cdnr
,/+#n+,/#;#q#n+,/+k#;*+,/'r
+k#;q#'r}eKK#}w'r}eKK{nl]'/#;#q#n'){
l]!/n{n#'; r{#w'r nc{nl]'/#{l,+'K {rw' iK{;[{nl]'/w#q#\
n'wk nw' iwk{KK{nl]!/w{%'l##w#' i;
;;{nl'-{}rw]'/+,}##'*}#nc,',#nw]'/+kd'+e}+;\
:t<-50?_==*a ?putchar(a[31]):main(-65,_,a+1):main((*a == '/')+t,_,a\
+1 ):0<t?main ( 2, 2 , "%s"):*a=='/'||main(0,main(-61,*a, "!ek;dc \
i@bK'(q)-[w]*%n+r3#l,{}:\nuwloca-O;m
(It's not mine, but I lost the URL of the author, sorry)
It's very compact, but you cannot predict what it produces, nor could I figure out how it does it.
That's an over-simplified view of the situation. Because the Duron's cache is smaller than the Athlon's, there will be more cache misses and there will therefore be more memory bandwidth consumed by it.
The whole idea of cache is to reduce the memory bandwidth requirements. Because the Duron is more memory bandwidth hungry than the Athlon, they will scale less well when put in dual CPU configurations.
If you read the forum discussion about the article, you'll see them saying they have had it running W2K and SysMark 2001.
To be honest, I imagine spending what you'd spend on 2 Durons on 1 Athlon XP would get you equal or better performance overall. Because Durons have a smaller L2 cache (64K vs. 256K), I would also imagine they need more memory bandwidth, leading to a not insignificant loss in scaling compaired to 2 Athlon XPs.
"Does settings->configure konqueror->stylesheet looks difficult ? I would not think so."
That's got nothing to do with what I'm on about. I'm talking about site which have more than one stylesheet suited for different people. How do you select between them in Konqueror?
Freetype isn't dependent on X. By using FreeType they can port it to other platforms more easily.
Which was my point, Konqueror does not beat Mozilla in this area any more. Back when I first started using Konqueror, this was true.
And Mozilla isn't available on AtheOS
And neither is Konqueror, only KHTML.
Your points about Qt are somewhat valid, but you'd need to port KDE to be able to port Konqueror to another platform. Mozilla doesn't need this.
I don't know where you might get data to show this one way or the other
Try here and take a look here. Notice the mouse hover over the side elements doesn't work correctly in Konqueror. Also, how do I select alternate stylesheets in Konqueror?
It works on many sites that Mozilla doesn't even try to run
Such as?
"Just" a web browser/file manager? It rips CDs, it interfaces with digital cameras, it browses Windows networks, it browses the web, it manages files, it does FTP, it burns CDs, it manages MP3s on your Nomad Jukebox, it browses your RPM database, it is totally integrated with KDE and previews tons of file types. "Just" a browser/file manager indeed! I think KMail is a great mail client, and I prefer the concept of Quanta+ to a WYSIWYG html editor.
Fair enough, but at that point you're getting somewhat less impressive, since you're saying "KDE does more than Mozilla" rather than "Konqueror as a web browser spanks Mozilla", which still hasn't been proven.
For the life of me I can't understand what the big fuss is about tabs, but they'll be in KDE 3.1.
I will not use a browser without tabs as long as I don't have to. And as for "It'll be in 3.1", 3.0 isn't even out yet.
I'm not passing personal experience as facts. There are no valid tests that show Konqueror to have anywhere near the standards support of Mozilla. Where is Konqueror's support for MathML? How about decent DOM1? Has anyone written support for XSLT for Konqueror yet?
I tell you what, go to http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/ in KDE/Konqueror 2.2.2 and Mozilla 0.9.9. Which renders the site correctly?
Speed? Mozilla's not the fastest, although if you use Galeon it is comparable to Konqueror.
Mozilla 0.9.9 does support font AA.
As for stability, do you have any evidence the MTBF of Konqueror is any better than Mozilla's?
I use KDE, but I'd be using GNOME2 if I could get the problems with the status docklet sorted.
As for Konqueror, I think Mozilla's better.
As for KWin, there's not much that's lighter than Sawfish.
Err...speaking about the web browser part of Konqueror, it has not kicked Mozilla's arse in any way, shape or form. Here's why:
:)
1) Stability. You can not honestly say Konqueror is any more stable than Mozilla
2) Cross-platform support. Konqueror is not available on Windows or Mac OS
3) Standards support. Mozilla has better support for more standards than Konqueror
4) Scope. Konqueror is just a web browser/file manager. Mozilla has a mail client and an HTML composer. Some people may not want them, but others do. I think the mail part of Mozilla kicks KMail all the way to next Tuesday.
5) Tabs
What's to stop people just using Mozilla or Netscape? Besides, despite AOL switching, IE will still have such a large market share that such a thing would become unworkable.
I don't want to see a one-option browser market, whether it's Gecko, IE, Opera or Konqueror based. By having competition in the browser market, there's more pressure to support standards in order to get sites viewable by as many people as possible.
Netscape prior to version 6 was never very good with standards. Netscape 4, in fact, is awfully broken, especially when using CSS.
Standards only began to mean something when Mozilla became usable.
No, I do not fix security bugs immediately. If a bug is reported to me, I will fix it in my own good time. I'm giving people my software, they have no right to demand anything of me.
If my software crashes the operating system, that is the operating system's fault. Why? The operating system should not allow a non-root user space process to cause any harm to the OS.
If somebody reports a security bug and supplies a fix, I will probably apply it immediately. However, if you've paid me fuck all and report a bug, don't expect me to fix it in any time shorter than "when I can be arsed."
I'm the maintainer of a piece of open source software, and no way in hell will I ever say any of my releases are bug free.
I'm giving my code away, you don't have to pay a penny for it. How can I possibly be held liable for it breaking? How would I ever get anything out of beta if I had the constant threat of being sued if my "release" code contained a bug?
About your sig; that's simply not true. Transgaming don't take Switch, so I can't sign up. I'll be damned if I'm getting a credit card just for them.
Well, with all those people who go to the doctor's because they've got a head-ache, they'd save the country (Or themselves in the case of the US) so much more money if they just took a paracetamol and only go to the doctor's if it lasts more than several hours.
It can never entirely be one way or the other. To a certain extent, hardware is designed for the software, and software is designed for the hardware. Although, more often than not, this leads to nasty backwards compatibility hacks (Why do you think x86 is still around?).
Err...I don't see the word "kernel" in there anywhere for a start. Second, damn near every distro provides XFree with AA support these days.
It is possible to go from an ACPI HAL to an APM HAL (I'm fairly certain I've done it), but not the other way around.
AA has always been a matter of preference. My first computer had RISC OS on it, which had anti-aliased font rendering by default from the get-go. I guess I just got used to it and expect it. The one place I don't like AA is in my X terminals, which is funny since the one place RISC OS never had anti-aliasing was its command line :)
I'm no XFree expert, but this is what I think is going on.
:)
The anti-aliasing is a small part of what is the XRender extension. XRender is not so much an ordinary extension but a whole new rendering system the XFree developers are developing.
The standard X11 protocol requires 1-bit bitmapped fonts and the XFree team couldn't just up and break it so fundamentally, so they did XRender. While they were at it, they implimented things like alpha-blending (Which is pretty much needed for proper AA anyway) and some other things, but I don't know specifics.
The AA has gotten a lot of attention simply because it solved a major shortcoming of X, whereas the others are just nice.
Now, because the AA is part of XRender and not a replacement font subsystem, each individual toolkit has to be adapted to use The XRender font system, as opposed to the normal X11 font subsystem. With the advent of GNOME2, both major toolkits will have support for AA fonts, which is good enough for me
Since when did you have to recompile your kernel to support Xft anti-aliasing?
Seeing as it seems that many companies are willing to hurl a million lawyers at open source projects as soon as they get so much as a mis-guided whiff of copyright/DMCA violation, why should the open source developers not do the same?
For a start, Paypal don't accept Switch. Since I only have a Switch card (Which is a debit card BTW), even if I wanted to subscribe I couldn't. To be honest, I'd sooner subscribe to Transgaming than Slashdot, but once again they don't take Switch.
You really should know better than to use version numbers as a sign of progression. First, Direct3D only appeared in DirectX 3. Second, there was no DirectX 4 (God knows why). Third, the first few itterations of Direct3D were awful.