how many damn generations did they ride the basic pentium pro architecture??
The PPro is alive and well in the form of Core 2, of course with some incremental changes every generation. P3 was a damn good chip considering performance per watt, which is why it was used as the basis for Pentium M, which in turn was further developed into Core. Meanwhile, the P4 was a damn stupid chip that should never have been released, if only for environmental reasons.
I'm pulling all of this out of my ass^H^H^H^H^H^H thin air, but we'll see who is laughing five years from now.
Make it a few decades -- we'll see who is laughing when we've run out of oil, or when you need a Submarine Utility Vehicle to drive in coastal cities, whichever comes first.
A four wheel drive would literally drive right through it without slowing at a guess.
Which is why every sensible driver should engage in the SUV arms race. As a nice side effect, we'll run out of oil much faster, and we'll actually have to start thinking about alternative energy sources.
The in-kernel vs userland distinction has always struck me as quite arbitrary. So in one case you're linked at compile time and in another case you compile them separately and go through system calls. Why should that make one of them a derivative work and the other not?
I agree the kernel vs. userland issue is arbitrary. However, think about all the closed-source software running on Linux, or opensource with other licenses but GPL v2. These are legally possible only because we make the distinction.
Sony doesn't care what you do on your PS2/PS3 as long as you do it under Linux (and under the restrictions Linux on the PS2/PS3 has). That's the sandbox you get to play in.
That doesn't explain the major restrictions of Linux on the PS3, for example the lack of graphics acceleration. Or does it?
Could some homebrew Linux game take a noticeable share of PS3 game sales?
Could the pirates copy and run PS3 games under PS3/Linux somehow? (perhaps using the curses library of black perl?-)
I don't think these scenarios have much of an effect, since even if they happen, they require the installation of Linux which already weeds out many users.
I want to share about 30-40Kpbs and have intelligent performance algorithms managing the rest, I want to have my transmissions encrypted while allowing others to SHARE my web-access. (I know that's a big word, like "communist").
Me too. However, I think the main problem is with ISPs who don't want you to share your connection. Some operators do allow FON, apparently since it's a closed and logged system, but as another business it goes against the ideals of sharing, IMHO.
You could have used 'admin' or 'administrator' which is a relatively vendor-neutral term, whereas 'root' is associated with unix. Unix people know you mean 'root' if you say 'admin', but Windows people may not know you mean 'admin' if you say 'root'. I mean, there's even a widely used title called 'unix admin'. Besides, writing 'ROOT' is confusing while you use 'GIGO' as an initialism, which 'root' is not.
Actually, as I looked at the demo, I couldn't help feeling like all that virtual space was looking like a damn nice desktop environment.
I thought so too. This was a nice example of how you can handle lots of visual data via a limited screen, and one solution I'm very familiar with are virtual desktops. I couldn't stand using a computer without them, as you can easily focus on one task in one desktop. Windows and OS X in comparison look incredibly messy, as they attempt to present all of the computer's capabilities at once. I actually prefer a relatively small screen, and I've come to greatly appreciate the idea that computers let you work with much more data than what you can see at once.
So, I'm quite happy with simple virtual desktops, and this demo brings to mind some problems I have with 3D desktops like Compiz/Beryl. UI elements, most notably text, are designed to be exactly aligned with screen pixels. For example subpixel font rendering is completely lost when you rotate the desktop cube, and the abrupt transition from sharp to blurry breaks the spatial illusion. In addition, there's a kind of motion sickness that distracts from the actual work. It's fun for a while, but like other kinds of desktop animation it's mostly a distraction.
>> "XP couldn't run Firefox, Thunderbird, MS Word, MS Excel, and SSH all at once with 512MB of installed RAM"
Only an ignorant honkey would expect to run all that crap with half a stick of RAM.
I think some whining is in order, because Linux (and probably BSDs, etc.) can do the equivalent just fine with half a gig. Even with Firefox and OpenOffice being notorious memory hogs. There's something wrong with the idea that hardware is used to fix software errors, it should be the other way around.
By your logic you just condemned the GNU license in that: it takes away your freedom to 'not release' changes you have made to GNU'ed software
Not true. It's OK not to release any chnages you make to a GPLd software. The only requirement is that software must come with its source code. For example, if a company uses and modifies GPLd software internally, they don't have to release any changes to the outside world. Also, you can sell a piece of GPLd software to one person, and you don't have to distribute the source to anybody else.
Please note what the GP said:
They're going to happen anyway, but if they all happen with different shapes (like USB memory sticks), you won't be able to design a camera or mp3 player that uses them as internal storage.
Actually, Fortran can be quite good at parallel stuff. It just depends on the type of parallelism, I'd take its multi-threaded approach sucks a bit [like most explicit multi-threading], however if you rely on loop vecotrization Fortran 90 is ahead of the game with its explicit loop handlers (forall, array assignment) and reduction statements (sum, count,...) allowing a compiler to take explicit advantage of such especially on SMP systems. Its possibly worth noting that a lot of parallel programs already exists in the form of academic codes in the languages you mention, its not new for anything but the mainstream desktop.
I agree completely. In this discussion, people should note that there are different kinds of parallelism, and Fortran 90 has solved the problems of data-level parallelism (e.g. matrix math) a long time ago.
I just find it strange that people see parallelization as a recent problem that only came up when AMD and Intel introduced multicore x86. Multiprocessor systems have been used for decades and I thought the basic problems were already solved.
Something like this exists in many languages, for example Fortran with its built-in matrix math and the map() construct in Python. The problem is that people don't use these languages, and while they stick with something like C they are forced to reinvent the wheel with things like explicit threads.
Now don't get me wrong, I hate DRM in all forms, but isn't this just like saying if I lock my door with a lock that is easily pickable, then it's ok for someone to break in?
This is probably true if you think about insurance business. Likewise, trademark law requires the owner to actively defend the trademark.
Of course, the main problem with these analogies is that basic copyright still applies; you can break CSS in order to watch the movie on Linux, but you're not allowed to distribute tons of copies.
The precedent sounds rather strange to me though, it's like saying "if enough people are breaking the law, the law doesn't apply".
Nothing strange there IMHO, considering the following:
This is how advocates of nonprofit 'piracy' have often argued. The law should represent common morality, so whatever a significant portion of people do should not be illegal.
This ruling is similar to saying that you can legally break ROT13 and press Shift while loading a CD. It's saying that if CSS is so easy to break then it doesn't deserve any legal protection. Much like insurance companies that have standards for bike locks.
... But you can get even better deals on Dells by hunting around at Edealinfo or Fatwallet. I just ordered a Dell laptop yesterday that ended up being significantly cheaper than the e1505n, and yet it comes with Vista Home Premium (it was some kind of educational/affiliate/whatever discount that I found on Fatwallet).
In market economy, you can send an important message to the vendor that you don't want Windows, and hopefully hardware and software makers catch the drift. Windows reminds me of the 5-year plans of Soviet Union where government dictates what the people need, and produces one OS for everyone.
If people were smart (same goes for society as a whole, too), we'd build houses that took much less energy to heat and cool. Instead, houses are cheap, flimsy cardboard boxes, so we waste enormous resources every summer/winter fighting the laws of thermodynamics.
Don't get me started on all these "always on" devices that draw power even when they're "off".
Funny, I've just read about an experimental house that is heated by the waste heat of household electronics. The extra insulation means it only needs additional heating for a couple of weeks in the winter, and this is in Finland of all places:) Article in Finnish
Slashdot Mirror
The PPro is alive and well in the form of Core 2, of course with some incremental changes every generation. P3 was a damn good chip considering performance per watt, which is why it was used as the basis for Pentium M, which in turn was further developed into Core. Meanwhile, the P4 was a damn stupid chip that should never have been released, if only for environmental reasons.
Make it a few decades -- we'll see who is laughing when we've run out of oil, or when you need a Submarine Utility Vehicle to drive in coastal cities, whichever comes first.
Which is why every sensible driver should engage in the SUV arms race. As a nice side effect, we'll run out of oil much faster, and we'll actually have to start thinking about alternative energy sources.
I agree the kernel vs. userland issue is arbitrary. However, think about all the closed-source software running on Linux, or opensource with other licenses but GPL v2. These are legally possible only because we make the distinction.
DNA is digital, and since god only created the world 6000 years ago, he may as well have used DNA which has been around much longer ;)
That doesn't explain the major restrictions of Linux on the PS3, for example the lack of graphics acceleration. Or does it?
I don't think these scenarios have much of an effect, since even if they happen, they require the installation of Linux which already weeds out many users.
I'm not too familiar with that term. Does it mean the person who reads your G-mail?
For the TCP/IP stack, I presume.
Me too. However, I think the main problem is with ISPs who don't want you to share your connection. Some operators do allow FON, apparently since it's a closed and logged system, but as another business it goes against the ideals of sharing, IMHO.
You could have used 'admin' or 'administrator' which is a relatively vendor-neutral term, whereas 'root' is associated with unix. Unix people know you mean 'root' if you say 'admin', but Windows people may not know you mean 'admin' if you say 'root'. I mean, there's even a widely used title called 'unix admin'. Besides, writing 'ROOT' is confusing while you use 'GIGO' as an initialism, which 'root' is not.
I thought so too. This was a nice example of how you can handle lots of visual data via a limited screen, and one solution I'm very familiar with are virtual desktops. I couldn't stand using a computer without them, as you can easily focus on one task in one desktop. Windows and OS X in comparison look incredibly messy, as they attempt to present all of the computer's capabilities at once. I actually prefer a relatively small screen, and I've come to greatly appreciate the idea that computers let you work with much more data than what you can see at once.
So, I'm quite happy with simple virtual desktops, and this demo brings to mind some problems I have with 3D desktops like Compiz/Beryl. UI elements, most notably text, are designed to be exactly aligned with screen pixels. For example subpixel font rendering is completely lost when you rotate the desktop cube, and the abrupt transition from sharp to blurry breaks the spatial illusion. In addition, there's a kind of motion sickness that distracts from the actual work. It's fun for a while, but like other kinds of desktop animation it's mostly a distraction.
Only an ignorant honkey would expect to run all that crap with half a stick of RAM.
I think some whining is in order, because Linux (and probably BSDs, etc.) can do the equivalent just fine with half a gig. Even with Firefox and OpenOffice being notorious memory hogs. There's something wrong with the idea that hardware is used to fix software errors, it should be the other way around.
Fortran is dead, and it has had native parallel math since 1990. C is alive and it needs ugly hacks to get parallel math.
Actually, there is probably some truth here, when you think about the emissions from the production and transportation of CDs.
Not true. It's OK not to release any chnages you make to a GPLd software. The only requirement is that software must come with its source code. For example, if a company uses and modifies GPLd software internally, they don't have to release any changes to the outside world. Also, you can sell a piece of GPLd software to one person, and you don't have to distribute the source to anybody else.
I agree completely. In this discussion, people should note that there are different kinds of parallelism, and Fortran 90 has solved the problems of data-level parallelism (e.g. matrix math) a long time ago.
I just find it strange that people see parallelization as a recent problem that only came up when AMD and Intel introduced multicore x86. Multiprocessor systems have been used for decades and I thought the basic problems were already solved.
Something like this exists in many languages, for example Fortran with its built-in matrix math and the map() construct in Python. The problem is that people don't use these languages, and while they stick with something like C they are forced to reinvent the wheel with things like explicit threads.
That's nothing, mine is as thin as five regular razors with one extra for the hard to get places.
This is probably true if you think about insurance business. Likewise, trademark law requires the owner to actively defend the trademark.
Of course, the main problem with these analogies is that basic copyright still applies; you can break CSS in order to watch the movie on Linux, but you're not allowed to distribute tons of copies.
Nothing strange there IMHO, considering the following:
... But you can get even better deals on Dells by hunting around at Edealinfo or Fatwallet. I just ordered a Dell laptop yesterday that ended up being significantly cheaper than the e1505n, and yet it comes with Vista Home Premium (it was some kind of educational/affiliate/whatever discount that I found on Fatwallet).In market economy, you can send an important message to the vendor that you don't want Windows, and hopefully hardware and software makers catch the drift. Windows reminds me of the 5-year plans of Soviet Union where government dictates what the people need, and produces one OS for everyone.
Don't you mean "C shells from the C source"?
If people were smart (same goes for society as a whole, too), we'd build houses that took much less energy to heat and cool. Instead, houses are cheap, flimsy cardboard boxes, so we waste enormous resources every summer/winter fighting the laws of thermodynamics.
Don't get me started on all these "always on" devices that draw power even when they're "off".
Funny, I've just read about an experimental house that is heated by the waste heat of household electronics. The extra insulation means it only needs additional heating for a couple of weeks in the winter, and this is in Finland of all places :) Article in Finnish
However, the real 'Linux detergent' is Mr. Proper.