Changes like this make me wonder if the systemd developers even use Linux beyond their local development workstations... cut (various "not how UNIX works)" cut...
Ahhh yes, the common response, that systemd is for desktops. Sigh, for those in Red Hat who saw customers deploy Cluster Suite just to monitor services *and*, more importantly, resources (something Upstart doesn't do) for standalone, single system services, systemd does far, far more for servers than desktops. This is yet another. Customers not only desired systemd, but even the Debian vote exposed how many *major* (thousands of servers) Debian userbases wanted it too.
As someone who has extensive experience with LTSP and RHEV VDI, this was a long, requested change. Because multiuser environments absolutely need this. But ignorance is most common, especially those who haven't worked in 10,000 user Linux VDI environments, which is why get these types of responses. Same goes for the prior on PulseAudio, when the issue usually wasn't PulseAudio, but Ubuntu -- especially off-shoot, non GNOME/Unity Ubuntu -- integration issues.
As far as "how UNIX works," people should really change that to "how BSD works." Virtually all other UNIX implementations *do* have something with many systemd features and approaches.
How HyperTransport interconnect is different ...
on
Cray XT-3 Ships
·
· Score: 1
Power never offered before in a commodity interconnect, HyperTransport is changing how systems are designed.
The IBM PowerPC 970 was not only designed to be a ~40W, 2GHz (at current fab levels) processor for desktops, but also a sub-20W, 1.2-1.4GHz (at current fab levels) processor for notebooks too!
Apple G5 notebook? Um, yeah, duh, IBM already thought of that too!
Microsoft doesn't even use its own products ...
on
Subversion Hits Alpha
·
· Score: 2
Here's a list...
DNS: Only a handful internal Win2K DNS/AD Servers, 0 external, numerous ActiveDirectory issues (let alone DNS changes done "on-the-fly" that takes them down weekly)
Firewall/Proxy: Virtually 0 ISA Servers
SCM: No team larger than 50 using Visual Source Safe
As a long-time NT administrator (original NT 3.1 beta tester), no Windows system goes on my network without Cygwin. In recent years, they've added XFree86 4.x (which works flawlessly nowdays), and other goodies like OpenSSH.
And on Win/NT versions (NT, 2K, XP), you can setup OpenSSH in full server mode which is especially sweet for automation. You can find more information on how to configure OpenSSH as a server on NT/2K/XP here.
There is not a week that goes by without me needing something (let alone another user on our local support list) that Cygwin doesn't solve quickly and effectively. Again, that's why its on all my Windows systems by default.
This might be because theseus have no novel stuff. They copied all their work from a paper by muller from 1958.
Huh? I'm not talking the packetized boolean stuff of Amulet that Furber came up with. I'm talking Karl Fant's NCL approach which he developed while at Honeywell in the late 60s through the 80s and took commercial when he created Theseus in the 90s.
No mention of Theseus Logic?
on
Clockless Computing
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Unless I missed it, there was no mention of Theseus Logic'sNull Convention Logic at all which is a real disappointment. Theseus has one of the few approaches that doesn't require a PhD-level of education to understand and design in.
According to the Microsoft MCSE FAQ, they are planning to retire the MCSE 2000 concurrently with the retirement of MSCE XP/.NET and not before.
"MCSEs on Windows 2000 will not be required to pass Windows XP Professional/.NET Enterprise Server exams to retain certification. The Windows 2000 exams and the Windows XP/.NET Enterprise Server exams of the MCSE certification are expected to remain available concurrently. Retirement schedules for all exams are affected by a number of factors, including the needs of the industry and release of the next version of the Windows operating system (code-named "Blackcomb")."
This makes sense because they haven't even gotten some of their own study materials out for MCSA 2000 until recently, let alone MCSA/MCSE XP/.NET exams are still being introduced. God I hope so, I've just started investing into a MCSA cert (which I hope to have this month) that I plan to upgrade to a full MCSE within a month after that.
But you never know when a vendor moves to "push product." And that's the #1 motivation behind for-profit vendor certifications.
I don't know why Microsoft doesn't take advantage of its PC dependence and use that to keep them on the Windows platform. I mean, if you've got the capabilities in the unit, why not exploit them as much as you can? Especially in a set top unit that would be easier to maintain than a PC, but will do everything that 50% of what homes need?
Sure, there are issues with the screen display, but when it comes to balancing your checkbook, checking your on-line porforlio, writing simple letters, and a few other details that a good 50% of homes use, it's sufficient. Most of us/.'ers will still have a PC, but most home users aren't as savvy. A set-top box would be much better, since the PC is far too much more them. They just want gaming, TV recording, Internet browsing, checkbook balancing, investment tracking and writing letters -- nothing more. Heck, if it ran Quicken, I'd probably buy it (a 100% Linux user, both at work and home, for the last 4 years!).
I don't know why I'm the only one that seems to see this? I also don't know why Nokia or some other company in the TV Linux Alliance hasn't been able to team up with AT&T, the regional Bells, etc... to offer such a Linux-based "set-top box" for their cable (or, limitedly, DSL) subscribers yet. I've heard rumors, but nothing solid yet. If Microsoft wants to "take over," it should make a move on this. But, instead, it looks like they'll keep doing the "minimum required" combined with "dumping" and losing to other vendors again and again and again at a huge loss. And they probably won't wake up until someone else has a 50% marketshare with one of these devices either.
All -- that LEAP-CF post is mine. That is not a "rumor" but just my "recommendation" to RedHat. Nothing more.
Why do people think MS stuff does everything???
on
Doom3 and OpenGL2.0
·
· Score: 2
I cannot stand people like this. They think, "why do we need OpenGL when we have DirectX?" They never stop to think it's maybe because DirectX isn't work crap for professional applications! And there are many others where DirectX (fka "direct DOS memory map") is quite limiting.
There are probably another 1,000 different Microsoft technologies that are the same. Like MS Word for example. Publication companies don't use it because they need a standardized, documentation and typeset language underneath that doesn't change every 2 years!
I have yet to hear real numbers from a reliable source (and I have talked to several people inside MS) that prove or disprove this point. All the console manufacturers use the same business model.
All of them used the same initial business model, but Sony and Nintendo are far beyond the "initial entry." Regardless, their smaller, more efficient, custom MIPS designs have shrunk in die size as fabrication technology as shrunk to smaller feature sizes. Normally "commodity x86" wins in economies of scale, but the sheer quantities of Sony and Ninendo volume also gives them the same econoies of scale benefit despite their custom chipsets. So then it becomes a matter of total die size -- X-box loses, big time!
One only needs to read EETimes and a few other engineering magazines to see articles about how much it is actually costing Sony and Nintendo to reproduce their MIPS-based solutions. Microsoft? What would Microsoft know about Sony and Nintendo's costs?!?!?!
And as far as that sales graph goes...not a single one of these systems is 128 bit. The GameCube and Xbox are both 32-bit systems (PowerPC-based and Intel x86, respectively). I don't know about the Emotion engine in the PS2, but I suspect that with less than 32 MB of RAM, there's no reason for it to have more address lines, so it's probably 32-bit as well.
First off, the external addressing of the chip has nothing to do with the internal width of the chips registers. The last time I checked, the Nintendo Gamecube was MIPS 5000-based, which is an enhancement of the 64-bit MIPS 4000 core. And the Sony Emotion engine is a customized MIPS 4000 core with a specialized 128-bit SIMD execution unit and registers.
The only reason the X-box can challenge them with its general Intel x86 approach is the fact that the CPU clock is much faster (almost 4x the PS2's) and has a GPU that is 18 months newer in design. Otherwise, at least the PS2 is a much sweeter custom design -- and it costs far less to reproduce at today's feature sizes in the massive volume consoles are reproduced at.
Fully Palm OS and conduit compatible -- which makes Evolution the ultimate PIM for and any Palm program executable on this thing. Complete, Hayes AT compatible external 14.4K Fax+Modem using the serial port for portable surfing. Other usability sweetness like the Palm IR, jog dial when in phone mode, etc... One address book, one date book, one thing for everything!
Kyocera knows its market. I hope the new 7135 is still usable as an external modem. That might not be the case if its USB-based (at least not for Linux).
"As for the Alpha, I tried to port my application to Alpha when it first came out, and there was a problem. It seems the Alpha processor could not access memory at the byte level. All byte writes had to merge the byte in question into a 64-bit word to write back into memory. PowerPC has no such problem."
As I previously mentioned, Alpha was the most anal of RISC designs. RISC is all about minimizing cycles and maximizing number of operations executed -- even if they are simplified so you must do two, three or even more ops per typical CISC instruction. Data alignment is crucial to RISC performance -- especially in designs like the Alpha or 64-bit SPARC. No Alpha has 8 or 16-bit operations, just 32 or 64-bit. Even the original Alpha 21064 could NOT load/store 8 or 16-bit values, only 32 or 64-bit. They changed this in the 21164 and later after extensive requests, but not lightly. When A/V instructions were added, only 5 were added.
IBM-Moto had a design failure in their first 64-bit PowerPC 620. They had to chuck it and refocus -- resulting in a not so efficient/compatible 64-bit PowerPC from its 32-bit siblings. Of all the RISC designs, only Alpha was designed as a 64-bit processor from the get-go. I'm sure this is why the 32-bit PowerPC was "easier" to accomodate 8/16-bit loads/stores/operations than the 64-bit Alpha. At least until Intel IA-64, which introduced EPIC as a "successor" to RISC. But as Intel has found out, Itanium has fallen victim to all the "great ideal, poor reality" predictions Digital's Alpha ream made of it, almost to the letter. And even "McKinley" (now Itanium2) still cannot match a 3-year old Alpha 264 design at FPU.
As a fellow ECE, I'll give Intel a mark in the "innovative" column on IA-64. But the concepts of predication, EPIC and compiler-time optimizations we're NOT good enough to even make the new architecture competitive when not considering x86 compatibility. And Intel needs to be smacked for all those stupid extensions -- it's funny to see AMD accomodating them with less effort than Intel.
Alpha has always been the "64-bit RISC of RISCs" and they had binary translation techology c/o FX!32 so Linux/x86, NT/x86 and VMS/VAX apps could run on Linux/Alpha, NT/Alpha and VMS/Alpha, respectively. It was not only original, but using binary translation on the same OS, but different architecture, works far better for compatibility in software than general (any OS) architectural compatibility in hardware/microcode! With Alpha 364 at 0.13um would be kicking IA-64 butt. I mean, 3-year old Alpha 264 0.25um processors beat IA-64 at the same clock speeds!
Anyhoo, as a fellow EE/ECE, please read this post I made a few weeks ago and let me know what you think. It is entitled "How AMD and its partners are putting x86 back on the right track... ". IA-64 was an ideal and novel concept, one that is not so good based in reality where good branch prediction is better than predication, and run-time optimization is just as important as compile-time. The Alpha 364 team predicted the "problems" with IA-64, which came true.
Anyone who has messed with Caldera, SuSE and Turbolinux knows that they
do NOT produce a 100% redistributable version of their commercial
offerings. In addition to now allow redistribution of their CDs, most
either omit major packages, or limit usage to "personal." As of 8.0,
SuSE has gotten even more restrictive no longer offering free downloads
of many components. This alone has turned off this user from
considering their software.
Conectiva, on the otherhand, has gained a lot of notariety in their
efforts. The two biggest being the use of Apt for RPM, and one of their
lead developers managing a Linux kernel branch alongside Alan Cox and
only one other. I have not used their distro, and DistroWatch.COM does
not differentiate between "free download" and "100% redistributable" so
I cannot tell if they maintain the same GPL-anal approach as RedHat.
For now, I'll assume so (please let me know if otherwise?).
So, for this strategy to work, assuming the rumor is true, I make the
following 2 recommendations to the resulting conglomerate:
Make a 100% Redistributable CD set, then value-add
These vendors don't have to stop value-adding to their distros. In
fact, this approach could still allow them to do so. But they really
need to build some mindshare with those of us who like RedHat and Debian
because of their 100% GPL-focus. Release a 100% Redistributable CD set
which they all agree on. This has kept me from using Caldera, SuSE and Turbolinux over the years.
Then each can include their own CD #1 binary, "alternate,"
non-redistributable boot CD in their commercial, boxed sets so the
value-added stuff can be installed (in addition to other,
non-redistributable CDs). The idea is that the install packages should
be the same for both the freely redistributable and commercial
non-redistributable versions, even if the default/base freely
redistributable ones are replaced by those in the commercial,
non-redistributable CD(s). Simple, no?
Leverage Conectiva's Apt focus, build a Debian-like "universal" repository
This will get the masses to join them. If the new conglomerate can
build a new, 3rd party software repository for Apt like Debian has for
Deb, this would get me to use this new distro. And they would quickly
find that a number of 3rd party free software / open source projects
would make sure their packages are built for and distributed in this new
RPM-Apt repository. God knows I'd be sold in a heartbeat, assuming the distro quality is as good as RedHat. With SuSE in the mix, I don't see this being an issue, since I have used their kernels before (and trust them as much as RedHat).
Right now I mix a custom distro (usually installed via NFS so I don't have to build CDs that are outdated quickly) use RedHat with Ximian and FreshRPMS added. Ximian is Ximian, and I don't forsee not using their Gnome set (this new "standard" distro will make it easy for them to support). FreshRPMS is
RedHat-focused and uses RPM-Apt, but it is far from "comprehensive" with
only about 50 packages or so. This is a far cry from Debian's 10,000+
Going to RPMfind or the older contribs is just not viable, and I don't bother much anymore. But I
don't have nearly the package selection as Debian with RedHat and this
frustrates me since I will not use Debian for other reasons (I'm not
going to expand on them here, just note I said *I* will not use Debian
-- not that Debian is "bad," not at all).
"The only stupid part was trying to replicate the ill-conceived US shuttle in the first place."
I wouldn't expect a/.'er to know jack shit about the Buran. Although the "Orbiter" is similar in design, the Russian solid-LH/LO2 combo booster design was developed before NASA designed the shuttle! Have you even seen the Buran? It does not have any "liquid LH/LO2 engines" on the Orbiter because the engines are on the "tank" itself. I.e. It isn't just an "external fuel tank" like the US Shuttle!
As such, NASA copied the Soviet design when it came to the solid-LH/LO2 booster design. In fact, I'll argue it was stupid for NASA to put the main liquid fuel engines on the Orbiter! Hence the return to an "Orbiter" without engines on the new, proposed designs from LockMart, Orbital-Northrop and Boeing. The US Shuttle is more complex than it needs to be IMHO.
Microsoft will go into negotiations with a company. Their engineers will also be working with the prospective company while they happen. The deal goes sour, so Microsoft pulls out. But some schmuck engineering manager or possibly some exec decides it's not worth it to re-write the code from scratch, let alone create a "clean room" version. The code stays, it's not published, it's hidden from view and few know about it because the software is "closed source." This fact makes me laugh when Microsoft says Freedom Software "violoates IP" -- because Microsoft has blantantly plagerized actual source code verbatim over and over!
Microsoft has done this to such companies as IBM, Digital, SCO, Pen Computing and Micrografx -- none of which would ever see a dime in compensated, even though their code is in Windows today. Another, non-software product where this has happened has been the Microsoft erogonomic mouse (cannot remember the company's name). Verbatim rips of the design, down to the tenth of a millimetter. As Microsoft is finding out, it can no longer sustain the legal issues of this common practice in its own organization.
I think people need a history lesson on all the arguments surrounding the Clipper chip. Remember, the problem isn't always government (although that's definitely part of it), but the inability of government to effectively protect the information from third parties that will abuse it. Key escrow is something that can and will be compromised. And because it is a technology that can and will infiltrated everything, it will allow complete access to your privacy by anyone who wants it. Again, it's the Clipper chip all over again!
Need I revisit the the classic boofernery of the Social Security Number? Outlawed by the government for use outside of its specific creation, it is now used by everyone. And it is extremely easy to obtain, let alone steal! Now the government wants to introduce a national ID, something that is "more controlled" than the SSN. But it too will be easy to obtain and steal in no time as well. Only now, with a national ID, more people will put more of that so-called "faith" it in, so good Americans will have a tougher time proving someone has stolen their identity when it does happen (and it will). And if Microsoft gets Passport behind an "eID," God help us!
Combine this with the CBDTPA/SSSCA, and there's plenty to worry about. The CBDTPA/SSSCA is exactly a pro-Clipper chip mentality! Only it isn't the FBI asking for it, but "Big Media." Heck, I'm surprised no one in "Big Media" is selling the CBDTPA/SSSCA to the government as an "unified solution" for "guaranting copyrights, privacy and law-enforcement" all in one shabang!
Now this researcher has got "all the answers." His solution? Implement an encrypted recording and storage system with key escrow for access. How original! How many times are we going to go in the same damn circle on this???
Don't you guys know about the lawsuits on this???
on
End Of the Road for Duron
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
AMD purposely names its processors after horses because you cannot trademark them.
The so-called "crippling" you speak of is often done not by AMD, but by the laws of physics. I.e., when the wafers come out, some are damaged. Since the biggest think on the die is the L2 cache, upto 3/4th can be damaged and still sold as a Duron processor. It's a simple matter of recycling.
While all the hype surrounds what Mono will and won't do, and what Microsoft will and won't do about it, I think people miss a very key void that Mono might fill. In the "worst case" (assuming Windows ABI compatibility with Mono is not achievable), won't Mono at least end up replacing Winelib as a porting kit as Windows developers move to.Net as their development platform? If so, then I think Mono is a very important move for Linux in general, at least to those who feel it is important to see popular commercial Windows software ported to Linux. Am I seeing this right? Or am I simplifying it too much? Regardless, I feel Ximian's viewpoints on this and your views of possible scenarios for the future of porting Windows apps to Linux could put a different spin on why Mono exists.
Slashdot Mirror
Changes like this make me wonder if the systemd developers even use Linux beyond their local development workstations ... cut (various "not how UNIX works)" cut ...
Ahhh yes, the common response, that systemd is for desktops. Sigh, for those in Red Hat who saw customers deploy Cluster Suite just to monitor services *and*, more importantly, resources (something Upstart doesn't do) for standalone, single system services, systemd does far, far more for servers than desktops. This is yet another. Customers not only desired systemd, but even the Debian vote exposed how many *major* (thousands of servers) Debian userbases wanted it too.
As someone who has extensive experience with LTSP and RHEV VDI, this was a long, requested change. Because multiuser environments absolutely need this. But ignorance is most common, especially those who haven't worked in 10,000 user Linux VDI environments, which is why get these types of responses. Same goes for the prior on PulseAudio, when the issue usually wasn't PulseAudio, but Ubuntu -- especially off-shoot, non GNOME/Unity Ubuntu -- integration issues.
As far as "how UNIX works," people should really change that to "how BSD works." Virtually all other UNIX implementations *do* have something with many systemd features and approaches.
Power never offered before in a commodity interconnect, HyperTransport is changing how systems are designed.
Sys Admin 2004 November: Dissecting PC Server Performance
[ NOTE TO SELF: Now I know why I don't read /. ]
The IBM PowerPC 970 was not only designed to be a ~40W, 2GHz (at current fab levels) processor for desktops, but also a sub-20W, 1.2-1.4GHz (at current fab levels) processor for notebooks too!
Apple G5 notebook? Um, yeah, duh, IBM already thought of that too!
Here's a list ...
As a long-time NT administrator (original NT 3.1 beta tester), no Windows system goes on my network without Cygwin . In recent years, they've added XFree86 4.x (which works flawlessly nowdays), and other goodies like OpenSSH.
And on Win/NT versions (NT, 2K, XP), you can setup OpenSSH in full server mode which is especially sweet for automation. You can find more information on how to configure OpenSSH as a server on NT/2K/XP here.
There is not a week that goes by without me needing something (let alone another user on our local support list) that Cygwin doesn't solve quickly and effectively. Again, that's why its on all my Windows systems by default.
Huh? I'm not talking the packetized boolean stuff of Amulet that Furber came up with. I'm talking Karl Fant's NCL approach which he developed while at Honeywell in the late 60s through the 80s and took commercial when he created Theseus in the 90s.
Unless I missed it, there was no mention of Theseus Logic's Null Convention Logic at all which is a real disappointment. Theseus has one of the few approaches that doesn't require a PhD-level of education to understand and design in.
According to the Microsoft MCSE FAQ, they are planning to retire the MCSE 2000 concurrently with the retirement of MSCE XP/.NET and not before.
This makes sense because they haven't even gotten some of their own study materials out for MCSA 2000 until recently, let alone MCSA/MCSE XP/.NET exams are still being introduced. God I hope so, I've just started investing into a MCSA cert (which I hope to have this month) that I plan to upgrade to a full MCSE within a month after that.
But you never know when a vendor moves to "push product." And that's the #1 motivation behind for-profit vendor certifications.
Man oh man, bloatware. I mean, I'll install it all, but man, DVD time!
Then Microsoft would have a seller! I've written on this before.
I don't know why Microsoft doesn't take advantage of its PC dependence and use that to keep them on the Windows platform. I mean, if you've got the capabilities in the unit, why not exploit them as much as you can? Especially in a set top unit that would be easier to maintain than a PC, but will do everything that 50% of what homes need?
Sure, there are issues with the screen display, but when it comes to balancing your checkbook, checking your on-line porforlio, writing simple letters, and a few other details that a good 50% of homes use, it's sufficient. Most of us /.'ers will still have a PC, but most home users aren't as savvy. A set-top box would be much better, since the PC is far too much more them. They just want gaming, TV recording, Internet browsing, checkbook balancing, investment tracking and writing letters -- nothing more. Heck, if it ran Quicken, I'd probably buy it (a 100% Linux user, both at work and home, for the last 4 years!).
I don't know why I'm the only one that seems to see this? I also don't know why Nokia or some other company in the TV Linux Alliance hasn't been able to team up with AT&T, the regional Bells, etc... to offer such a Linux-based "set-top box" for their cable (or, limitedly, DSL) subscribers yet. I've heard rumors, but nothing solid yet. If Microsoft wants to "take over," it should make a move on this. But, instead, it looks like they'll keep doing the "minimum required" combined with "dumping" and losing to other vendors again and again and again at a huge loss. And they probably won't wake up until someone else has a 50% marketshare with one of these devices either.
All -- that LEAP-CF post is mine. That is not a "rumor" but just my "recommendation" to RedHat. Nothing more.
I cannot stand people like this. They think, "why do we need OpenGL when we have DirectX?" They never stop to think it's maybe because DirectX isn't work crap for professional applications! And there are many others where DirectX (fka "direct DOS memory map") is quite limiting.
There are probably another 1,000 different Microsoft technologies that are the same. Like MS Word for example. Publication companies don't use it because they need a standardized, documentation and typeset language underneath that doesn't change every 2 years!
All of them used the same initial business model, but Sony and Nintendo are far beyond the "initial entry." Regardless, their smaller, more efficient, custom MIPS designs have shrunk in die size as fabrication technology as shrunk to smaller feature sizes. Normally "commodity x86" wins in economies of scale, but the sheer quantities of Sony and Ninendo volume also gives them the same econoies of scale benefit despite their custom chipsets. So then it becomes a matter of total die size -- X-box loses, big time!
One only needs to read EETimes and a few other engineering magazines to see articles about how much it is actually costing Sony and Nintendo to reproduce their MIPS-based solutions. Microsoft? What would Microsoft know about Sony and Nintendo's costs?!?!?!
First off, the external addressing of the chip has nothing to do with the internal width of the chips registers. The last time I checked, the Nintendo Gamecube was MIPS 5000-based, which is an enhancement of the 64-bit MIPS 4000 core. And the Sony Emotion engine is a customized MIPS 4000 core with a specialized 128-bit SIMD execution unit and registers.
The only reason the X-box can challenge them with its general Intel x86 approach is the fact that the CPU clock is much faster (almost 4x the PS2's) and has a GPU that is 18 months newer in design. Otherwise, at least the PS2 is a much sweeter custom design -- and it costs far less to reproduce at today's feature sizes in the massive volume consoles are reproduced at.
Fully Palm OS and conduit compatible -- which makes Evolution the ultimate PIM for and any Palm program executable on this thing. Complete, Hayes AT compatible external 14.4K Fax+Modem using the serial port for portable surfing. Other usability sweetness like the Palm IR, jog dial when in phone mode, etc... One address book, one date book, one thing for everything!
Kyocera knows its market. I hope the new 7135 is still usable as an external modem. That might not be the case if its USB-based (at least not for Linux).
As I previously mentioned, Alpha was the most anal of RISC designs. RISC is all about minimizing cycles and maximizing number of operations executed -- even if they are simplified so you must do two, three or even more ops per typical CISC instruction. Data alignment is crucial to RISC performance -- especially in designs like the Alpha or 64-bit SPARC. No Alpha has 8 or 16-bit operations, just 32 or 64-bit. Even the original Alpha 21064 could NOT load/store 8 or 16-bit values, only 32 or 64-bit. They changed this in the 21164 and later after extensive requests, but not lightly. When A/V instructions were added, only 5 were added.
IBM-Moto had a design failure in their first 64-bit PowerPC 620. They had to chuck it and refocus -- resulting in a not so efficient/compatible 64-bit PowerPC from its 32-bit siblings. Of all the RISC designs, only Alpha was designed as a 64-bit processor from the get-go. I'm sure this is why the 32-bit PowerPC was "easier" to accomodate 8/16-bit loads/stores/operations than the 64-bit Alpha. At least until Intel IA-64, which introduced EPIC as a "successor" to RISC. But as Intel has found out, Itanium has fallen victim to all the "great ideal, poor reality" predictions Digital's Alpha ream made of it, almost to the letter. And even "McKinley" (now Itanium2) still cannot match a 3-year old Alpha 264 design at FPU.
As a fellow ECE, I'll give Intel a mark in the "innovative" column on IA-64. But the concepts of predication, EPIC and compiler-time optimizations we're NOT good enough to even make the new architecture competitive when not considering x86 compatibility. And Intel needs to be smacked for all those stupid extensions -- it's funny to see AMD accomodating them with less effort than Intel.
Alpha has always been the "64-bit RISC of RISCs" and they had binary translation techology c/o FX!32 so Linux/x86, NT/x86 and VMS/VAX apps could run on Linux/Alpha, NT/Alpha and VMS/Alpha, respectively. It was not only original, but using binary translation on the same OS, but different architecture, works far better for compatibility in software than general (any OS) architectural compatibility in hardware/microcode! With Alpha 364 at 0.13um would be kicking IA-64 butt. I mean, 3-year old Alpha 264 0.25um processors beat IA-64 at the same clock speeds!
Anyhoo, as a fellow EE/ECE, please read this post I made a few weeks ago and let me know what you think. It is entitled "How AMD and its partners are putting x86 back on the right track ... ". IA-64 was an ideal and novel concept, one that is not so good based in reality where good branch prediction is better than predication, and run-time optimization is just as important as compile-time. The Alpha 364 team predicted the "problems" with IA-64, which came true.
Anyone who has messed with Caldera, SuSE and Turbolinux knows that they do NOT produce a 100% redistributable version of their commercial offerings. In addition to now allow redistribution of their CDs, most either omit major packages, or limit usage to "personal." As of 8.0, SuSE has gotten even more restrictive no longer offering free downloads of many components. This alone has turned off this user from considering their software.
Conectiva, on the otherhand, has gained a lot of notariety in their efforts. The two biggest being the use of Apt for RPM, and one of their lead developers managing a Linux kernel branch alongside Alan Cox and only one other. I have not used their distro, and DistroWatch.COM does not differentiate between "free download" and "100% redistributable" so I cannot tell if they maintain the same GPL-anal approach as RedHat. For now, I'll assume so (please let me know if otherwise?).
So, for this strategy to work, assuming the rumor is true, I make the following 2 recommendations to the resulting conglomerate:
These vendors don't have to stop value-adding to their distros. In fact, this approach could still allow them to do so. But they really need to build some mindshare with those of us who like RedHat and Debian because of their 100% GPL-focus. Release a 100% Redistributable CD set which they all agree on. This has kept me from using Caldera, SuSE and Turbolinux over the years.
Then each can include their own CD #1 binary, "alternate," non-redistributable boot CD in their commercial, boxed sets so the value-added stuff can be installed (in addition to other, non-redistributable CDs). The idea is that the install packages should be the same for both the freely redistributable and commercial non-redistributable versions, even if the default/base freely redistributable ones are replaced by those in the commercial, non-redistributable CD(s). Simple, no?
This will get the masses to join them. If the new conglomerate can build a new, 3rd party software repository for Apt like Debian has for Deb, this would get me to use this new distro. And they would quickly find that a number of 3rd party free software / open source projects would make sure their packages are built for and distributed in this new RPM-Apt repository. God knows I'd be sold in a heartbeat, assuming the distro quality is as good as RedHat. With SuSE in the mix, I don't see this being an issue, since I have used their kernels before (and trust them as much as RedHat).
Right now I mix a custom distro (usually installed via NFS so I don't have to build CDs that are outdated quickly) use RedHat with Ximian and FreshRPMS added. Ximian is Ximian, and I don't forsee not using their Gnome set (this new "standard" distro will make it easy for them to support). FreshRPMS is RedHat-focused and uses RPM-Apt, but it is far from "comprehensive" with only about 50 packages or so. This is a far cry from Debian's 10,000+ Going to RPMfind or the older contribs is just not viable, and I don't bother much anymore. But I don't have nearly the package selection as Debian with RedHat and this frustrates me since I will not use Debian for other reasons (I'm not going to expand on them here, just note I said *I* will not use Debian -- not that Debian is "bad," not at all).
I wouldn't expect a /.'er to know jack shit about the Buran. Although the "Orbiter" is similar in design, the Russian solid-LH/LO2 combo booster design was developed before NASA designed the shuttle! Have you even seen the Buran? It does not have any "liquid LH/LO2 engines" on the Orbiter because the engines are on the "tank" itself. I.e. It isn't just an "external fuel tank" like the US Shuttle!
As such, NASA copied the Soviet design when it came to the solid-LH/LO2 booster design. In fact, I'll argue it was stupid for NASA to put the main liquid fuel engines on the Orbiter! Hence the return to an "Orbiter" without engines on the new, proposed designs from LockMart, Orbital-Northrop and Boeing. The US Shuttle is more complex than it needs to be IMHO.
I mean, why do you think the Microsoft "Shared Source" agreement prevents you from suing Microsoft over IP violations???
.Microsoft will go into negotiations with a company. Their engineers will also be working with the prospective company while they happen. The deal goes sour, so Microsoft pulls out. But some schmuck engineering manager or possibly some exec decides it's not worth it to re-write the code from scratch, let alone create a "clean room" version. The code stays, it's not published, it's hidden from view and few know about it because the software is "closed source." This fact makes me laugh when Microsoft says Freedom Software "violoates IP" -- because Microsoft has blantantly plagerized actual source code verbatim over and over!
Microsoft has done this to such companies as IBM, Digital, SCO, Pen Computing and Micrografx -- none of which would ever see a dime in compensated, even though their code is in Windows today. Another, non-software product where this has happened has been the Microsoft erogonomic mouse (cannot remember the company's name). Verbatim rips of the design, down to the tenth of a millimetter. As Microsoft is finding out, it can no longer sustain the legal issues of this common practice in its own organization.
I think people need a history lesson on all the arguments surrounding the Clipper chip. Remember, the problem isn't always government (although that's definitely part of it), but the inability of government to effectively protect the information from third parties that will abuse it. Key escrow is something that can and will be compromised. And because it is a technology that can and will infiltrated everything, it will allow complete access to your privacy by anyone who wants it. Again, it's the Clipper chip all over again!
Need I revisit the the classic boofernery of the Social Security Number? Outlawed by the government for use outside of its specific creation, it is now used by everyone. And it is extremely easy to obtain, let alone steal! Now the government wants to introduce a national ID, something that is "more controlled" than the SSN. But it too will be easy to obtain and steal in no time as well. Only now, with a national ID, more people will put more of that so-called "faith" it in, so good Americans will have a tougher time proving someone has stolen their identity when it does happen (and it will). And if Microsoft gets Passport behind an "eID," God help us!
Combine this with the CBDTPA/SSSCA, and there's plenty to worry about. The CBDTPA/SSSCA is exactly a pro-Clipper chip mentality! Only it isn't the FBI asking for it, but "Big Media." Heck, I'm surprised no one in "Big Media" is selling the CBDTPA/SSSCA to the government as an "unified solution" for "guaranting copyrights, privacy and law-enforcement" all in one shabang!
Now this researcher has got "all the answers." His solution? Implement an encrypted recording and storage system with key escrow for access. How original! How many times are we going to go in the same damn circle on this???
AMD purposely names its processors after horses because you cannot trademark them.
The so-called "crippling" you speak of is often done not by AMD, but by the laws of physics. I.e., when the wafers come out, some are damaged. Since the biggest think on the die is the L2 cache, upto 3/4th can be damaged and still sold as a Duron processor. It's a simple matter of recycling.
While all the hype surrounds what Mono will and won't do, and what Microsoft will and won't do about it, I think people miss a very key void that Mono might fill. In the "worst case" (assuming Windows ABI compatibility with Mono is not achievable), won't Mono at least end up replacing Winelib as a porting kit as Windows developers move to .Net as their development platform? If so, then I think Mono is a very important move for Linux in general, at least to those who feel it is important to see popular commercial Windows software ported to Linux. Am I seeing this right? Or am I simplifying it too much? Regardless, I feel Ximian's viewpoints on this and your views of possible scenarios for the future of porting Windows apps to Linux could put a different spin on why Mono exists.