Nature has the article in April 2012 'Signatures of Majorana Fermions in Hybrid Superconductor-Semiconductor Nanowire Devices': [ http://www.sciencemag.org/cont... ]
The patches do not make the box "uber faster for its purpose" no matter how much I'd like that.
Con has concentrated on the end user experience, perceived speed if you like. So he advocates boosting priority on processes which are 'interactive' i.e. the program you are working with. He has been lowering latencies and avoiding swap usage and reading ahead data. He also does not like stalls in his IO-scheduler, therefore he chooses the Fair 'CFQ' scheduler as default (instead of AS). While these measures might improve your desktop experience, I seriously wonder if your TPC's would improve. He has really put a lot of effort into the Desktop experience and has released a server version of his patchset in which he disables the interactivity bits and rules out some things which do not make any sense on the server like having HZ=1000 for the process-scheduler. However, Con hasn't got big iron in his room and I would not (yet) advocate his server patch for any server.. Just as much as I would not use 2.6.17 vanilla in a production environment. That being said I like Con's patches, I run it on my desktop and squeeze it even a little more.
Pretty Pretty Please, send us some new Flux Capacitors.. The French have broken our last one.
ATM money spill joke? Oh No, Not funny at all..
on
Windows XP Embedded
·
· Score: 1
>News.com notes that this will be used in slot >machines and ATMs. Insert obligatory free-money >joke.
Well, I don't think it is funny at all. I've seen Windows NT SP-6 crash an ATM about one and a half month ago..
It had allready absorbed my card and it bloody bluescreened, after a while, it decided to reboot. I was happy to see it was a standard procedure of the machine to spit out an inserted card after reboot..
About two weeks ago, the 'same', thing happened but than with a missing DLL or something. Anyway, it had eaten my card and d*mnit, again it choose to not continue it service but show me a dialog screen on which I was supposed to click 'OK'..
After a while I returned to the machine and it had blanked. A few hours later, (I had my card blocked), they found my card and I could unlock my card again.
I sincerely hope the dutch banks (these were two different banks at which this happened) switch to Linux ASAP. (Please note and Mind you; they do not want you at the counter no more!)
If they'll start applying XP on these, I'll be returning to the sock under my pillow.
Marcello is maintaining 2.4.15> because Alan Cox won't, it seems he made a personal choice.
Alan Cox is going to be in touch more with the customers of his employer, RedHat.
Marcello is a knowledgeable guy, he has proven to be sceptical and is imho able to discriminate well between a 'bad' patch and a Good(TM) patch. Alan said he would assist and advice Marcello if he needed help.
If you want to know more about Alan Cox, please search google for Alan's diary and website. (Or try Telsa's website, might be even more fun to read.)
I believe it was Andrew Morton who said it could be improved by an order O 1 * 10^6 in speed. I don't know wether _that_ happened but I do know I saw something like "swapoff improvements" lately.
So please try a later kernel and I just bet your problems will fade.
I have tried the VM in 2.4.10-pre12 and in 2.4.10-pre15 although I have patched the latter with a Preemptionpatch and a speedup for reiserfs.
The VM has long been a problem because of highmem issues. It seems troublesome to keep every party happy (and that is what Linus tries to accomplish, atleast that is how it seems from my perspective.)
I must say the sluggishness of 2.4.7 and before is gone. The changes made in 2.4.10-pre11 are really helpfull and it stabilized (with regard to my system. ie: results might differ on your setup.) quite fast. I am fairly happy with 2.4.10-pre15-preempt-reiserfs.
I hope Linus gets his guts together and starts out with 2.5.x. Let Alan Cox or Ted T'so fix the brown-paper bag bugs.., I am really looking forward to all those new ideas I keep hearing about. Rik van Riel has cool ideas, ALSA inclusion and lots of other stuff.
I know that when it is not specified what Foo(x) with x!=0, I should not rely on whatever Foo 'd give me in case x unequals 0. One can spend hours on avoiding such subjectively and intuitively appealing thinking. It sucks, I agree, but pays.
> then maybe you should stop doing most of your coding in VB.
No need to become antagonistic.
So the behavior was not supposed to be in the API to begin with.
The Interface of the kernel, the part that communicates with the userside of the world, is supposed to stay stable! It is supposed to stay stable until hell freezes over.. Only the _implementation_ of the interface, the 'black-box' part, is changed to meet the needs of the kernelhackers.
The Interface _only_ changes during uneven minor versions 2.3.x or 2.1.x or 2.5.x etc..
> it would strike me as very odd if some of these "features" don't exist.
They do exist but it is very wrong to rely on them. They lead to spaghetticode if you do. Best would be to report such inconsitencies to the people who deal with the interface, if you find them.
"Kantian moral dictates to never see persons as pathways, but always as objectives."
> There's often a good reason why "EXPERIMENTAL" features are called that, even though sometimes it seems political - reiserfs, for example, is pretty safe - reported problems with it usually turn out to be hardware failures.
Sometimes features are just being called EXPERIMENTAL in Linux Kernel because there are not enough people who'd just respond to the maintainer saying: "It is doing fine now."
This, I can imagine, is very common for people take notice when something does _not_ work instead of when things do work..
PS. Oh.. ReiserFS is totaly safe for me.. Sometimes I just hit reset out of boredom to see it getting up without fsck-ing and filling up lost+found:)) I should tell those people things are working really fine!
"Kantian moral dictates to never see another person as pathway but allways as objective"
You may find it stupid or not, but putting out the garbage too early in the Netherlands is considered an 'environmental offence', I was fairly surprised too that they open the bags. I can really live with them opening my stinking garbagebags because I really would not like everyone to put out their trash whenever _They_ feel like it.. (*cough*)
And what the heck is wrong with openness. (I atleast expect support on Slashdot on this argument) Yes we do have nametags on every bloody door.. I think it is just sick that someone is even suspicious of the threat of 'stealing an identity'.
No, I do not mind my neighbours or for that matter you to be able to see me eating spaghetti every day because I like spaghetti (Hypothetically)
I consider Open(TM) windows, Large windows a lot better than windows-with-bars with gunowners behind them which are so scared or others that they'll shoot you as soon as you set one foot on their property. (And happily call that a right!)
I think I live in a, from a certain perspective, naive society.. But I am happy to be naive than!
Mister Shirky, you are becomming a professor in new media, a field which encompasses a lot of questions and little answers, such is normal for every prof'ship, but particulary yours..
The GPL and other 'open' licences, (titles and names keep confusing me), protect intellectual property from getting abused by a firm or such. It may be used but not abused. We may or may not both agree on this.. However.. There is much controversy around protecting intellectual property (IP) in another way..
What is the minimum kind of innovation, according to you, someone should have made in order to be able to obtain a patent?
What size innovation will increase innovational momentum? Would an innovation threshold be describable? I feel that size of innovation is the exact point of 'inner conflict'.. How can we answer what innovation justifies protection or whether we should say "no, such is trivial.."..
Some might think this question to be offtopic but really I think this to be thriving development.. And any future decision about 'minimum' innovation in order to get a patent will contain the answer to speed of development and speed of integration of new technology into the society.. (That is the part that is relevant to me, and my fellow earthlings ofcourse.. )
Slashdot Mirror
Nature has the article in April 2012 'Signatures of Majorana Fermions in Hybrid Superconductor-Semiconductor Nanowire Devices':
[ http://www.sciencemag.org/cont... ]
Which led to reports in popular online media:
[ http://news-beta.slashdot.org/... ]
The patches do not make the box "uber faster for its purpose" no matter how much I'd like that.
Con has concentrated on the end user experience, perceived speed if you like. So he advocates boosting priority on processes which are 'interactive' i.e. the program you are working with. He has been lowering latencies and avoiding swap usage and reading ahead data. He also does not like stalls in his IO-scheduler, therefore he chooses the Fair 'CFQ' scheduler as default (instead of AS). While these measures might improve your desktop experience, I seriously wonder if your TPC's would improve.
He has really put a lot of effort into the Desktop experience and has released a server version of his patchset in which he disables the interactivity bits and rules out some things which do not make any sense on the server like having HZ=1000 for the process-scheduler. However, Con hasn't got big iron in his room and I would not (yet) advocate his server patch for any server.. Just as much as I would not use 2.6.17 vanilla in a production environment.
That being said I like Con's patches, I run it on my desktop and squeeze it even a little more.
Pretty Pretty Please, send us some new Flux Capacitors.. The French have broken our last one.
>News.com notes that this will be used in slot >machines and ATMs. Insert obligatory free-money >joke.
..
Well, I don't think it is funny at all. I've seen Windows NT SP-6 crash an ATM about one and a half month ago..
It had allready absorbed my card and it bloody bluescreened, after a while, it decided to reboot. I was happy to see it was a standard procedure of the machine to spit out an inserted card after reboot..
About two weeks ago, the 'same', thing happened but than with a missing DLL or something. Anyway, it had eaten my card and d*mnit, again it choose to not continue it service but show me a dialog screen on which I was supposed to click 'OK'
After a while I returned to the machine and it had blanked. A few hours later, (I had my card blocked), they found my card and I could unlock my card again.
I sincerely hope the dutch banks (these were two different banks at which this happened) switch to Linux ASAP. (Please note and Mind you; they do not want you at the counter no more!)
If they'll start applying XP on these, I'll be returning to the sock under my pillow.
tssk.
Marcello is maintaining 2.4.15> because Alan Cox won't, it seems he made a personal choice.
Alan Cox is going to be in touch more with the customers of his employer, RedHat.
Marcello is a knowledgeable guy, he has proven to be sceptical and is imho able to discriminate well between a 'bad' patch and a Good(TM) patch. Alan said he would assist and advice Marcello if he needed help.
If you want to know more about Alan Cox, please search google for Alan's diary and website. (Or try Telsa's website, might be even more fun to read.)
>In 1995 or so, I saw a job being advertised, for which one of the minimum requirements was 10 years' Java experience...
Oh.. well, this one is easy indeed.. They were obviously refering to 'hacker years' which are approximately just as long as one 'dog year'.
Update to comment posted above,
in the Changelog of 2.4.10-pre4 it reads:
"- Hugh Dickins: swapoff cleanups and speedups"
So Hugh fixed the problem in the end.
I believe it was Andrew Morton who said it could be improved by an order O 1 * 10^6 in speed. I don't know wether _that_ happened but I do know I saw something like "swapoff improvements" lately.
So please try a later kernel and I just bet your problems will fade.
I have tried the VM in 2.4.10-pre12 and in 2.4.10-pre15 although I have patched the latter with a Preemptionpatch and a speedup for reiserfs.
The VM has long been a problem because of highmem issues. It seems troublesome to keep every party happy (and that is what Linus tries to accomplish, atleast that is how it seems from my perspective.)
I must say the sluggishness of 2.4.7 and before is gone. The changes made in 2.4.10-pre11 are really helpfull and it stabilized (with regard to my system. ie: results might differ on your setup.) quite fast. I am fairly happy with 2.4.10-pre15-preempt-reiserfs.
I hope Linus gets his guts together and starts out with 2.5.x. Let Alan Cox or Ted T'so fix the brown-paper bag bugs.., I am really looking forward to all those new ideas I keep hearing about. Rik van Riel has cool ideas, ALSA inclusion and lots of other stuff.
I know that when it is not specified what Foo(x) with x!=0, I should not rely on whatever Foo 'd give me in case x unequals 0. One can spend hours on avoiding such subjectively and intuitively appealing thinking. It sucks, I agree, but pays.
> then maybe you should stop doing most of your coding in VB.
No need to become antagonistic.
> The behaviour was not correct, but ...
So the behavior was not supposed to be in the API to begin with.
The Interface of the kernel, the part that communicates with the userside of the world, is supposed to stay stable! It is supposed to stay stable until hell freezes over.. Only the _implementation_ of the interface, the 'black-box' part, is changed to meet the needs of the kernelhackers.
The Interface _only_ changes during uneven minor versions 2.3.x or 2.1.x or 2.5.x etc..
> it would strike me as very odd if some of these "features" don't exist.
They do exist but it is very wrong to rely on them. They lead to spaghetticode if you do. Best would be to report such inconsitencies to the people who deal with the interface, if you find them.
"Kantian moral dictates to never see persons as pathways, but always as objectives."
> There's often a good reason why "EXPERIMENTAL" features are called that, even though sometimes it seems political - reiserfs, for example, is pretty safe - reported problems with it usually turn out to be hardware failures.
:)) I should tell those people things are working really fine!
Sometimes features are just being called EXPERIMENTAL in Linux Kernel because there are not enough people who'd just respond to the maintainer saying: "It is doing fine now."
This, I can imagine, is very common for people take notice when something does _not_ work instead of when things do work..
PS. Oh.. ReiserFS is totaly safe for me.. Sometimes I just hit reset out of boredom to see it getting up without fsck-ing and filling up lost+found
"Kantian moral dictates to never see another person as pathway but allways as objective"
You may find it stupid or not, but putting out the garbage too early in the Netherlands is considered an 'environmental offence', I was fairly surprised too that they open the bags. I can really live with them opening my stinking garbagebags because I really would not like everyone to put out their trash whenever _They_ feel like it.. (*cough*)
And what the heck is wrong with openness. (I atleast expect support on Slashdot on this argument) Yes we do have nametags on every bloody door.. I think it is just sick that someone is even suspicious of the threat of 'stealing an identity'.
No, I do not mind my neighbours or for that matter you to be able to see me eating spaghetti every day because I like spaghetti (Hypothetically)
I consider Open(TM) windows, Large windows a lot better than windows-with-bars with gunowners behind them which are so scared or others that they'll shoot you as soon as you set one foot on their property. (And happily call that a right!)
I think I live in a, from a certain perspective, naive society.. But I am happy to be naive than!
Mister Shirky, you are becomming a professor in new media, a field which encompasses a lot of questions and little answers, such is normal for every prof'ship, but particulary yours..
..
The GPL and other 'open' licences, (titles and names keep confusing me), protect intellectual property from getting abused by a firm or such. It may be used but not abused. We may or may not both agree on this.. However.. There is much controversy around protecting intellectual property (IP) in another way..
What is the minimum kind of innovation, according to you, someone should have made in order to be able to obtain a patent?
What size innovation will increase innovational momentum? Would an innovation threshold be describable? I feel that size of innovation is the exact point of 'inner conflict'.. How can we answer what innovation justifies protection or whether we should say "no, such is trivial.."
Some might think this question to be offtopic but really I think this to be thriving development.. And any future decision about 'minimum' innovation in order to get a patent will contain the answer to speed of development and speed of integration of new technology into the society.. (That is the part that is relevant to me, and my fellow earthlings ofcourse.. )
Sleep well,
Luuk