> Are you saying Boortz (the author) would fault someone for voting for Browne? If so, that would be incorrect since Boortz is himself voting for Browne.
No. I'm saying that the author only seek young votes for its candidate, perfectly knowing that youg people will not save for their retirement, so they'll get fucked at the end.
1/ He says 'Young people don't care about retirement'
2/ Well, you should, because you are paying for the retirement of 'blue hairs'
3/ Pay less and start to choose yourself how much you want to save for retirement (which, based on 1/, means about nothing)
4/ You are responsible of what is going to happen.
Hence, vote for my candidate, fuck yourself by not saving enough for retirnement, and, as I warned you, you'll deserve what will happend.
(Presonal opinion: He thinks "In the meantime, my candidate will get more power, and the privatisation of social security will give corporations billions")
I am referring to the 'fairly humorous, that makes several good points' story.
At the beginning
"You're a long way away from getting any Social Security, and besides... by the time you get that old you won't need it anyway"
Hence the: 'You are young so you don't care"
And, at the end:
"If you invest wisely in your retirement you'll be able to retire early with a lot of money and you're going to have a great time living on the beach and traveling the world. If you ignore retirement investing you're going to end up being supported by your relatives in some double-wide somewhere in Mississippi"
Guess what the sucker that wrote that think youngsters would do.
So, he can conclude
"Now --- if you're not even a little interested in who's running for president, you deserve exactly what you get"
Yeah. And that very sucker, will tell you: "You voted for Harry ? You deserved it"
Cheers,
--fred
Re:A remark from Don Knuth on the subject..
on
"e-mail" vs "email"
·
· Score: 1
(This is a way old discussion, so you won't probably read it. Never mind)
I do appreciate the fact that you took the time to write a reply.
I see you point, but don't agree with it. I suppose that beeing in or out the kernel is a big difference. I may be wrong, but I don't think so.
The crux of the story is that you don't beleive that journalling will become mainstream soon. I beleive the opposite. Lengthly fsck is not something appreciated, so I guess that everyone will switch to some sort of journalling.
Most people I know will not download a patch to add journalling to their system, but would choose it if it is presented at install time.
Some distribution already included rfs in the install, so you are right, he already sorta won the race. But his position would, IMHO, be much stronger if rfs was a standard in every distribution.
This is why, on a personal note, I am happy of the curresnt state of rfs. I don't like Hans Reiser attitude, and would prefer having the choice.
The future will tell who of us is right. I bet that in about two years, ext2 will start disapearing, and that most new linux install would be on sort of journalled file system.
Cheers,
--fred
Re:Answers from a linux for s390 developer.
on
HURD For 'Big Iron'?
·
· Score: 1
> sent some guy into the bushes for a few years & he invented objective C, this unfortunately runs like a dog with all the message passing & is why Open Step is so slow
Woow. You mix two different things here. Mach message passing and ObjC message passing are two very different beasts.
The fact that OPENSTEP was implemented mostly in a message-based object language on a message-based micro kernel, is just a coincidence.
OPENSTEP Enterprise (aka YB/NT) ran slowly too, even if the underlying OS was not mach.
NeXTstep was pretty fast. The only 'slow' part was the DPS interpretor. The real reason of the lower perf of OPENSTEP was the ubiquious use of the FoundationKit, which is memory and cycle demanding.
Lastly, this is a matter of taste. I found OPENSTEP fast enough for what I did. And today, installing OPENSTEP on modern hardware just fly. This beast was well ahead of its time, you know...
> what a duplicate effort. Can someone waste
> more time? Open source at its best.
Oh boy. How clueless you are.
First, HURD workforce is maybe 1% of what linux is. Hardly duplicate.
Second, people do it freely. You know, not everyone is a wanker that whines on slashdot, and have better things to do from their free time.
Third, there currently are many proprietary operating system developped, so duplication of effort is much worse in closed-source world
Fourth, HURD is re-using a gread deal of code (The HURD release is debian based), and code for the HURD have already been reused elsewhere (GRUB was made for the HURD, IIRC. It is an order of magnitude better than LILO)
Fifth, HURD is the GNU/FSF kernel. Calling the HURD 'Open Source' indicate your are just clueless.
Six, the concept behind the HURD just rocks. It may never be as performant as linux is, but I, for one, would prefer running a slow user-hackable OS, than a twice as fast unhackable OS (the barrier of entry to hack Linux is very high). For instance, journaling file system should be developpable under the HURD without the need of any kernel patch. Compare this to the years of fighting under linux. (I am not slamming linux here. But GNU/HURD and Linux are not following the same goals)
I wonder how you can say so much stupidities with so little words. I don't beleive that beeing so stupid will help you in life.
> microkernel == mental masturbation
>
> Microkernel is technically more "correct". Macrokernel WORKS.
Great. You read the original Andrew/Linus flame. Now, you may want to use your brain a bit.
First, with this kind of mentality, you should still run DOS. When linux started, DOS was the No1 of the Operating systems (Win was DOS-based), and actually worked. There was games, productivity applications, dev environments, etc, etc. Or you should still run MacOS. Anyone could have said (and many did, at this time)
preemptive-multitasking == mental masturabation
preemptive-multitasking is more correct, cooperative multitasking WORKS.
You may think that it is not comparable, but it unfortunately is.
A micro kernel enables you to run multiple OS at the same time. It enable user-space drivers. It enable personal OSes for each user at the same time. It enable hack and modifications beyond what is possible with Int21 (Ooops, I meant modules), without crashing the OS. It enable a much better network transparency too.
Maybe it'll work one day. May it won't. But having something that WORKS NOW, don't mean that it'll work forever.
Why do probably intelligent people always suppose that someone that post on slashdot is clueless ?
You should _read_ the post before replying. All parts of it.
First: I talk about Mac OS X *Server* which is *NOT* a beta operating system.
Second: The 16% figure in the first paragraph is not disk-based. It is clearly said that 'the very same (real life) code is faster on the Athlon,'. Real-life-code means compute intensive code with about zero call to the Operating system. I agree that it depends on compilers, but the very same (The gcc derivative furnished by *apple*) compiler was used with the very same options.
Third: The file system perf paragraph is not based on a beta implementation of anything. I hate NT, but the startup boost on NT is very very noticable. I admit that it does not say anything about G4 (the processor). That is why it was not included in the 16% figure and deserved a different paragraph.
Fourth: I watched the jobs demo. I *was* there. I attended to every Jobs demo in France since 1991, if this gives you a clue of anything. I know what jobs demo machines are. I touched some. (At this time there was a couple of dozen of person attending to the demos. It was even easy to talk with him before/after the demos)
Fifth: When Jobs did the Photoshop demo, it weas clearly to prove that G4s were better than PIII. Not that altivec-enhanced-photoshop-on-probably-hacked-conf iguration is better than stock-photoshop-on-stock-NT-hardware
I welcome you to re-read my post.
I would love beeing able to say that G4 blows off K7/PIII, because I hate IA32 architecture. Ppc assembly is a beautifull thing, from an engeneering point of view. I deserve to kick ass of bloated IA32. But it don't, in my personal experience.
I toyed with an analog idea a dozen of times already. I'd like to write a driver for that sometimes (if I have time)
My idea would be to do it at the block level of the device. Writes would be stored into a separate device. Stored, not logged, in the sense that two writes in the same block would be stored at the same place. Blocks would be indexed by a btree.
The idea would be to be able to take a 'snapshot' of a device, which would become read-only (and would be able to be mounted somewhere). From time to time, checkpoints could be done, which would also appear as read-only versions. Checkpoints would be able to be merged together, or into the original. When merging into the original, you should be able to produce a reverse-merge which is data you could use to get back to the stored state of the device (ie: it consists of the previous image of data). Amusingly, they would have the very same format than forward logs. They enable to store previous version somewhere.
An extra twist would be to store the previous image in a separate file and doing the writes in the real device (ie: keeping an undo-log instead of a redo-log)
Speed would get slower and slower as the number of checkpoints increase, but I don't mind this.
A goal is to be able to do system-wide modifications and check you are happy with them before commiting (say upgrading various parts of the OS, or when you are ready to 'make install' as root, but fear that the software package you are about to install may put zillions of file in the wrong directories)
Another goal would be taking snapshot of filesystem, to guarantee consistent archiving, for instance. I hate the feeling I have when dumping an active filesystem...
> that there aren't 1 million starving homeless people
Are you kidding ?
Estimations are:
* 500,000-600,000 homeless people found in shelters, eating at soup kitchens, or congregating on the street during one week in 1988 (Burt and Cohen, 1989).
* up to 2 million people who experience homelessness during one year (National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, 1999).
* The Clinton Administration's Priority Home! The Federal Plan to Break the Cycle of Homelessness [...] estimate that between 4.95 million to 9.32 million people (with a mid-point of 7 million) experienced homelessness in the latter half of the 1980s.
> but compared to 99% of other nations we seem to be doing alright.
*seem* is the keyword here. By standards of the *developed* world, US are doing real bad.
In a previous post:
> non-most-powerful, non-strongest economy, non-strongest military nation where they don't charge taxes
Homeless are probably very happy to live in the 'most-powerful, strongest economy strongest military nation'
It exists in France too, but only do good to both parties.
The blank votes are counted in the partiticipation, but not in the percentage distribution.
This give politicians a greater legitimity but don't change the outcome. If everyone in the country but one voted blank, the winner would be elected with 100% of the expressed votes and a 100% participation. Disgusting.
> On nthe bright side, at least windows is running on inferior hardware.
Yeah.
> MacOS is weak,
Yeah
> but G4s are fast and it almost makes up the difference.
Where did you saw such a thing ? You have been blinded by the Jobs (probably hacked) Photoshop demo.
I have a 600Mh Athlon, and a G4/400 at home. I would love beeing able to backup the claim of Apple, but the very same (real life) code is faster on the Athlon, than on the G4 by a 16% margin. I would expect a 1GHz+ Athlon to blow the G4 by an impressive factor.
Both machines are similar (well, no. The Athlon have an old Millenium II video card, and only half the memory of the G4, 256 vs 512). The Athlon with a NTFS filesystem _blows_ Mac OS X Server UFS implementation by a wide margin (The app read a *lot* of files at startup. Second startup time is 6 seconds versus 18 [ie: start the app twice, so most is in the cache])
Sure, the application is not 'Altivec' enhanced, but it is neither 3DNow! ready.
Now get back to previous RH7 stories here,
and look at nice peacefull comments from RedHat, for instance on the gcc issue (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/10/07/00272 18&mode=nested):
I made the statment:
> RH is supposed to get a commercial grade OS out of the door. I am sorry, but shipping a snapshot of gcc as the standard compiler doesn't cut it.
To which a redhat engineer replied:
> "shipping a snapshot": This was cut of the tree a long time before shipping and then QAed and fixed. Us wantin to ship it got it huge amounts of testing and bugfixing, which would accelerate release of GCC 3.0.
That was basically the line of defense. We did a lot of QA.
Okay. This deserves a +6, if anything like that existed.
Game theory and stock markets have a lot in common. And the example is dead on. It is not a resonable approximation of monetary/banking system, but the idea is plain right.
> Microsoft "manufactured" $10 billion dollars worth of shares in 1999
Yeah. Recall a discussion I had with a friend. We cam to the conclusion that the _real_ grief the US Govt have against Microsoft was that Microsoft started to emit its own money.
You are mis reading me. You don't give a fuck about its aggenda. I don't give a fuck either. I was replying to your "This isn't a horse race - the guy with the first journalling file system doesn't get a check for $100,000 USD" by pointing that for Hans Reiser it was one. And for IBM it is one too. And for SGI it is one too. And I would be very surprise if there was no big money waiting behind ext3.
> The kernel isn't ready for it so he can STFU.
Arguing with you is amusing. You change the topic of the discussion and then flame for something that have not been said.
The point is that there *is* money behind journaling on linux, and that it *is* a horse race. And btw, the kernel is ready for it, as it already exists as a patch. The kernel is not ready for the inclusing of a journalling layer, which is a very different matter.
> What does NeXTStep actually offer a user that BeOS doesn't?
Nothing (okay, many thing, IMHO, but let's pretend the opposite)
The problem Apple had with the OPENSTEP revamping is not user related. It is developement related. Why do you think that the Desktop application sucks soo much ? Because it is coded in the painfull to deal with Carbon. I suppose that you cannot argue aginst the fact that NeXTstep was a superior development environment. I beleive that this counted a lot for getting the OS with the applications out of the door.
Using a FreeBSD core is also pretty wise (but I would have preffered that they drop mach and uses only FreeBSD. But well, Mach is Tevanian baby...). They can use their resources to do something else than rewriting what already exists.
Btw, last time I used BeOS (as a _user_) I lanched a few demos, stessed a bit the machine , and hanged a few processes. It looks a little less robust than NeXTstep was (not a big point, stability should improve with time...)
> Not that I think much of the functionality of Apple's new interface after reading the Ars Technica review
The review is pretty stupid on the last two or three pages. He basically rant for the return of the Apple menu. What a grand scheme. There are _already_ alternatives to that.
This review ends in religious war, pure and simple. No good.
> This isn't a horse race - the guy with the first journalling file system doesn't get a check for $100,000 USD
Unfortunately yes. There is strong incentive behind the journaling filesystem, as it is a business requisite. Hans Reiser have a commercial buisiness to run, and if rfs is the one true linux journaling system, it would help its aggeda a lot.
Don't think that there will be space for 4 journaling systems. Think about ext2. Everybody switched. Everybody will switch to a journalling file system. Today, rfs exists and work, and if it got into the kernel say 4 or 5 month ago, the journaling war would be over. (Would you reformat all your disks to try another file system ? It may be done to get journaling, but not for the pleasure).
> the changes that were being made
were radical enough that Linus refused to allow
them in relatively late in the development cycle
That's not exactly that. The changes were needed, but linus wanted an infrastructure that would support *all* the journaling file systems, and not only reiserfs. (The reiserfs patch was rather ugly too, but cleaning it wasn't sufficient)
But such an infrastructure have been defined by Alexander Viro, mostly for ext3, that was on the drawing board at this time, and was not really perfect for reiserfs (and in fact turned out to be quite bugged too). Hans Reiser had the feeling that all there was an ongoing conspiration to push its filesystem out of the kernel until ext3 was ready, and took grief of that.
The truth is unkown, people involved in that have bigger ego than signal 11 (if that's possible) and reiserfs 'commercial' background is probably costing it bit of support too.
Slashdot Mirror
> Are you saying Boortz (the author) would fault someone for voting for Browne? If so, that would be incorrect since Boortz is himself voting for Browne.
No. I'm saying that the author only seek young votes for its candidate, perfectly knowing that youg people will not save for their retirement, so they'll get fucked at the end.
1/ He says 'Young people don't care about retirement'
2/ Well, you should, because you are paying for the retirement of 'blue hairs'
3/ Pay less and start to choose yourself how much you want to save for retirement (which, based on 1/, means about nothing)
4/ You are responsible of what is going to happen.
Hence, vote for my candidate, fuck yourself by not saving enough for retirnement, and, as I warned you, you'll deserve what will happend.
(Presonal opinion: He thinks "In the meantime, my candidate will get more power, and the privatisation of social security will give corporations billions")
Cheers,
--fred
I am referring to the 'fairly humorous, that makes several good points' story.
... by the time you get that old you won't need it anyway"
At the beginning
"You're a long way away from getting any Social Security, and besides
Hence the: 'You are young so you don't care"
And, at the end:
"If you invest wisely in your retirement you'll be able to retire early with a lot of money and you're going to have a great time living on the beach and traveling the world. If you ignore retirement investing you're going to end up being supported by your relatives in some double-wide somewhere in Mississippi"
Guess what the sucker that wrote that think youngsters would do.
So, he can conclude
"Now --- if you're not even a little interested in who's running for president, you deserve exactly what you get"
Yeah. And that very sucker, will tell you: "You voted for Harry ? You deserved it"
Cheers,
--fred
You are not kind to the readers here.
l .html>
The citation is from the page:
<http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/emai
The page is about why he don't have any email. To quote the start of the page:
"I have been a happy man ever since January 1, 1990, when I no longer had an email address"
And yet, he used email longer than most of us. Respect, people, respect...
Cheers,
--fred
Is it possible to get this from a usable web site ? This one give javashit on me but no picture with either lynx or wget.
Cheers,
--fred
(This is a way old discussion, so you won't probably read it. Never mind)
I do appreciate the fact that you took the time to write a reply.
I see you point, but don't agree with it. I suppose that beeing in or out the kernel is a big difference. I may be wrong, but I don't think so.
The crux of the story is that you don't beleive that journalling will become mainstream soon. I beleive the opposite. Lengthly fsck is not something appreciated, so I guess that everyone will switch to some sort of journalling.
Most people I know will not download a patch to add journalling to their system, but would choose it if it is presented at install time.
Some distribution already included rfs in the install, so you are right, he already sorta won the race. But his position would, IMHO, be much stronger if rfs was a standard in every distribution.
This is why, on a personal note, I am happy of the curresnt state of rfs. I don't like Hans Reiser attitude, and would prefer having the choice.
The future will tell who of us is right. I bet that in about two years, ext2 will start disapearing, and that most new linux install would be on sort of journalled file system.
Cheers,
--fred
> sent some guy into the bushes for a few years & he invented objective C, this unfortunately runs like a dog with all the message passing & is why Open Step is so slow
Woow. You mix two different things here. Mach message passing and ObjC message passing are two very different beasts.
The fact that OPENSTEP was implemented mostly in a message-based object language on a message-based micro kernel, is just a coincidence.
OPENSTEP Enterprise (aka YB/NT) ran slowly too, even if the underlying OS was not mach.
NeXTstep was pretty fast. The only 'slow' part was the DPS interpretor. The real reason of the lower perf of OPENSTEP was the ubiquious use of the FoundationKit, which is memory and cycle demanding.
Lastly, this is a matter of taste. I found OPENSTEP fast enough for what I did. And today, installing OPENSTEP on modern hardware just fly. This beast was well ahead of its time, you know...
Cheers,
--fred
> Fuck HURD
> what a duplicate effort. Can someone waste
> more time? Open source at its best.
Oh boy. How clueless you are.
First, HURD workforce is maybe 1% of what linux is. Hardly duplicate.
Second, people do it freely. You know, not everyone is a wanker that whines on slashdot, and have better things to do from their free time.
Third, there currently are many proprietary operating system developped, so duplication of effort is much worse in closed-source world
Fourth, HURD is re-using a gread deal of code (The HURD release is debian based), and code for the HURD have already been reused elsewhere (GRUB was made for the HURD, IIRC. It is an order of magnitude better than LILO)
Fifth, HURD is the GNU/FSF kernel. Calling the HURD 'Open Source' indicate your are just clueless.
Six, the concept behind the HURD just rocks. It may never be as performant as linux is, but I, for one, would prefer running a slow user-hackable OS, than a twice as fast unhackable OS (the barrier of entry to hack Linux is very high). For instance, journaling file system should be developpable under the HURD without the need of any kernel patch. Compare this to the years of fighting under linux. (I am not slamming linux here. But GNU/HURD and Linux are not following the same goals)
I wonder how you can say so much stupidities with so little words. I don't beleive that beeing so stupid will help you in life.
Cheers,
--fred
> microkernel == mental masturbation
>
> Microkernel is technically more "correct". Macrokernel WORKS.
Great. You read the original Andrew/Linus flame. Now, you may want to use your brain a bit.
First, with this kind of mentality, you should still run DOS. When linux started, DOS was the No1 of the Operating systems (Win was DOS-based), and actually worked. There was games, productivity applications, dev environments, etc, etc. Or you should still run MacOS. Anyone could have said (and many did, at this time)
preemptive-multitasking == mental masturabation
preemptive-multitasking is more correct, cooperative multitasking WORKS.
You may think that it is not comparable, but it unfortunately is.
A micro kernel enables you to run multiple OS at the same time. It enable user-space drivers. It enable personal OSes for each user at the same time. It enable hack and modifications beyond what is possible with Int21 (Ooops, I meant modules), without crashing the OS. It enable a much better network transparency too.
Maybe it'll work one day. May it won't. But having something that WORKS NOW, don't mean that it'll work forever.
Cheers,
--fred
Why do probably intelligent people always suppose that someone that post on slashdot is clueless ?
f iguration is better than stock-photoshop-on-stock-NT-hardware
You should _read_ the post before replying. All parts of it.
First: I talk about Mac OS X *Server* which is *NOT* a beta operating system.
Second: The 16% figure in the first paragraph is not disk-based. It is clearly said that 'the very same (real life) code is faster on the Athlon,'. Real-life-code means compute intensive code with about zero call to the Operating system. I agree that it depends on compilers, but the very same (The gcc derivative furnished by *apple*) compiler was used with the very same options.
Third: The file system perf paragraph is not based on a beta implementation of anything. I hate NT, but the startup boost on NT is very very noticable. I admit that it does not say anything about G4 (the processor). That is why it was not included in the 16% figure and deserved a different paragraph.
Fourth: I watched the jobs demo. I *was* there. I attended to every Jobs demo in France since 1991, if this gives you a clue of anything. I know what jobs demo machines are. I touched some. (At this time there was a couple of dozen of person attending to the demos. It was even easy to talk with him before/after the demos)
Fifth: When Jobs did the Photoshop demo, it weas clearly to prove that G4s were better than PIII. Not that altivec-enhanced-photoshop-on-probably-hacked-con
I welcome you to re-read my post.
I would love beeing able to say that G4 blows off K7/PIII, because I hate IA32 architecture. Ppc assembly is a beautifull thing, from an engeneering point of view. I deserve to kick ass of bloated IA32. But it don't, in my personal experience.
Cheers,
--fred
Your post does not deserve the 'Troll' moderation (It is not good enought for this)
Btw, there is nothing revisionist in the original comment. It is sarcasm plain and simple, visible within a few miles.
Revisionism is negating the idea of the Nazi genocid. The original post negated the whole idea of WWII, which is why it is sarcastic.
Beware that by mis-using the term 'revisionism', you are actually disserving the victims of WWII by weakening it.
Cheers,
--fred
PS: Beeing 3/4 german and 1/4 french, I could say that, yes, my family had problem with them.
I toyed with an analog idea a dozen of times already. I'd like to write a driver for that sometimes (if I have time)
My idea would be to do it at the block level of the device. Writes would be stored into a separate device. Stored, not logged, in the sense that two writes in the same block would be stored at the same place. Blocks would be indexed by a btree.
The idea would be to be able to take a 'snapshot' of a device, which would become read-only (and would be able to be mounted somewhere). From time to time, checkpoints could be done, which would also appear as read-only versions. Checkpoints would be able to be merged together, or into the original. When merging into the original, you should be able to produce a reverse-merge which is data you could use to get back to the stored state of the device (ie: it consists of the previous image of data). Amusingly, they would have the very same format than forward logs. They enable to store previous version somewhere.
An extra twist would be to store the previous image in a separate file and doing the writes in the real device (ie: keeping an undo-log instead of a redo-log)
Speed would get slower and slower as the number of checkpoints increase, but I don't mind this.
A goal is to be able to do system-wide modifications and check you are happy with them before commiting (say upgrading various parts of the OS, or when you are ready to 'make install' as root, but fear that the software package you are about to install may put zillions of file in the wrong directories)
Another goal would be taking snapshot of filesystem, to guarantee consistent archiving, for instance. I hate the feeling I have when dumping an active filesystem...
Cheers,
--fred
> that there aren't 1 million starving homeless people
Are you kidding ?
Estimations are:
* 500,000-600,000 homeless people found in shelters, eating at soup kitchens, or congregating on the street during one week in 1988 (Burt and Cohen, 1989).
* up to 2 million people who experience homelessness during one year (National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, 1999).
* The Clinton Administration's Priority Home! The Federal Plan to Break the Cycle of Homelessness [...] estimate that between 4.95 million to 9.32 million people (with a mid-point of 7 million) experienced homelessness in the latter half of the 1980s.
> but compared to 99% of other nations we seem to be doing alright.
*seem* is the keyword here. By standards of the *developed* world, US are doing real bad.
In a previous post:
> non-most-powerful, non-strongest economy, non-strongest military nation where they don't charge taxes
Homeless are probably very happy to live in the 'most-powerful, strongest economy strongest military nation'
Cheers,
--fred
It exists in France too, but only do good to both parties.
The blank votes are counted in the partiticipation, but not in the percentage distribution.
This give politicians a greater legitimity but don't change the outcome. If everyone in the country but one voted blank, the winner would be elected with 100% of the expressed votes and a 100% participation. Disgusting.
Cheers,
--fred
Lol. This sarcastic comment should be modded up.
Cheer,
--fred
> On nthe bright side, at least windows is running on inferior hardware.
Yeah.
> MacOS is weak,
Yeah
> but G4s are fast and it almost makes up the difference.
Where did you saw such a thing ? You have been blinded by the Jobs (probably hacked) Photoshop demo.
I have a 600Mh Athlon, and a G4/400 at home. I would love beeing able to backup the claim of Apple, but the very same (real life) code is faster on the Athlon, than on the G4 by a 16% margin. I would expect a 1GHz+ Athlon to blow the G4 by an impressive factor.
Both machines are similar (well, no. The Athlon have an old Millenium II video card, and only half the memory of the G4, 256 vs 512). The Athlon with a NTFS filesystem _blows_ Mac OS X Server UFS implementation by a wide margin (The app read a *lot* of files at startup. Second startup time is 6 seconds versus 18 [ie: start the app twice, so most is in the cache])
Sure, the application is not 'Altivec' enhanced, but it is neither 3DNow! ready.
Cheers,
--fred
RedHat doesn't suck after all?
--fred
Now get back to previous RH7 stories here,2 18&mode=nested):
and look at nice peacefull comments from RedHat, for instance on the gcc issue (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/10/07/0027
I made the statment:
> RH is supposed to get a commercial grade OS out of the door. I am sorry, but shipping a snapshot of gcc as the standard compiler doesn't cut it.
To which a redhat engineer replied:
> "shipping a snapshot": This was cut of the tree a long time before shipping and then QAed and fixed. Us wantin to ship it got it huge amounts of testing and bugfixing, which would accelerate release of GCC 3.0.
That was basically the line of defense. We did a lot of QA.
And the OS cannot run for 3 weeks ? Scary as hell
Cheers,
--fred
Okay. This deserves a +6, if anything like that existed.
Game theory and stock markets have a lot in common. And the example is dead on. It is not a resonable approximation of monetary/banking system, but the idea is plain right.
Nice post.
--fred
> Microsoft "manufactured" $10 billion dollars worth of shares in 1999
Yeah. Recall a discussion I had with a friend. We cam to the conclusion that the _real_ grief the US Govt have against Microsoft was that Microsoft started to emit its own money.
Cheers,
--fred
> And I care about Reiser's agenda how exactly?
You are mis reading me. You don't give a fuck about its aggenda. I don't give a fuck either. I was replying to your "This isn't a horse race - the guy with the first journalling file system doesn't get a check for $100,000 USD" by pointing that for Hans Reiser it was one. And for IBM it is one too. And for SGI it is one too. And I would be very surprise if there was no big money waiting behind ext3.
> The kernel isn't ready for it so he can STFU.
Arguing with you is amusing. You change the topic of the discussion and then flame for something that have not been said.
The point is that there *is* money behind journaling on linux, and that it *is* a horse race. And btw, the kernel is ready for it, as it already exists as a patch. The kernel is not ready for the inclusing of a journalling layer, which is a very different matter.
Cheers,
--fred
> What does NeXTStep actually offer a user that BeOS doesn't?
Nothing (okay, many thing, IMHO, but let's pretend the opposite)
The problem Apple had with the OPENSTEP revamping is not user related. It is developement related. Why do you think that the Desktop application sucks soo much ? Because it is coded in the painfull to deal with Carbon. I suppose that you cannot argue aginst the fact that NeXTstep was a superior development environment. I beleive that this counted a lot for getting the OS with the applications out of the door.
Using a FreeBSD core is also pretty wise (but I would have preffered that they drop mach and uses only FreeBSD. But well, Mach is Tevanian baby...). They can use their resources to do something else than rewriting what already exists.
Btw, last time I used BeOS (as a _user_) I lanched a few demos, stessed a bit the machine , and hanged a few processes. It looks a little less robust than NeXTstep was (not a big point, stability should improve with time...)
> Not that I think much of the functionality of Apple's new interface after reading the Ars Technica review
The review is pretty stupid on the last two or three pages. He basically rant for the return of the Apple menu. What a grand scheme. There are _already_ alternatives to that.
This review ends in religious war, pure and simple. No good.
Cheers,
--fred
> This isn't a horse race - the guy with the first journalling file system doesn't get a check for $100,000 USD
Unfortunately yes. There is strong incentive behind the journaling filesystem, as it is a business requisite. Hans Reiser have a commercial buisiness to run, and if rfs is the one true linux journaling system, it would help its aggeda a lot.
Don't think that there will be space for 4 journaling systems. Think about ext2. Everybody switched. Everybody will switch to a journalling file system. Today, rfs exists and work, and if it got into the kernel say 4 or 5 month ago, the journaling war would be over. (Would you reformat all your disks to try another file system ? It may be done to get journaling, but not for the pleasure).
Cheers,
--fred
> the changes that were being made
were radical enough that Linus refused to allow
them in relatively late in the development cycle
That's not exactly that. The changes were needed, but linus wanted an infrastructure that would support *all* the journaling file systems, and not only reiserfs. (The reiserfs patch was rather ugly too, but cleaning it wasn't sufficient)
But such an infrastructure have been defined by Alexander Viro, mostly for ext3, that was on the drawing board at this time, and was not really perfect for reiserfs (and in fact turned out to be quite bugged too). Hans Reiser had the feeling that all there was an ongoing conspiration to push its filesystem out of the kernel until ext3 was ready, and took grief of that.
The truth is unkown, people involved in that have bigger ego than signal 11 (if that's possible) and reiserfs 'commercial' background is probably costing it bit of support too.
Cheers,
--fred
> There is some debate as to whether Apple tried to kill off Objective-C, but I don't think killing off Cocoa was ever in the cards.
Oh. Explain me what cocoa is without Objective-C. A java-only framework bridged to an inernally developped ObjC core that only runs on Mac OS X ?
Mmmm. Without ObjC, cocoa is cold dead.
> It depends on what you're hoping to get out of Mac OS X. The most common reasons seem to be:
Mine is:
* An operating system where Cocoa application runs with the same level of integration than on OPENSTEP.
So I probably meant '2)'
Cheers,
--fred
:-)
It is because it lacks the 'accents', so altavista lost.
The translation is somewhat like (I changed the insults, and the result is probably very flaky. But you should get the meaning):
"Beeing called a moron by an asshole is a pleasure for the gourmet"
With gourmet used in the sense of:
"a person devoted to refined sensuous enjoyment"
Cheers,
--fred