How is DRI a hack? I've set up hardware acceleration on nVidia, ATI, and Matrox cards (a long time ago for Matrox, though) with no problems. I can code up a simple GL program in minutes and have it running in hardware acceleration. Where's the problem?
Er, speak for yourself. The first Star Wars prequel sucked, so I waited until the second one was at a budget theater to see it, at a matinee no less, which ended up convincing me not to see the third one at all. The second Matrix sucked ass in previously unheard-of ways. I didn't see the third one.
There's no "technically" about it. If you don't want to go see a movie, just don't fucking go. It's not that difficult.
I predict that life will be, in general, virtually identical to life today. Sure, we'll have faster computers. We'll probably have some cooler videoconferencing type stuff. We'll have cooler, more "VR"-style games to play, and perhaps some good business uses of that kind of tech as well. But I bet we're still going to have porcelain toilets, cheap plastic toothbrushes from Osco, cars that require driving, we'll be using our own two eyes to look at the world (without cybernetic contacts or whatever), we'll still cook for ourselves, we're not going to have humanoid robots running around doing stuff for us, and we're going to go to bed just like we do now. I dug the flatscreen video idea, I'd guess corporations would certainly have those. I doubt they're going to put them in every cube though.
Think about it, look at our lives now compared to, say, 100 years ago. What's changed except for some of the details? Go outside and watch people. You've got people on cellphones now, sure, but honestly, just look at what people are doing. It's really no different at all.
I could be wrong, too, I suppose. "Smart washcloths." Bah.
This study fails to take into account those of us who aggregate our DSL and dialup connections together for ULTRA-SPEED. All of you losers out there can keep your 3000Kbps connections, I'm surfing at 3048Kbps. Suckers.
Ah, yes. As I just mentioned to someone else who replied similarly, I hadn't considered the scavenger possibility. That makes a lot more sense. Not sure about the omnivore/carnivore thing, but if it'll eat other things that have died in the area, I suppose it probably could have ingested the requisite nutrients...
I mean, they are the "experts," and I'm just some guy in front of a computer, but what kind of caloric intake would it require to grow 4.6lbs in a day? Was the T.rex a carnivore? If so, you'd think it'd be pretty difficult to kill enough STUFF to be able to do that.
I've been looking around trying to find data on growth rates of other larger animals (elephants were mentioned on the CNN article, and I figured whales may be useful), but all I seem to be bringing up is growth rates in terms of population, not physical weight.
But unfortunately, my software budget doesn't permit complete experimentation at this time.
Yeah, mine too. I'm also hampered by the fact that I removed my last Windows partition a year ago or so, primarily because of the success that I had in using Winex to play the few games I was interested in playing.
Why use Wine for that?
At the time, the Linux players couldn't load Apple's DLLs, this was before mplayer/xine got sorenson support. 'round the time the Felloship trailers were out, etc. I was playing the fullscreen version via wine without problems.
it would be useful to measure the framerate of the same game running in Linux, WinXP, and Wine on the same computer... that would be a useful study for one of those hardware-review websites to publish.
Well, you appear to have had different experiences than I have, because like I said, I haven't noticed any difference in speed.
...but the performance never comes close to fooling anyone.
In my own video-game tests, a 500mhz Celeron with an NVidia GeForce2MX with WinXP beat an Athlon 1700 with GeForceFX5700 using Cedega on Linux, by sometimes 60% FPS. (Other versions of Wine were even slower)
Again, we seem to be having different experiences here. I've never seen any difference in speed on the programs that I've run under Wine. Any program that's sufficiently supported under Wine for me works just as quickly as it does over in Windows-land. I guess there's not much more to be said about that, as there's really no way for me to prove that to you, or vice versa.
Linux systems are split into more different processes than Windows, so an function that a Windows app expects to have serviced immediately instead takes at least 3 process time-slices as we wait first for the separate server to wake up and respond, and then wait again for the app to reactivate and proceed onward.
Sure, of course Linux is more compartmentalized, after all, it's constructed as a multiuser system from the ground up. Perhaps we've been running differently-optimized kernels or glibc versions or something, though, because as I said, I've never noticed a performance hit because of it.
Yet, as you mention, Half-Life still doesn't work decently. That's a lesson as to how useful Wine is likely to be.
Perhaps I overstated the issue with Half-Life. The menus merely run more slowly than they do on Windows. Everything else runs just as well. I think it was a matter of the Winex developers getting it "good enough" and then moving on to make sure that other applications got good enough. I've spent many, many hours playing Half-Life through to conclusion via winex, in addition to (as mentioned) GTA3, GTA-VC, watching Quicktime movies, and as I didn't mention before because I haven't used them in awhile, all of the usual MS Office applications (using Crossover again, here). If you don't consider that useful, then I guess it's just a difference of opinion, because for me it's been immensely useful.
... his return will involve a wormhole, travelling back through time, the Borg, and a holodeck malfunction (er, after travelling *forward* through time first, of course).
True, but I feel that it's important for the Wine project at least to make an official distinction between what most people think of as "emulation" in a computing environment and what they don't. Emulation in computing has historically meant machine-level emulation of hardware, which is slow. If you say "emulator" to most people who have had experience with them, those people will have images of very, very slow systems which are good enough for running very old programs or testing out whatever kind of software may benefit from being run inside an emulator. Wine doesn't suffer from those limitations because what it's emulating is the more ephemeral software environment in which the windows binaries live, not the underlying hardware. All code happens right on the CPU, not in software-land. It makes a big difference in speed, and from a PR perspective, I think it makes perfect sense to try and distance the Wine project from people's historical perspectives of emulators.
Anyway, I've just spent far too much time talking about it, so I think I'll go do something productive now.
There's a huge difference there, though. If you've never run Wine to run any heavier-duty Windows programs, you should try it. Wine enables Windows binaries to run natively on Linux. Yes, Wine will recreate errors in the original Windows API so that it matches the behavior of Windows more completely, but the point remains that all machine code is executed right on the CPU. There's no extra layer to go through. There's no extra layers to go through, either. When a binary makes a call to Windows on Windows, there has to be code running to figure out how to actually do so. Instead of actual Windows code doing so, in this case there's Linux code doing so.
Now, if you're going to split semantic hairs here, I will have to concede that under the general definition of "emulation," Wine is indeed emulating an environment which is generally not present on Linux. However, as I mentioned before, over the course of computing history, the term "emulation" has come to imply that an extra software layer is emulating machine language, which implies a number of extra steps per machine instruction in the emulated binary. Under such a system, the emulated binary will always run significantly slower than it would natively under comparable hardware. That situation is completely non-present in Wine, because, again, the machine code is executed directly on the CPU, with no extra software layer inbetween.
If you don't believe me, try some apps which are supported under Wine. I think in general you'll have really good luck, speedwise. Again, some API implementations may not be as optimized as their Windows counterparts (the menuing system in Half-Life, in particular, suffers from a problem here, or the opening movies on the Half-Life games), but it bears repeating that any slowness is the result of nonoptimal code, not any machine-level emulation.
Yeah, I believe it's about twice as fast as AGP 8x. Not sure if there's anything planned to expand AGP at all, but the PCI Express stuff is pretty impressive.
Actually, no it's not. Wine merely implements the Windows API. Emulation, with relation to computers, generally involves taking machine language instruction-per-instruction and emulating the physical environment, so you can do things like run arcade games a la MAME, x86 envrionments a la Bochs, or other architectures. Wine doesn't do any of that. It merely allows the Windows binary to be executed in a non-windows environment. Prior to Sorenson support in mplayer, I used Crossover to play Quicktime videos, and they ran fine. I don't see any difference in performance between native Windows/Wine on Half-Life, GTA3, or GTA-VC.
I'm sure you could find some examples where performance did noticeably decrease because the Wine implementation of a particular API wasn't optimally, er, implemented. But that's got nothing to do with actual hardware emulation.
Er, no it's not. It's copyright infringement. Theft is when I take something from you and you don't have it anymore. They're both illegal, and in general I think you'd find that most people regard both as unethical, but they're not the same thing.
So does anyone have the bill number, or a thomas.loc.gov link? I'd love to call up my senators about this, but I'd like to be able to use terms more specific than just "that one p2p bill from Hatch." Why don't they put that kind of information in their articles?
Yes, because knowing the password means that you automatically know the IP address too, right?
Well, whoever runs the website probably has logs. They'd know the IP you submitted the request from, at the least. That's unlikely to be the same box whose password you've requested, but it may be in the same netblock, at least.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, so in what ways is it broken? That's what I wanted to know, because I've never experienced any problems with it.
Well, any excuse to be in NYC is a good excuse, IMO, so I suppose the two probably even out...
There's no "technically" about it. If you don't want to go see a movie, just don't fucking go. It's not that difficult.
Think about it, look at our lives now compared to, say, 100 years ago. What's changed except for some of the details? Go outside and watch people. You've got people on cellphones now, sure, but honestly, just look at what people are doing. It's really no different at all.
I could be wrong, too, I suppose. "Smart washcloths." Bah.
This study fails to take into account those of us who aggregate our DSL and dialup connections together for ULTRA-SPEED . All of you losers out there can keep your 3000Kbps connections, I'm surfing at 3048Kbps. Suckers.
Ah, yes. As I just mentioned to someone else who replied similarly, I hadn't considered the scavenger possibility. That makes a lot more sense. Not sure about the omnivore/carnivore thing, but if it'll eat other things that have died in the area, I suppose it probably could have ingested the requisite nutrients...
Aaah, yes. I hadn't considered scavenging. That makes a bit more sense then. Thanks!
I've been looking around trying to find data on growth rates of other larger animals (elephants were mentioned on the CNN article, and I figured whales may be useful), but all I seem to be bringing up is growth rates in terms of population, not physical weight.
... his return will involve a wormhole, travelling back through time, the Borg, and a holodeck malfunction (er, after travelling *forward* through time first, of course).
Anyway, I've just spent far too much time talking about it, so I think I'll go do something productive now.
Now, if you're going to split semantic hairs here, I will have to concede that under the general definition of "emulation," Wine is indeed emulating an environment which is generally not present on Linux. However, as I mentioned before, over the course of computing history, the term "emulation" has come to imply that an extra software layer is emulating machine language, which implies a number of extra steps per machine instruction in the emulated binary. Under such a system, the emulated binary will always run significantly slower than it would natively under comparable hardware. That situation is completely non-present in Wine, because, again, the machine code is executed directly on the CPU, with no extra software layer inbetween.
If you don't believe me, try some apps which are supported under Wine. I think in general you'll have really good luck, speedwise. Again, some API implementations may not be as optimized as their Windows counterparts (the menuing system in Half-Life, in particular, suffers from a problem here, or the opening movies on the Half-Life games), but it bears repeating that any slowness is the result of nonoptimal code, not any machine-level emulation.
Yeah, I believe it's about twice as fast as AGP 8x. Not sure if there's anything planned to expand AGP at all, but the PCI Express stuff is pretty impressive.
I'm sure you could find some examples where performance did noticeably decrease because the Wine implementation of a particular API wasn't optimally, er, implemented. But that's got nothing to do with actual hardware emulation.
These people are obviously using some strange meanings of these words that I've been completely unaware of until now.
So does anyone have the bill number, or a thomas.loc.gov link? I'd love to call up my senators about this, but I'd like to be able to use terms more specific than just "that one p2p bill from Hatch." Why don't they put that kind of information in their articles?
Too bad emusic's pricing model sucks now.
lose . One "o." Say it with me: "lose."
That or some Whitehouse.