Samsung is not the only company that sells ARM processors. Intel's ARM based XScale microprocessors can be found in products such as the popular RIM BlackBerry handheld, the Dell Axim family of Pocket PCs, most of the Zire, Treo and Tungsten Handheld lines by Palm, later versions of the Sharp Zaurus, the Motorola A780, the Acer n50, the Compaq iPaq 3900 series and many other PDAs.
It's not a strech to assume that Apple used the same CPU as the rest of the smartphone industry, then ported their version of the highly portable Unix OS to it.
New features should NEVER be introduced into the stable kernel.
New features, code rewrites, api changes, or anything more then a basic bug should all go into the development kernel until stabilized. This means the api isn't changing, the feature is complete, the rewrite is finished, or the bug fix is tested.
The only thing that should be happening to the stable kernel are bug fixes!
If this makes it harder for companies or CIO to understand then to bad go buy Windows.
When I download the latest stable kernel then I should be to trust that it is 99.9% stabilized and that there are no huge changes from the pervious point release.
Maybe I just don't get it but why would you want to run MacOSX on the Pegasos board? Don't get me wrong I love the idea of a PPC board and I'll be getting one as soon as I get a job. But I'll be getting it to replace the piece of crap x86 board in my Linux box.
Yes, I'll admit I'm a mac user and I love my powerbook. I personally find OSX to by the greatest OS ever, with OpenBSD and Linux taking a very close second. And for me this is where the Pegasos fits perfectly, I can now run all my system on PPC. A nice PPC OpenBSD server, serving files, web, and email to my OSX laptop and my PPC Linux desktop (until I can afford my G5).
I personally can't wait for the day when I can add "x86 free" to my "Microsoft free since 1998", tag-line. A perfect world is one where I don't have to use MS and/or x86 for anything!
If you want OSX then help Apple and buy Apple hardware. If Apple can't sell hardware then they don't write software and then we're stuck with that nasty Windows UI (and just for the flame bait I'm lumping Gnome and KDE into this, since they can't seem to come up with an original UI design) And just to piss everyone off I'll even throw Apple under the bus and point out that the "New and Improved" finder under 10.3 really looks like crap.
Porting KDE to Win2k/XP is the dumbest idea I have ever heard. It's dumber then a friend of mine who clipped a 9 volt to his balls. If you want to play games buy a Game Cube. If you want to run a stable computer then use a *nix. Or better yet encourage your game maker to write that game in OpenGL so its easier to port to OSX or Linux.
AFS and CODA have been doing this on unix for many, many years. And there was an AFS port for OS X 10.1.5 I'm not sure of the status of the port for OS 10.2.
Why is it that everyone is trying to drive OSS into the corperate business model. I realize that developers of GNOME, KDE, X, Linux, BSD, etc. need machines to test on but this is after all their hobby. And isn't the point of OSS that the community should be involved, by testing, troubleshooting, and dare I say fixing bugs. So that the developer doesn't have to test on every platform out there. People need to stop assuming that it's the responsibility of the core project developers to add all the features, to find all the bugs, and test every piece of hardware. Linux managed to become a stable, robust, and usable system ads to fund it's development.
So come on people, if you have to get paid to develop OSS then you probably shouldn't be developing OSS. OSS is a hobby it's done in the evenings, on the weekends, on vacation, and during those sleepless nights. If you really want to support your favorite project download gcc, cvs, and vim and get started.
It was my understanding that even if you register that you need Xmbits of bandawidth USB more or less ignores that, kind of like USB 1.x. Could be wrong.
And both were good choices! Bluetooth interfers with 802.11b networks and doesn't provide any real value that 802.11b doesn't. USB 2.0 doesn't have any advantages over firewire, other then having the USB name. Firewall is faster, less CPU intensive, and a real open standard. It's an IEEE standard not an Intel standard.
Whatever happened to the 'may the technically superior solution win' mentality here on/.?
That's what's happening. USB 1.1 and firewall were designed for different markets. USB 1.x low bandwidth, hot pluggable devices, such as keyboards, mice, modems, speakers, etc. It replaced serial port, printer port, ps/2 port, etc. Firewall was designed for high bandwidth, high throughput, multimedia devices. Such as disk drives, video cameras, DVD/CD writers,tape backups, etc. USB 1.x is great at what it does but I'm not sure trying to make expand it's roll is a good thing.
Sometimes we have to step back and realize that it's just software.
That's like saying the printing press just pressed paper.
There is far more to the Internet than "just software". When the printing was invented it allowed people to share ideas that couldn't be shared before; literacy soared, knowledge increased, and people become more wealthy. A true revolution in information. Then nothing changed for three hundred years. Literacy dropped and the middle class became disheartened with the revolution because, businesses began controlling the flow of information. It became difficult (expensive) for people to publish to the masses, it became easier for businesses and government to censor what they didn't like.
Then the Internet comes along people could once again publish freely and cheaply to large audiences, hobbiest could release software that challenges multi-billion dollar companies, and people could once again feel free from the control of businesses and goverenment. I completely agree with Mr. Katz and Hannah Arendt and revolution is a "spiritual" thing not a monetary thing. Free software is about people who love to code doing what they love. They will be here after the Internet has "evolved" into something, after all the.Coms are gone, and after all the Linux vendors have closed their doors. That's the revolution, because those people will still be writing better code then any corporation on the planet.
The debate shouldn't be over Windows or IE. Neither one will last long with out Office. And Office won't last long without it's file formats. Why do people run Windows?
1) It come preinstalled - A lot of vendor now give a choice of OS.
2) New users don't know the difference - This is just marketing. Linux, BSD, Mac could capture the same market.
3) To run Office - They use it at work, at home, and at school. This is the only reason for running Windows that can't currently be answered on another platform. (Beside Mac, but artists don't write j/k;-)
Why do we run Office, because we need to share information. We send files to friends, co-workers, fellow students, and professors. We need to know that the document will look the same when it gets there. If your running the same version Office everwhere then you know the data will always be the same.
So now we have two answers this problem.
1) Break-up MS forcing them to port Office to every OS out there (or at least the ones with the biggest user base), as well as making easy for other office suite to become popular. But this bring back memories of the late 80s. WordPerfect 5.1 5.2 6.0 6.0 for Windows, Word Star, Ami Pro, Word Pro, Word, Works, and many more the worst part is none imported and exported quite right.
2) Develop a set of cross-platform open file formats for wordprocessors, spreadsheets, presentations, etc. I'm thinking something XML based, get it supported by all the great opensource office apps, mix in a little marketing and show the world there are other alteratives.
Let the office suites fight over easy of use, functionality, and stability. Not file format.
Re:Naah, let's move to PPC instead
on
OS X on x86?
·
· Score: 1
This is the best idea! Besides my PowerBook G3 400 out runs my PIII 500 desktop at just about everything. To be honest it really isn't that much slower then my 1ghz duron at most things.
It was my understanding that there is a 64-bit version of the PowerPC, I think IBM uses them (Power4). But I completely agree this is how I see it playing out.
AMD currently doesn't have a major software vendor for it's 64-bit chip (linux supports it but won't carry the chip). So Apple should continue to the PPC in it's low end consumer workstations, and the 64-bit AMD in a new server line. Let OS X go head-to-head with Win200X on the 64-bit intel chip. Personally my money would be on Apple/AMD, OS X is far more stable then anything I've run and AMD chip will out run anything Intel can ship. Then as 64-bit chips work their way into the consumer market Apple has two different hardware platforms to sell.
I really find it annoying when people talk about the cable companies, DiectTV included, as selling a service. If they were truly selling a service I would be better off having it then not having it. They would be interested in what I want and I would have to watch commercials. Broadcast TV is selling a service, they sell airtime to advertisers. DirectTV is selling the same service but now feels the need to rape the viewing audience by changing way to much for the "service".
But on the flip side I find this whole thing very funny. Bravo to the programmers at hughes and the hackers who will figure out away around this.
Slashdot Mirror
Samsung is not the only company that sells ARM processors. Intel's ARM based XScale microprocessors can be found in products such as the popular RIM BlackBerry handheld, the Dell Axim family of Pocket PCs, most of the Zire, Treo and Tungsten Handheld lines by Palm, later versions of the Sharp Zaurus, the Motorola A780, the Acer n50, the Compaq iPaq 3900 series and many other PDAs.
It's not a strech to assume that Apple used the same CPU as the rest of the smartphone industry, then ported their version of the highly portable Unix OS to it.
New features should NEVER be introduced into the stable kernel.
New features, code rewrites, api changes, or anything more then a basic bug should all go into the development kernel until stabilized. This means the api isn't changing, the feature is complete, the rewrite is finished, or the bug fix is tested.
The only thing that should be happening to the stable kernel are bug fixes!
If this makes it harder for companies or CIO to understand then to bad go buy Windows.
When I download the latest stable kernel then I should be to trust that it is 99.9% stabilized and that there are no huge changes from the pervious point release.
Maybe I just don't get it but why would you want to run MacOSX on the Pegasos board? Don't get me wrong I love the idea of a PPC board and I'll be getting one as soon as I get a job. But I'll be getting it to replace the piece of crap x86 board in my Linux box.
Yes, I'll admit I'm a mac user and I love my powerbook. I personally find OSX to by the greatest OS ever, with OpenBSD and Linux taking a very close second. And for me this is where the Pegasos fits perfectly, I can now run all my system on PPC. A nice PPC OpenBSD server, serving files, web, and email to my OSX laptop and my PPC Linux desktop (until I can afford my G5).
I personally can't wait for the day when I can add "x86 free" to my "Microsoft free since 1998", tag-line. A perfect world is one where I don't have to use MS and/or x86 for anything!
If you want OSX then help Apple and buy Apple hardware. If Apple can't sell hardware then they don't write software and then we're stuck with that nasty Windows UI (and just for the flame bait I'm lumping Gnome and KDE into this, since they can't seem to come up with an original UI design) And just to piss everyone off I'll even throw Apple under the bus and point out that the "New and Improved" finder under 10.3 really looks like crap.
Porting KDE to Win2k/XP is the dumbest idea I have ever heard. It's dumber then a friend of mine who clipped a 9 volt to his balls. If you want to play games buy a Game Cube. If you want to run a stable computer then use a *nix. Or better yet encourage your game maker to write that game in OpenGL so its easier to port to OSX or Linux.
AFS and CODA have been doing this on unix for many, many years. And there was an AFS port for OS X 10.1.5 I'm not sure of the status of the port for OS 10.2.
Why is it that everyone is trying to drive OSS into the corperate business model. I realize that developers of GNOME, KDE, X, Linux, BSD, etc. need machines to test on but this is after all their hobby. And isn't the point of OSS that the community should be involved, by testing, troubleshooting, and dare I say fixing bugs. So that the developer doesn't have to test on every platform out there. People need to stop assuming that it's the responsibility of the core project developers to add all the features, to find all the bugs, and test every piece of hardware. Linux managed to become a stable, robust, and usable system ads to fund it's development.
So come on people, if you have to get paid to develop OSS then you probably shouldn't be developing OSS. OSS is a hobby it's done in the evenings, on the weekends, on vacation, and during those sleepless nights. If you really want to support your favorite project download gcc, cvs, and vim and get started.
It was my understanding that even if you register that you need Xmbits of bandawidth USB more or less ignores that, kind of like USB 1.x. Could be wrong.
And both were good choices! Bluetooth interfers with 802.11b networks and doesn't provide any real value that 802.11b doesn't. USB 2.0 doesn't have any advantages over firewire, other then having the USB name. Firewall is faster, less CPU intensive, and a real open standard. It's an IEEE standard not an Intel standard.
Whatever happened to the 'may the technically superior solution win' mentality here on /.?
That's what's happening. USB 1.1 and firewall were designed for different markets. USB 1.x low bandwidth, hot pluggable devices, such as keyboards, mice, modems, speakers, etc. It replaced serial port, printer port, ps/2 port, etc. Firewall was designed for high bandwidth, high throughput, multimedia devices. Such as disk drives, video cameras, DVD/CD writers,tape backups, etc. USB 1.x is great at what it does but I'm not sure trying to make expand it's roll is a good thing.
Sometimes we have to step back and realize that it's just software. That's like saying the printing press just pressed paper. There is far more to the Internet than "just software". When the printing was invented it allowed people to share ideas that couldn't be shared before; literacy soared, knowledge increased, and people become more wealthy. A true revolution in information. Then nothing changed for three hundred years. Literacy dropped and the middle class became disheartened with the revolution because, businesses began controlling the flow of information. It became difficult (expensive) for people to publish to the masses, it became easier for businesses and government to censor what they didn't like. Then the Internet comes along people could once again publish freely and cheaply to large audiences, hobbiest could release software that challenges multi-billion dollar companies, and people could once again feel free from the control of businesses and goverenment. I completely agree with Mr. Katz and Hannah Arendt and revolution is a "spiritual" thing not a monetary thing. Free software is about people who love to code doing what they love. They will be here after the Internet has "evolved" into something, after all the .Coms are gone, and after all the Linux vendors have closed their doors. That's the revolution, because those people will still be writing better code then any corporation on the planet.
The debate shouldn't be over Windows or IE. Neither one will last long with out Office. And Office won't last long without it's file formats. Why do people run Windows? 1) It come preinstalled - A lot of vendor now give a choice of OS. 2) New users don't know the difference - This is just marketing. Linux, BSD, Mac could capture the same market. 3) To run Office - They use it at work, at home, and at school. This is the only reason for running Windows that can't currently be answered on another platform. (Beside Mac, but artists don't write j/k ;-)
Why do we run Office, because we need to share information. We send files to friends, co-workers, fellow students, and professors. We need to know that the document will look the same when it gets there. If your running the same version Office everwhere then you know the data will always be the same.
So now we have two answers this problem.
1) Break-up MS forcing them to port Office to every OS out there (or at least the ones with the biggest user base), as well as making easy for other office suite to become popular. But this bring back memories of the late 80s. WordPerfect 5.1 5.2 6.0 6.0 for Windows, Word Star, Ami Pro, Word Pro, Word, Works, and many more the worst part is none imported and exported quite right.
2) Develop a set of cross-platform open file formats for wordprocessors, spreadsheets, presentations, etc. I'm thinking something XML based, get it supported by all the great opensource office apps, mix in a little marketing and show the world there are other alteratives.
Let the office suites fight over easy of use, functionality, and stability. Not file format.
This is the best idea! Besides my PowerBook G3 400 out runs my PIII 500 desktop at just about everything. To be honest it really isn't that much slower then my 1ghz duron at most things.
It was my understanding that there is a 64-bit version of the PowerPC, I think IBM uses them (Power4). But I completely agree this is how I see it playing out. AMD currently doesn't have a major software vendor for it's 64-bit chip (linux supports it but won't carry the chip). So Apple should continue to the PPC in it's low end consumer workstations, and the 64-bit AMD in a new server line. Let OS X go head-to-head with Win200X on the 64-bit intel chip. Personally my money would be on Apple/AMD, OS X is far more stable then anything I've run and AMD chip will out run anything Intel can ship. Then as 64-bit chips work their way into the consumer market Apple has two different hardware platforms to sell.
Person I think it sounds more like CORBA. Which IMHO provides a much nice environment. Cross-platform, language neutral, etc., etc.
I really find it annoying when people talk about the cable companies, DiectTV included, as selling a service. If they were truly selling a service I would be better off having it then not having it. They would be interested in what I want and I would have to watch commercials. Broadcast TV is selling a service, they sell airtime to advertisers. DirectTV is selling the same service but now feels the need to rape the viewing audience by changing way to much for the "service". But on the flip side I find this whole thing very funny. Bravo to the programmers at hughes and the hackers who will figure out away around this.
The Ameba OS was a complete distributed OS. It featured distributed disk space, memory, and processor.