every year laptop speeds match the top speeds of the previous year's desktop machines
Comparing laptops and desktops is irrelevant when talking about data centers since they use servers. The fastest low-end server from one year ago was a 4-core 3.0 GHz Woodcrest system, but the fastest laptop today is only 2-core at 2.4 GHz. Not to mention that last year's low-end server can hold 16-32 GB of ECC RAM, and today's laptops only hold 4 GB non-ECC RAM.
RLX and HP tried building servers from laptop components back in 2001-2002, and there weren't enough customers to keep those products going.
p4-clockmod doesn't help at all; try acpi_cpufreq. The newer Intel processors have C1E, so they automatically drop to the lowest frequency when idle, so there's not a lot for CPUfreq to do.
Sometimes I know what product I want, and I just want to buy that product at the lowest price. I don't need service from the retailer, and I don't want to pay for it.
Minimum prices would only seem to affect competition between retailers, not competition between manufacturers, so this decision should have no effect on product quality: manufacturers will still compete against each other based on price as vigorously as before.
But a patent that hasn't been through a QA process is likely to be much easier to defend against.
If you have a legal budget and you're willing to fight the patent in court. Most open source projects will just roll over if they get hit with even the threat of a lawsuit, so the strength of the patent is irrelevant.
XCode doesn't include the GCC-ARM cross-compiler AFAIK. Also, the framework versions may be slightly different between iPhone and Mac. Even if you could write an iPhone app, you'd have to do more than copy it over; you'd have to find some way to convince the phone to launch your app.
What people are missing is that the iPhone only runs one app and it's called iPhone. It's all ring zero in there. Any "third party app" that you would install would automatically own the whole phone. That is why Jobs said a third-party app could crash the phone or even affect network services, the inside of the phone is "backstage" for the phone, not "onstage" for third-party coders.
Apple has not released any technical information that would justify these claims. In the absence of technical information, I will invoke Occam's Razor and claim that the iPhone OS X architecture is the same as Mac OS X architecture, including protection.
It doesn't matter who wrote the apps. The point is that iPhone comes with built-in ties to Google (and Yahoo Mail), putting other companies at a disadvantage.
You missed the point. Of course Apple's apps are written in Cocoa. But Google apps for iPhone (YouTube and Google Maps) are also written in Cocoa. Other companies, like Yahoo or Facebook have no access to Cocoa, so they can't build apps that are as good as the Google apps.
They are not making any innovation in RF, but they are testing a new experimental MAC protocol from Berkeley that provides higher throughput for long-distance point-to-point links.
Then a lot of "opener-than-thou" distros would refuse to ship the blob, making it harder for users to install, leading to very few users using ZFS-blob, leading to the developers wondering why they bothered. At least IMO.
I think downloading warez HD movies might actually cost more than buying them legally, not to mention the fact that my ISP might cancel my account due to downloading 50GB/week.
Snapshots don't protect against disk failure and they are non-trivial to implement. Apple chose a simpler implementation (copying files) that combines most of the benefit of snapshots and backups.
Yesyesyes, I know, ZFS is reliable that disk-recovery tools are not needed.
A common misconception. The "zfs scrub" command will scan the filesystem and try to correct any errors that are found (or panic the kernel); the difference is that ZFS can do this while the filesystem is mounted.
"Right from the start, Time Machine in Mac OS X Leopard makes a complete backup of all the files on your system. That includes your system files, applications, accounts, preferences, music, photos, movies, documents -- everything you keep on your Mac."
Some companies develop their open source projects initially in secret, exactly so that they can get a "big bang" of press when they release it. Novell seems to like this approach with XGL, the slab, etc.
So if an Intel processor reports SSEn support you assume that it works, but if an AMD processor reports the same feature, you assume that it doesn't work? Great idea.
This matters because the whole purpose of IPP is to take advantage of newer instructions. If you say "new instructions don't matter because no one uses them" it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Optimized libraries could break out of that cycle, but only if they aren't used as competitive weapons.
It's entirely possible that Prof. Hazelwood discovered some new arcana in the field and the reporter can't even come close to understanding 3/4 of it, so she just went with the easy stuff.
I think this is the correct explanation. I actually understand what Tortola is, and it's not bogus nor is it a reinvention of previous work. Unfortunately, the Web site isn't very detailed; the one example given (di/dt) is a pretty obscure problem to solve. As it stands now, there is no way to explain Tortola to a regular person so that they would care.
Slashdot Mirror
every year laptop speeds match the top speeds of the previous year's desktop machines
Comparing laptops and desktops is irrelevant when talking about data centers since they use servers. The fastest low-end server from one year ago was a 4-core 3.0 GHz Woodcrest system, but the fastest laptop today is only 2-core at 2.4 GHz. Not to mention that last year's low-end server can hold 16-32 GB of ECC RAM, and today's laptops only hold 4 GB non-ECC RAM.
RLX and HP tried building servers from laptop components back in 2001-2002, and there weren't enough customers to keep those products going.
Here's a video.
p4-clockmod doesn't help at all; try acpi_cpufreq. The newer Intel processors have C1E, so they automatically drop to the lowest frequency when idle, so there's not a lot for CPUfreq to do.
Sometimes I know what product I want, and I just want to buy that product at the lowest price. I don't need service from the retailer, and I don't want to pay for it.
Minimum prices would only seem to affect competition between retailers, not competition between manufacturers, so this decision should have no effect on product quality: manufacturers will still compete against each other based on price as vigorously as before.
According to the release notes, Lightning can send meeting invitations.
When building multi-stage fat trees from 24-port switch chips you get weird numbers like 288 and 3456, but rest assured they aren't random.
IIRC the smallest you can buy is one rack, and if you have to ask you can't afford it.
But a patent that hasn't been through a QA process is likely to be much easier to defend against.
If you have a legal budget and you're willing to fight the patent in court. Most open source projects will just roll over if they get hit with even the threat of a lawsuit, so the strength of the patent is irrelevant.
XCode doesn't include the GCC-ARM cross-compiler AFAIK. Also, the framework versions may be slightly different between iPhone and Mac. Even if you could write an iPhone app, you'd have to do more than copy it over; you'd have to find some way to convince the phone to launch your app.
What people are missing is that the iPhone only runs one app and it's called iPhone. It's all ring zero in there. Any "third party app" that you would install would automatically own the whole phone. That is why Jobs said a third-party app could crash the phone or even affect network services, the inside of the phone is "backstage" for the phone, not "onstage" for third-party coders.
Apple has not released any technical information that would justify these claims. In the absence of technical information, I will invoke Occam's Razor and claim that the iPhone OS X architecture is the same as Mac OS X architecture, including protection.
It doesn't matter who wrote the apps. The point is that iPhone comes with built-in ties to Google (and Yahoo Mail), putting other companies at a disadvantage.
You missed the point. Of course Apple's apps are written in Cocoa. But Google apps for iPhone (YouTube and Google Maps) are also written in Cocoa. Other companies, like Yahoo or Facebook have no access to Cocoa, so they can't build apps that are as good as the Google apps.
They are not making any innovation in RF, but they are testing a new experimental MAC protocol from Berkeley that provides higher throughput for long-distance point-to-point links.
Then a lot of "opener-than-thou" distros would refuse to ship the blob, making it harder for users to install, leading to very few users using ZFS-blob, leading to the developers wondering why they bothered. At least IMO.
Red Hat is working on it.
I think downloading warez HD movies might actually cost more than buying them legally, not to mention the fact that my ISP might cancel my account due to downloading 50GB/week.
I figure 640 gigabits should be enough for anyone, so they still have a way to go.
Only the demo Blackbox has Sun logos all over it; presumably the real ones are nondescript and rusted on the outside. :-)
What's the difference between a homebrew game and a major-label game that just doesn't pay any royalties to Sony? If you want to play, you gotta pay.
Snapshots don't protect against disk failure and they are non-trivial to implement. Apple chose a simpler implementation (copying files) that combines most of the benefit of snapshots and backups.
Yesyesyes, I know, ZFS is reliable that disk-recovery tools are not needed.
A common misconception. The "zfs scrub" command will scan the filesystem and try to correct any errors that are found (or panic the kernel); the difference is that ZFS can do this while the filesystem is mounted.
RTFM.
"Right from the start, Time Machine in Mac OS X Leopard makes a complete backup of all the files on your system. That includes your system files, applications, accounts, preferences, music, photos, movies, documents -- everything you keep on your Mac."
Some companies develop their open source projects initially in secret, exactly so that they can get a "big bang" of press when they release it. Novell seems to like this approach with XGL, the slab, etc.
So if an Intel processor reports SSEn support you assume that it works, but if an AMD processor reports the same feature, you assume that it doesn't work? Great idea.
This matters because the whole purpose of IPP is to take advantage of newer instructions. If you say "new instructions don't matter because no one uses them" it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Optimized libraries could break out of that cycle, but only if they aren't used as competitive weapons.
It's entirely possible that Prof. Hazelwood discovered some new arcana in the field and the reporter can't even come close to understanding 3/4 of it, so she just went with the easy stuff.
I think this is the correct explanation. I actually understand what Tortola is, and it's not bogus nor is it a reinvention of previous work. Unfortunately, the Web site isn't very detailed; the one example given (di/dt) is a pretty obscure problem to solve. As it stands now, there is no way to explain Tortola to a regular person so that they would care.