Sun doesn't understand OOE? They can't compete on process with Intel? They're constitutionally committed to a loser architecture? Mostly, the numbers don't add up: by the time they designed and fabbed this Intel killer -- for the sake of argument, we'll call it "Alpha" -- Intel would be ready to roll out a Pentium 8 on a process at least three generations ahead.
Not at all. I hack Postgres for a living, and ML and Cocoa for fun. But I know enough to know that it doesn't matter to me.
intel architecture is booty, whether or not i work on gcc anything.
But why do you care? Because of some weird aesthetic? I care about getting the most bang for my buck, especially at work, and as long as somebody else has to worry about the gross bits, hey, Linux is Linux is Linux, whether the underlying ISA is sweet (Alpha, MIPS) or nasty (x86, IA-64).
at least amd is trying.
To do what? Extend the "booty" x86 instruction set to 64 bits? Push x86 down (to hand-helds) as well as up? Hey, I'm sure glad they exist -- competition for Intel benefits all -- but don't think that they're doing anything good in the instruction set business. Is x86-64 grosser than IA-64? Probably, although again, it's not really my concern.
Would I prefer a world where Intel was crushed by a flood of cheap Alphas? Maybe, maybe not. To all but a tiny minority, IT DOESNT MATTER.
I think what you mean is "fastest consumer/business mass production CPU"
Try "general purpose." That's a less pejorative way to express the glum fact that Itanic 2 blows the doors off of everything else.
This is 2003 , not 1993.
... and the latest (huge) Alphas run hot as a bastard. They always have. Alpha was an experiment that met an untimely end -- if DEC had only.... ! If Microsoft had only... ! If AMD just hadn't... ! Whatever. If frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their asses on the ground.
Take pleasure in the fact that you can buy a consumer grade system with the fastest general purpose CPU for under 10 grand -- or, if you're willing to give up 64 bit addressing, for less than $2k. That's astonishing -- in the days when the R10000 or 21164 was king of the hill, you'd be out 40 or 50 grand to get a box with that level of relative performance. Why slashbots bitch and moan about Intel I'll never understand. Sure, x86 and IA64 are gross nasty ISAs -- but how many posters here really work on the gcc's code generator? Seriously, people. Leave the heavy lifting to the people who enjoy it, and bask in the pleasure of CPU cycles to burn.
Apple doesn't mind you copying the tracks from one comp to another (as long as you don't put them on a total of more than three, and that's why they have the DRM); they just don't want to do it for you.
You can have your music on as many machines as you like -- you just can't play it until you authorize it, and that you can only do on three machines. I thought that the rights restrictions on m4p was going to be a real encumbrance, but in practice, it hasn't been bad at all.
There's a direct inverse relation between arrogance and ability in technology, I've found. The very best programmers, admins, help desk, and QA people that I've worked with have been without exception free of this inflated and hilariously unjustified sense of self-worth, what you might call the "slashdot attitude." The really horrid assholes have always also been incompetent jerks who's posturing is an attempt to hide how poorly they understand their job.
Of all the things to complain about in Windows (and they are legion), why would this dim bulb pick what is basically the ONE feature that is totally, unarguably superior to harp on? C-c/C-x/C-v is a BETTER solution than highlight 'n paste. 1) You don't have to move your hands off the keyboard and 2) you can highlight text to replace without losing your cut buffer.
How is this flamebait? I mean, yes, he's wrong, but please.
Stupid moderators.
'jfb
Re:The one i hate most
on
Software Fashion
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
And that works really well when someone changes the 'siRfse' to a 'siRfce' but doesn't update the name, doesn't it?
Hungarian Notation is just file extensions in source code -- it will surprise nobody that both terrible creations were midwifed at the same place. It's a bad idea who's time never came. Now that we've moved out of the '70s and have development tools more sophisticated than vi and grep, it's not merely archaic but rather positively prehistoric. Don't fish Hungarian Notation out of history's dustbin, where it peacefully resides with ritual anthropophagy, the jus primae noctis, and preprocessor macros.
... but rather overHYPED. Everybody who suffered the misfortune of actually playing that rancid shitstain of a game would RATE the following activities higher:
1. licking clean the toilets at Grand Central Station 2. brushing one's teeth with a random-orbit sander 3. playing Oni
No reason you couldn't have your "find" as a command-line tool that can translate between the current (miserable) semantics and the underlying representation. Not hard at all.
Relying on tools crafted to the lowest common denominator (the Unix file "system") is so thirty years ago. Nothing about the organization of the computer imposes this stilted model with all the attendant brain damage it implies; we can and should move past it.
Who cares about the user? The system itself would have capabilities finally expressible in terms more advanced than those constrained by what some drug-addled graduate student with no maths decided was sufficient in 1971.
In other words, the user might never think to do that, but it'd be so cheap for the operating environment that all kinds of new applications would appear.
It might be very nice, but it's hardly innovative (unless you're comparing it to the miserable Mozilla mailer) -- all of those features have been available for years in Gnus, a mail client good enough to learn Emacs for.
The Unix filesystem was a great step forward? In what ways, exactly? My first exposure to Unix (in '88) left me pretty cold, filesystem-wise -- VMS certainly had a more advanced system that either pre-dated or was at the very least coincident with the FFS. HFS+ was arguably better than the Unix offerings when it was released. Same with NTFS. Note that "better" can't mean "better at preserving the POSIX model", because that's a circular argument.
This is not to say that current Unix filesystems haven't been improved -- XFS for one is a marvelous technical achievement. But insisting that Unix filesystem semantics were an improvement over the state of the art? I find that hard to swallow. And I applaud Hans Reiser for not being conceptually trapped in the kludgy world of modern Unix filesystems.
I know what Veritas is. It still doesn't mean squat to the consumer of network services. Oracle 9i on Linux is every bit as amatuer hour as Oracle on OS X -- that the license says otherwise is meaningless. I challenge you to make with a straight face the case for running a Linux box as an Oracle database server.
And that there's a (typically) half-assed port of the Netinfo libraries for Linux in no way means that Linux could use the NI directories for, say, host name resolution, or service discovery, or centralized network configuration, or for anything except yet another unfinished and laughably documented pile of mashed potatoes atop the rotting foundations of POSIX.
Linux can make a fine server -- I use it in that capacity every day, at work. But the software available for network services on Linux is a strict subset of the software available on OS X. And that's not even to get into the desktop/client software market, where even the most bugeyed of Linuxites knows to keep their advocacy-holes shut.
Slashdot Mirror
Not bad up until you recommend Starfox Adventures. Those bastards at Rare owe ME money for the 15 minutes I wasted on that pile of poo.
'jfb
The question is why don't/can't they?
Sun doesn't understand OOE? They can't compete on process with Intel? They're constitutionally committed to a loser architecture? Mostly, the numbers don't add up: by the time they designed and fabbed this Intel killer -- for the sake of argument, we'll call it "Alpha" -- Intel would be ready to roll out a Pentium 8 on a process at least three generations ahead.
'jfb
Hell yeah. I've got a 32s, but I surely miss my old 16c, stolen by a amoral but discerning thief when I got to college, lo those many years ago.
'jfb
find . -name \*.backup -print0 | xargs -0 rm
'jfb
You mean Microsoft apologists like Jamie Zawinksi? Or Simson Garfinkel? Oh wait -- you haven't read the book, so never mind.
Typical slashdot jackass.
'jfb
i take it that you are a "heavy lifter".
Not at all. I hack Postgres for a living, and ML and Cocoa for fun. But I know enough to know that it doesn't matter to me.
intel architecture is booty, whether or not i work on gcc anything.
But why do you care? Because of some weird aesthetic? I care about getting the most bang for my buck, especially at work, and as long as somebody else has to worry about the gross bits, hey, Linux is Linux is Linux, whether the underlying ISA is sweet (Alpha, MIPS) or nasty (x86, IA-64).
at least amd is trying.
To do what? Extend the "booty" x86 instruction set to 64 bits? Push x86 down (to hand-helds) as well as up? Hey, I'm sure glad they exist -- competition for Intel benefits all -- but don't think that they're doing anything good in the instruction set business. Is x86-64 grosser than IA-64? Probably, although again, it's not really my concern.
Would I prefer a world where Intel was crushed by a flood of cheap Alphas? Maybe, maybe not. To all but a tiny minority, IT DOESNT MATTER.
'jfb
Try "general purpose." That's a less pejorative way to express the glum fact that Itanic 2 blows the doors off of everything else.
This is 2003 , not 1993.
Take pleasure in the fact that you can buy a consumer grade system with the fastest general purpose CPU for under 10 grand -- or, if you're willing to give up 64 bit addressing, for less than $2k. That's astonishing -- in the days when the R10000 or 21164 was king of the hill, you'd be out 40 or 50 grand to get a box with that level of relative performance. Why slashbots bitch and moan about Intel I'll never understand. Sure, x86 and IA64 are gross nasty ISAs -- but how many posters here really work on the gcc's code generator? Seriously, people. Leave the heavy lifting to the people who enjoy it, and bask in the pleasure of CPU cycles to burn.
'jfb
Apple doesn't mind you copying the tracks from one comp to another (as long as you don't put them on a total of more than three, and that's why they have the DRM); they just don't want to do it for you.
You can have your music on as many machines as you like -- you just can't play it until you authorize it, and that you can only do on three machines. I thought that the rights restrictions on m4p was going to be a real encumbrance, but in practice, it hasn't been bad at all.
'jfb
Sure. The exception that proofs the rule, as it were.
'jfb
There's a direct inverse relation between arrogance and ability in technology, I've found. The very best programmers, admins, help desk, and QA people that I've worked with have been without exception free of this inflated and hilariously unjustified sense of self-worth, what you might call the "slashdot attitude." The really horrid assholes have always also been incompetent jerks who's posturing is an attempt to hide how poorly they understand their job.
'jfb
They still have a root user, don't they? No ACLs on anything but files? No provision for sandboxing executables? &c., &c., &c.
'jfb
Of all the things to complain about in Windows (and they are legion), why would this dim bulb pick what is basically the ONE feature that is totally, unarguably superior to harp on? C-c/C-x/C-v is a BETTER solution than highlight 'n paste. 1) You don't have to move your hands off the keyboard and 2) you can highlight text to replace without losing your cut buffer.
Sheesh.
'jfb
How is this flamebait? I mean, yes, he's wrong, but please.
Stupid moderators.
'jfb
And that works really well when someone changes the 'siRfse' to a 'siRfce' but doesn't update the name, doesn't it?
Hungarian Notation is just file extensions in source code -- it will surprise nobody that both terrible creations were midwifed at the same place. It's a bad idea who's time never came. Now that we've moved out of the '70s and have development tools more sophisticated than vi and grep, it's not merely archaic but rather positively prehistoric. Don't fish Hungarian Notation out of history's dustbin, where it peacefully resides with ritual anthropophagy, the jus primae noctis, and preprocessor macros.
'jfb
Right on. I buy 'em by the box from Office Depot or one of those places online. Great, great pens.
'jfb
If you're getting 100Mbps over 100base-T, you're doing somthing you should tell the rest of us about.
'jfb
... but rather overHYPED. Everybody who suffered the misfortune of actually playing that rancid shitstain of a game would RATE the following activities higher:
1. licking clean the toilets at Grand Central Station
2. brushing one's teeth with a random-orbit sander
3. playing Oni
'jfb
No reason you couldn't have your "find" as a command-line tool that can translate between the current (miserable) semantics and the underlying representation. Not hard at all.
Relying on tools crafted to the lowest common denominator (the Unix file "system") is so thirty years ago. Nothing about the organization of the computer imposes this stilted model with all the attendant brain damage it implies; we can and should move past it.
'jfb
Who cares about the user? The system itself would have capabilities finally expressible in terms more advanced than those constrained by what some drug-addled graduate student with no maths decided was sufficient in 1971.
In other words, the user might never think to do that, but it'd be so cheap for the operating environment that all kinds of new applications would appear.
'jfb
It might be very nice, but it's hardly innovative (unless you're comparing it to the miserable Mozilla mailer) -- all of those features have been available for years in Gnus, a mail client good enough to learn Emacs for.
'jfb
YHBT. YHL. HAND.
'jfb
The Unix filesystem was a great step forward? In what ways, exactly? My first exposure to Unix (in '88) left me pretty cold, filesystem-wise -- VMS certainly had a more advanced system that either pre-dated or was at the very least coincident with the FFS. HFS+ was arguably better than the Unix offerings when it was released. Same with NTFS. Note that "better" can't mean "better at preserving the POSIX model", because that's a circular argument.
This is not to say that current Unix filesystems haven't been improved -- XFS for one is a marvelous technical achievement. But insisting that Unix filesystem semantics were an improvement over the state of the art? I find that hard to swallow. And I applaud Hans Reiser for not being conceptually trapped in the kludgy world of modern Unix filesystems.
'jfb
Yeah, I laughed with pleasure at that. The music was brilliant (and so was the film.)
'jfb
I know what Veritas is. It still doesn't mean squat to the consumer of network services. Oracle 9i on Linux is every bit as amatuer hour as Oracle on OS X -- that the license says otherwise is meaningless. I challenge you to make with a straight face the case for running a Linux box as an Oracle database server.
And that there's a (typically) half-assed port of the Netinfo libraries for Linux in no way means that Linux could use the NI directories for, say, host name resolution, or service discovery, or centralized network configuration, or for anything except yet another unfinished and laughably documented pile of mashed potatoes atop the rotting foundations of POSIX.
Linux can make a fine server -- I use it in that capacity every day, at work. But the software available for network services on Linux is a strict subset of the software available on OS X. And that's not even to get into the desktop/client software market, where even the most bugeyed of Linuxites knows to keep their advocacy-holes shut.
'jfb
Only the last instance of an animated GIF is ever animated.
My god, this is a problem?
'jfb