I'm well aware of raid, but if you start considering multiple drive or ram-backed setups the bottleneck is almost always going to be the bus. I've yet to see a single SSD drive, like I stated that saturates SATA II, so wouldn't mind seeing a link if y'all have one.
I dislike when people talk about SCSI in past tense, its still a quite relevant and competitive standard offering speeds that match and exceed those of SATA I/II. Seriously, every SCSI drive/device I've ever dealt with has outperformed its IDE equivalent, not to mention the controllers support 15 times more devices per channel -- its only real problem is the increased cost.
Yes.. and even considering SSDs there is yet to be a drive that maxes out SATA II at 3.0Gb/s. Not a reason necessarily to stop from creating higher bandwidth buses, but USB 3.0 is hardly "irrelevant."
There is no problem with perception, no one is going to confuse the two. If you read the site description they are barely even pushing the "social" aspect. Go to the website, except for the name there is no similarity. I think it would be an incredibly bad precedent to basically allow a company to trademark a regex. What is next? Is youtube going to sue teachertube?
According to TFA at least some of them are, but it sounds like in the example provided the nurse walked away with two misdemeanors rather than the felony involuntary manslaughter charge.
I guess the same idiot that invented mass production? Seriously these are tubes we are talking about, not electrical adapters. I get what TFA is saying and it sounds like it would be a good idea to go that way.. but..
"Instead of snaking a tube through Ms. Rodgers’s nose and into her stomach, the nurse instead coupled the liquid-food bag to a tube that entered a vein.".. that's just idiocy plain and simple, no amount of manufacturing is going to keep stupid people from doing stupid things. Plus, I have to ask myself.. what happens when you need an intravenous tube and the nurse on duty can only locate feeding tubes? Precious seconds could be lost while a patient is in critical condition.
They're narrowing in more on chip/core design than anything else. Throwing more cores into a package that is otherwise identical is improvement certainly, but not innovation. The differences between say a Pentium Dual Core and a Pentium Core Duo of similar speeds highlights the advantages of improving more than the core count.
From what I've seen its not useable with much less then 2GB. My wife had a laptop with Vista on it and 1GB of RAM. All of my systems either have OSX or FreeBSD and then I maintain a lot of XP machines at work. Any time I use her computer for more then a few minutes.. well, lets just say it ruins my day. I eventually stuck another 1GB in there, but its still one of the most annoying OS's I've ever worked with. All the vaporware Toshiba installed doesn't help either. I've been meaning to update her to a non-OEM tainted version of 7, but I haven't gotten around to it.
Of course this is coming from the one person who seemed to have a stable install of Windows ME.
Re:I finally could tell my friend to go to hell
on
Windows 95 Turns 15
·
· Score: 1
I think that depends on where you lived and what you did. Personally, I'm the only person I know that ran OS/2. Of course I'm also the only person I know that runs FreeBSD, so I guess that doesn't mean terribly much. I remember being pretty psyched that I could still run my WWiV BBS and (reliably) still make use of that computer.
Have you actually used the version included in 8.x? It's much improved -- I believe it's even considered production ready. I'm not sure how well you can compare the UFS versions between Solaris and FreeBSD so relative performance expectations between FreeBSD's ZFS and UFS seem premature. It's worth noting though that in the current version of FreeBSD, in the benchmarks that I've seen, the ZFS numbers match or exceed UFS+S/UFS+J.
I personally never noticed much difference between the two, though I'm not sure that I can claim the kind of familiarity to be 100% on that. OpenSolaris was a full and useable OS, OpenDarwin was barely more than a kernel. Since you used to be able to get single licenses of Solaris for free I'm not sure the comparison works well, but I get your point.
FreeBSD is porting ZFS, not reimplementing it, so it is the very same version that is used in OpenSolaris. Admittedly FreeBSD is not current with the newest ZFS implementation, they are currently using v15 I believe, but they are working to get there.
Nothing, but if we always did the sensible thing we'd miss out on much of the good software that we have today, such as Linux. There was a time that when it offered very little. It happened to be in the right place at the right time and today we get to enjoy what came about because of it. In regards to OpenSolaris, honestly the whole thing makes me a little sad. I realize commercial Solaris is still around, but it seems like every year we have less choices. I don't know about you, but I don't feel like that's a good thing.
BTW, I admit to not knowing a lot about Windows 7, but I do recall hearing that MS was using some sort of virtualization software for XP backwards compatibility.
I realize it's a small differentiation, but it's there. Even taking into account the loader and the APIs you simply could not run without the small amount of binary emulation that the wineserver process provides. Where the argument comes in is that people here don't seem to want to call anything emulation that isn't full machine virtualization. I guess I have to accept that. I'm obviously not going to convince you nor you me, but I do appreciate your responses. If anything you did teach me something that I was unaware of with the information on loaders.
Nice, that's real convenient for you. You haven't yet provided one shred of evidence and blindly ignore what I have to say no matter who or what supports me. If there's ignorance to be had, it's from you.
Your one proposed point of note: "No, it's not. If it were an emulator then you'd be able to use it on more then just x86. Wine doesn't run in it's own environment hence it's not an emulator."
Which is so laughably wrong that not even you could support it.
Your right, I don't agree with you, I must be a troll. If you can explain to me why you can't run a Windows application using Wine's API without using the wineserver process I'll capitulate. One caveat, if you find yourself using words like "translate" or "compatibility layer" then your simply providing euphemisms to get around the fact that it's, at its heart, binary emulation.
It's worth nothing that Wine originally stood for "Windows Emulation" and wasn't changed until later. While your at it, you might want to try reading:
I feel I've provided some amount of commentary and evidence supporting my view. If I'm seen as a troll it's simply because my opinion isn't the popular one. You on the other hand have simply resorted to name calling, telling me I'm wrong, and picking apart one point of argument which doesn't even necessarily debunk what I'm saying.
Well, you are of course free to call it whatever you want. The fact remains that Wine doesn't emulate a Windows system in the way that, say, VirtualBox running Windows does.
I believe I've differentiated between the two the entire time. Nor am I the only one that considers what Wine does emulation, even if it is not at the machine level, you do realize that the original acronym for Wine was Windows Emulator right? Read the old FAQ if you don't believe me, the name was changed to help differentiate it from full virtual machines.
"Although the acronym WINE stands for "WINE Is Not an Emulator", the theory is the same. What WINE does is serve as a compatibility layer allowing Linux to make use of Windows DLL files. WINE achieves this by implementing the Windows API layer entirely in user-space instead of kernel-space with the help of the wineserver daemon."
Are you going to provide any evidence or just make unsupported bald claims?
First of all, I don't see how DirectX/OpenGL relate in any way. Wine provides more than APIs.
Straight from Wines website: "When users think of emulators, they think of programs like Dosbox or zsnes. These applications run as virtual machines and are slow, having to emulate each processor instruction. Wine does not do any CPU emulation - hence the name "Wine Is Not an Emulator.""
Notice the differentiation, Wine does not do any/CPU/ emulation, it does on the other hand do software, often called binary, emulation./Every/ other system that performs similarly refers to itself as binary emulation. Look up FreeBSD linux binary emulation if you don't believe me. I'm confused as to how you think Wine works, if it was simply APIs as you seem to think, how exactly would it go about loading binaries, as well as handling Windows memory layouts, exceptions, threads, and processes. If APIs were all you needed you wouldn't have to preface every single windows command with "wine."
The problem is not that there are so many, but that they are the most outspoken. I'd say the vast majority of Linux users are more concerned with their systems being fully functional rather then worrying over "tainting" themselves with proprietary drivers. Problem is, since they do not carry the same kind of conviction in their chosen philosophy, all you here from is the open-source extremists.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm well aware of raid, but if you start considering multiple drive or ram-backed setups the bottleneck is almost always going to be the bus. I've yet to see a single SSD drive, like I stated that saturates SATA II, so wouldn't mind seeing a link if y'all have one.
I dislike when people talk about SCSI in past tense, its still a quite relevant and competitive standard offering speeds that match and exceed those of SATA I/II. Seriously, every SCSI drive/device I've ever dealt with has outperformed its IDE equivalent, not to mention the controllers support 15 times more devices per channel -- its only real problem is the increased cost.
Yeah, but we've always been able to build hi-speed ram drives, the interesting developments have been in flash-based (hence non-volatile) SSD drives.
Yes.. and even considering SSDs there is yet to be a drive that maxes out SATA II at 3.0Gb/s. Not a reason necessarily to stop from creating higher bandwidth buses, but USB 3.0 is hardly "irrelevant."
There is no problem with perception, no one is going to confuse the two. If you read the site description they are barely even pushing the "social" aspect. Go to the website, except for the name there is no similarity. I think it would be an incredibly bad precedent to basically allow a company to trademark a regex. What is next? Is youtube going to sue teachertube?
According to TFA at least some of them are, but it sounds like in the example provided the nurse walked away with two misdemeanors rather than the felony involuntary manslaughter charge.
People actually ask if your color-blind?
Agreed, I've never seen a tube on a blood pressure pump that looks anything like an intravenous tube...
I guess the same idiot that invented mass production? Seriously these are tubes we are talking about, not electrical adapters. I get what TFA is saying and it sounds like it would be a good idea to go that way.. but..
"Instead of snaking a tube through Ms. Rodgers’s nose and into her stomach, the nurse instead coupled the liquid-food bag to a tube that entered a vein." .. that's just idiocy plain and simple, no amount of manufacturing is going to keep stupid people from doing stupid things. Plus, I have to ask myself.. what happens when you need an intravenous tube and the nurse on duty can only locate feeding tubes? Precious seconds could be lost while a patient is in critical condition.
They're narrowing in more on chip/core design than anything else. Throwing more cores into a package that is otherwise identical is improvement certainly, but not innovation. The differences between say a Pentium Dual Core and a Pentium Core Duo of similar speeds highlights the advantages of improving more than the core count.
From what I've seen its not useable with much less then 2GB. My wife had a laptop with Vista on it and 1GB of RAM. All of my systems either have OSX or FreeBSD and then I maintain a lot of XP machines at work. Any time I use her computer for more then a few minutes.. well, lets just say it ruins my day. I eventually stuck another 1GB in there, but its still one of the most annoying OS's I've ever worked with. All the vaporware Toshiba installed doesn't help either. I've been meaning to update her to a non-OEM tainted version of 7, but I haven't gotten around to it.
Of course this is coming from the one person who seemed to have a stable install of Windows ME.
I think that depends on where you lived and what you did. Personally, I'm the only person I know that ran OS/2. Of course I'm also the only person I know that runs FreeBSD, so I guess that doesn't mean terribly much. I remember being pretty psyched that I could still run my WWiV BBS and (reliably) still make use of that computer.
Have you actually used the version included in 8.x? It's much improved -- I believe it's even considered production ready. I'm not sure how well you can compare the UFS versions between Solaris and FreeBSD so relative performance expectations between FreeBSD's ZFS and UFS seem premature. It's worth noting though that in the current version of FreeBSD, in the benchmarks that I've seen, the ZFS numbers match or exceed UFS+S/UFS+J.
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=zfs_ext4_btrfs&num=5
The other response to my above message was also pretty informative.
Admittedly I did exaggerate, but as you seemed to agree, there is a noticeable difference between the completeness of the two.
I personally never noticed much difference between the two, though I'm not sure that I can claim the kind of familiarity to be 100% on that. OpenSolaris was a full and useable OS, OpenDarwin was barely more than a kernel. Since you used to be able to get single licenses of Solaris for free I'm not sure the comparison works well, but I get your point.
It's worth noting that Oracle is not kicking Solaris to the curb, they are kicking OpenSolaris to the curb.
FreeBSD is porting ZFS, not reimplementing it, so it is the very same version that is used in OpenSolaris. Admittedly FreeBSD is not current with the newest ZFS implementation, they are currently using v15 I believe, but they are working to get there.
Nothing, but if we always did the sensible thing we'd miss out on much of the good software that we have today, such as Linux. There was a time that when it offered very little. It happened to be in the right place at the right time and today we get to enjoy what came about because of it. In regards to OpenSolaris, honestly the whole thing makes me a little sad. I realize commercial Solaris is still around, but it seems like every year we have less choices. I don't know about you, but I don't feel like that's a good thing.
BTW, I admit to not knowing a lot about Windows 7, but I do recall hearing that MS was using some sort of virtualization software for XP backwards compatibility.
I realize it's a small differentiation, but it's there. Even taking into account the loader and the APIs you simply could not run without the small amount of binary emulation that the wineserver process provides. Where the argument comes in is that people here don't seem to want to call anything emulation that isn't full machine virtualization. I guess I have to accept that. I'm obviously not going to convince you nor you me, but I do appreciate your responses. If anything you did teach me something that I was unaware of with the information on loaders.
Nice, that's real convenient for you. You haven't yet provided one shred of evidence and blindly ignore what I have to say no matter who or what supports me. If there's ignorance to be had, it's from you.
Your one proposed point of note: "No, it's not. If it were an emulator then you'd be able to use it on more then just x86. Wine doesn't run in it's own environment hence it's not an emulator."
Which is so laughably wrong that not even you could support it.
Your right, I don't agree with you, I must be a troll. If you can explain to me why you can't run a Windows application using Wine's API without using the wineserver process I'll capitulate. One caveat, if you find yourself using words like "translate" or "compatibility layer" then your simply providing euphemisms to get around the fact that it's, at its heart, binary emulation.
It's worth nothing that Wine originally stood for "Windows Emulation" and wasn't changed until later. While your at it, you might want to try reading:
http://www.linux.com/news/software/applications/35492-emulation-or-virtualization-which-is-right-for-you
http://www.linux.com/news/software/applications/37986-use-windows-applications-on-linux-using-emulation
I feel I've provided some amount of commentary and evidence supporting my view. If I'm seen as a troll it's simply because my opinion isn't the popular one. You on the other hand have simply resorted to name calling, telling me I'm wrong, and picking apart one point of argument which doesn't even necessarily debunk what I'm saying.
I believe I've differentiated between the two the entire time. Nor am I the only one that considers what Wine does emulation, even if it is not at the machine level, you do realize that the original acronym for Wine was Windows Emulator right? Read the old FAQ if you don't believe me, the name was changed to help differentiate it from full virtual machines.
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/windows-emulation/wine-faq/
Ancient History? How about this, from Linux.com:
"The acronym "WINE" stands for Wine Is Not an Emulator. But don't let the acronym fool you, WINE does help to "emulate" the Windows environment."
http://www.linux.com/news/software/applications/37986-use-windows-applications-on-linux-using-emulation
and from the previous article..
"Although the acronym WINE stands for "WINE Is Not an Emulator", the theory is the same. What WINE does is serve as a compatibility layer allowing Linux to make use of Windows DLL files. WINE achieves this by implementing the Windows API layer entirely in user-space instead of kernel-space with the help of the wineserver daemon."
Are you going to provide any evidence or just make unsupported bald claims?
First of all, I don't see how DirectX/OpenGL relate in any way. Wine provides more than APIs.
Straight from Wines website:
"When users think of emulators, they think of programs like Dosbox or zsnes. These applications run as virtual machines and are slow, having to emulate each processor instruction. Wine does not do any CPU emulation - hence the name "Wine Is Not an Emulator.""
Notice the differentiation, Wine does not do any /CPU/ emulation, it does on the other hand do software, often called binary, emulation. /Every/ other system that performs similarly refers to itself as binary emulation. Look up FreeBSD linux binary emulation if you don't believe me. I'm confused as to how you think Wine works, if it was simply APIs as you seem to think, how exactly would it go about loading binaries, as well as handling Windows memory layouts, exceptions, threads, and processes. If APIs were all you needed you wouldn't have to preface every single windows command with "wine."
The problem is not that there are so many, but that they are the most outspoken. I'd say the vast majority of Linux users are more concerned with their systems being fully functional rather then worrying over "tainting" themselves with proprietary drivers. Problem is, since they do not carry the same kind of conviction in their chosen philosophy, all you here from is the open-source extremists.