IBM - I can't find their development group, think it shut down. SGI - Whole business shut down HP - Their development group is AWOL. Since they own SGI, SGI's OSS is AWOL too BBC - http://www.bbc.co.uk/opensourc... - Still there but Dirac is missing
NASA isn't a business and their open source is horrible.
So really, although open source has a lot of followers in companies, that doesn't extend to management.
When SGI got involved in open source, they contributed:
OpenGL Performer(High-Performance 3D Rendering Toolkit)
SGI Pro64TM Development Tools
Linux Digital Media Projects
dmSDK (Digital Media Software Development Kit)
Audio File Library
Linux Scalability patches
CpuMemSets (Processor and Memory Placement)
Kernprof (Kernel Profiling)
SGI kGDB (Remote host Linux kernel debugger via GDB)
NUMA (NUMA support in Linux)
Bigmem (Big Memory support for Linux)
Lockmeter (Linux kernel lock-metering)
Post/Wait (Post/Wait Synchronization)
SGI kdb (Linux kernel debugger)
Raw I/O (Enhancements to Linux raw I/O capabilities)
POSIX Asynchronous I/O (KAIO)
LKCD (Linux Kernel Crash Dumps)
STP (Scheduled Transfer Protocol)
CSA (Comprehensive System Accounting)
PAGG (Process Aggregates)
GLX (OpenGL extensions to X)
OpenGL® Sample Implementation (Standard Cross-platform 3D and 2D Graphics API)
Open InventorTM(object-oriented toolkit for interactive 3D graphics)
Linux/MIPS (Indy etc.)
Linuxï½ FailSafe (SGI FailSafe for Linux)
NFSv3 (NFS Version 3 work for Linux)
XFS (high perf journalling file system)
fam & imon (File Alteration Monitor and Inode Monitor)
OpenVault (mass storage management and framework)
CSA (Comprehensive System Accounting)
PAGG (Process Aggregates)
Linux ACE (Advanced Cluster Environment)
Accelerating Apache Project
Jessie (Cross-platform IDE)
STL (C++ standard template library)
Open SpeedShop for Linux (Performance Analysis Tool)
PCP (System Performance Monitoring and Management Framework)
LTP (Linux Test Project)
State Threads Library
Rhino(Infrastructure for System Administration Applications)
i18n(Linux Internationalization)
And other open source work included: Samba for IRIX (Windows® / Unix® Interoperability) ob1 (Sample Implementation of a Trusted Operating System)
Now, let's look at these projects. There's a lot there. Some wholly internal, some collaborative. Some succeeded, some failed dismally.
I can see no obvious relationship between who controlled it and success, scale of project and success, or any other parameters and success. It seems to have been fairly random.
If anyone wants to go through and note which ones were abandoned, which ones absorbed and which ones succeeded, that would be great. Pointless, as I'm probably the only one interested, but great.
It's a script that automatically posts that on every article. The writer probably doesn't believe it, they're just hoping that the old adage about repeating stuff is true.
They hope that if they brainwash enough people into believing their hero was defiled, eventually it'll trigger violence. They aren't for or against any cause, they want to see nominally innocent people kill actually innocent people for a fictional reason. The plotline for Battle Royale and Hunger Games, and the basis for all extremist propaganda.
The key is, none of those actually behind such efforts believed in them. They're cynical and manipulate. Real-life examples of the fictional "Talented Mr Ripley" or the equally fictional but rather more twisted Sir Humphrey Appleby. Truth is unimportant, only effect, to such people.
Pigs doubling in number isn't quite the same thing as 90 species of megafauna suddenly coming into existence at 10% the number of pigs.
We both know that.
Therefore we both know that you don't listen to the experts because they don't agree with what you believed beforehand. Has nothing to do with whether they're right.
Mathematicians declare 1+1=2 Objectors declare mathematicians have vested interest
Sometimes, interested parties lie. Yes. Sometimes they tell the truth by accident, not intending to do so. And sometimes they are indeed being honest.
Is it a better use of time to be cynical or skeptical?
Skeptics need evidence, but will be persuaded by what they see (and not by what they don't).
Cynics don't want evidence and will never be persuaded. They don't want to be, and will move the goalposts to infinity to ensure it, if they have to.
Be a skeptic, not a cynic.
You don't have to be schooled, there won't be any significant new species forming between 1970 and now, so the maximum percentage of species must be all the ones we know went extinct divided by all the ones we know about now plus the ones that went extinct, all multiplied by 100.
We don't know about cleared land, loggers aren't known for tracking such things. So we use the biodiversity of rainforests as a guide for estimating unknown species that went extinct and unknown species total. That will give us a second percentage. The tundra has a lower species count and a lower extinction level, so we've a second lot of unknowns there. Add those to the rainforest totals to get a third percentage.
We now have a spread of three possible values. It's unlikely to be below the minimum, it's unlikely to be above the maximum, it's probably close to the figure between those, but it won't be exact.
Doesn't require any schooling. Just requires a skeptical, enquiring mind.
Humanity has saved precisely nothing, just as the mass-murdering German nurse currently on trial can't claim they saved some of their potential victims.
Back story: German nurse gets it into their head that they're a resuscitation genius, so murders 170 of their patients and tries to revive them to prove it. According to the news, they did succeed in reviving one.
Can they claim to be a hero in that one case? No. Did they save a life? No, they simply avoided another count of murder.
Extinctions or near-misses entirely caused by humans are no different from the actions of the nurse. All humanity did was avoid another count of extinction.
There is a difference between a species that was no longer relevant to the ecological web going extinct and a species that was critical to the ecological web going extinct.
I want you to take those two groups of numbers and exclude the irrelevant. Then come back and tell me how they compare. Show your working.
Want a cheat sheet answer? Almost none of the naturally extinct species were relevant, so essentially that becomes zero. Almost all the animals humans have made extinct were relevant and were hunted to extinction precisely for that reason. So the 60% remains.
Sorry, you cannot compare apples and oranges unless you're making fruit salad.
How would that help? Replacing hippies with morons will improve the health of Taco Bell and McDonald's but thats about it. You still get a dead planet.
We need a seventh the global population and we need that as a fixed ceiling. There aren't that many hippies and you lot can't be trusted. You haven't the courage to do the next right thing.
Besides, killing yourself increases entropy and reduces intelligence, precisely what you don't want. You want reduced entropy and increased intelligence.
I don't expect you to understand that. I do expect you to get to the point where you can.
Don't blame others for your conduct or your imagination.
Nothing leftwing about the Soviet Union. You really need to learn a bit about terminology. Socialism is the antithesis of communism.
The left has deplatformed nobody. The right has. That's why the right is so obsessed with the issue. As long as they can accuse others of their own cruelty and censorship, as long as they can drown out others, they'll be able to impose their Orwellian fantasies.
I doubt you saw anything over your drinking glass. You were too busy reading The Sun, page 3, to care about freedoms. As long as you voted Tory or whatever other neo-fascist government you had in your country, you were alright. Never mind the suffering, the censorship, the spying, the illegal arrests, the outright executions of dissidents by the state. You had your point of beer.
So you're aware that GNU introduced features often way in advance of any standard and that the GNU syntax/semantics don't always match the ISO version.
Let's see what ISO says about VLAs:
C99 adds a new array type called a variable length array type. The inability to declare arrays whose size is known only at execution time was often cited as a primary deterrent to using C as a numerical computing language. Adoption of some standard notion of execution time arrays was considered crucial for C’s acceptance in the numerical computing world.
Does this match your experience?
Would discontiguous pools of contiguous memory, giving you the ability to make anything flexible size, be that much worse as that's what the compiler will be using anyway?
Well, most machines probably do treat a machine-level 64-bit pointer as a 64-bit pointer if the opcode says to. It's an atomic operation to load into a register, after all.
In practice, the compiler won't use a 64-bit opcode if a smaller operation is faster and will work. One reason strongly-typed languages are good for optimizers - you can place things precisely and thus work out how large pointers need to be.
That's the compiler. The machine just runs the opcode as provided.
Contiguous memory is the correct solution, yes. But nothing stops you having an index that tells you where the base is for a given offset. That lets you have a discontinuous set of arrays where each one is accessed as a contiguous array.
Examples: Memory pages in Linux.
If you go onto a different page, you have a different base address. But each page is contiguous. It works, we know it works, and except on crossing boundaries, it's t h e fastest method as you point out.
1. Calm down 2. You're assuming GNU's method is the only method and thus the standard method 3. Plenty of people staple together blocks to create virtual arrays. Some are called filing systems, some are called Linux memory managers, and there's one called GMP. It's the method underlying any potentially fragmented workspace if you don't want to keep copying. Because it's required in a lot of Linux, a standard, portable, form in a helper library would be nice. It might mean we can get rid of the umpteen queue and stack implementations, too.
There's lots of stuff in the Linux kernel that uses a GNU variant of a concept rather than the ISO variant. Often because GNU was there first. If you switch from the vendor-specific form, the isms, to the standard form, you don't change the concepts involved but you do make it more portable.
The GNU over Linux refers to GNU userspace over Linux kernelspace. So a GNU userspace over OpenBSD would be GNU/OpenBSD. BSD/BSD is 1, since you're dividing by itself.
The estimated defect density is around 0.014 (ie: about 14 issues per million lines of code). That gives you an upper threshold on exploitable defects.
However, if we can reduce that to 0.001, through Clang, which implies 325 defects found with Clang, I'm not going to complain. I'm going to cheer.
What matters is cache size, L2 and L1. Losing a few cores and bolstering cache will improve performance in quite a lot of cases.
The Key is that threads don't talk that much. The amount of shared information needed to justify cores in close proximity and a huge shared cache isn't there a lot of the time.
Cheaper SMP - not difficult with PCI-E's design - would leave much more room for the critical L1 cache, reduce the heat burden on a CPU, and potentially quadruple the number of cores (since 4-way SMP is not too bad).
Close proximity on silicon only matters when you're communicating between units. Totally independent computation can be done anywhere. Port Linux to SystemC and compile it to an ASIC if you want. Should run fine, even if taking no cores at all.
There's zero relationship between half the system services on Windows/Linux and the applications being run, so there's no gain through physical proximity. There's no latency issue to resolve.
On the other hand, those same services reduce the L2 cache space your applications have available, so your applications are fetching from main memory more than they have to, just so that the services can poll for any work, scan your computer for viruses, etc. Not essential activity when playing Elite:Dangerous or Kerbal Space Program.
Not dissimilar to splitting off cores that were connected with graphics, now known as GPUs.
I'm thinking back to a model of an Amdahl mainframe. Similar sort of concept, segregated processing.
They can't move their research overseas if the bulk of the money they need is from the government, if they rely on a clearance in the U.S., or if they need access to GFE.
(The Feds are opposed to foreigners having secrets that were public knowledge after the next Defcon anyway.)
It's also seriously disruptive to families, and few countries want to be seen to be offering space to political refugees from America after the extraordinary rendition in Italy and the U.S. threatening to shoot down the Bolivian president as he flew over Europe. Tends to chill the atmosphere.
Because most of the other actions were instigated by him. That they were invariably stupid is merely a product of that.
This decision was made by a quasi-independent group of civil servants entirely off their own bat. It's not perfect, but it's about par with decisions made by competent people.
People are often sociopathic, empathy-free and self-indulgent. They don't care when it hurts others, only when it hurts them, and not at all if they don't believe it'll hurt them.
People cared about global warming when they saw effects. In America, the ambivalence outside of agriculture is because the effects have been small for those isolated from their environment.
People don't care about far-off wars, only the increased employment that follows.
People don't care about violence, as long as it's somebody else getting killed.
Movements based on empathy and mutual support often get trashed by the majority who don't know, don't want to know, don't care and don't mind another beer.
So if the U.S. (or any other country) is becoming isolated, don't imagine it's because of some new-found maturity. It's because that country stepped on too many toes. Those other countries are looking after themselves, not the welfare of the world.
If they had, you'd have seen a very different sort of globalism, with no Neuromancer/Shadowrunner-style megacorps. Whether it would have been better or worse is something most people will guess at by their politics/religion and not by any examination. Must be good to know all the answers to questions nobody asked.
Slashdot Mirror
IBM - I can't find their development group, think it shut down.
SGI - Whole business shut down
HP - Their development group is AWOL. Since they own SGI, SGI's OSS is AWOL too
BBC - http://www.bbc.co.uk/opensourc... - Still there but Dirac is missing
NASA isn't a business and their open source is horrible.
So really, although open source has a lot of followers in companies, that doesn't extend to management.
When SGI got involved in open source, they contributed:
And other open source work included:
Samba for IRIX (Windows® / Unix® Interoperability)
ob1 (Sample Implementation of a Trusted Operating System)
Now, let's look at these projects. There's a lot there. Some wholly internal, some collaborative. Some succeeded, some failed dismally.
I can see no obvious relationship between who controlled it and success, scale of project and success, or any other parameters and success. It seems to have been fairly random.
If anyone wants to go through and note which ones were abandoned, which ones absorbed and which ones succeeded, that would be great. Pointless, as I'm probably the only one interested, but great.
It's a script that automatically posts that on every article. The writer probably doesn't believe it, they're just hoping that the old adage about repeating stuff is true.
They hope that if they brainwash enough people into believing their hero was defiled, eventually it'll trigger violence. They aren't for or against any cause, they want to see nominally innocent people kill actually innocent people for a fictional reason. The plotline for Battle Royale and Hunger Games, and the basis for all extremist propaganda.
The key is, none of those actually behind such efforts believed in them. They're cynical and manipulate. Real-life examples of the fictional "Talented Mr Ripley" or the equally fictional but rather more twisted Sir Humphrey Appleby. Truth is unimportant, only effect, to such people.
Dead species tend not to bounce back. Numbers only matter for viability.
It will take 75 million years or so to restore biodiversity.
Pigs doubling in number isn't quite the same thing as 90 species of megafauna suddenly coming into existence at 10% the number of pigs.
We both know that.
Therefore we both know that you don't listen to the experts because they don't agree with what you believed beforehand. Has nothing to do with whether they're right.
Irrelevant.
Branches of the tree of life become irrelevant ant die off. That's natural and normal.
But that is not even remotely equivalent to taking an axe to the trunk or lopping off healthy branches to make way for the diseased.
Mathematicians declare 1+1=2
Objectors declare mathematicians have vested interest
Sometimes, interested parties lie. Yes. Sometimes they tell the truth by accident, not intending to do so. And sometimes they are indeed being honest.
Is it a better use of time to be cynical or skeptical?
Skeptics need evidence, but will be persuaded by what they see (and not by what they don't).
Cynics don't want evidence and will never be persuaded. They don't want to be, and will move the goalposts to infinity to ensure it, if they have to.
Be a skeptic, not a cynic.
You don't have to be schooled, there won't be any significant new species forming between 1970 and now, so the maximum percentage of species must be all the ones we know went extinct divided by all the ones we know about now plus the ones that went extinct, all multiplied by 100.
We don't know about cleared land, loggers aren't known for tracking such things. So we use the biodiversity of rainforests as a guide for estimating unknown species that went extinct and unknown species total. That will give us a second percentage. The tundra has a lower species count and a lower extinction level, so we've a second lot of unknowns there. Add those to the rainforest totals to get a third percentage.
We now have a spread of three possible values. It's unlikely to be below the minimum, it's unlikely to be above the maximum, it's probably close to the figure between those, but it won't be exact.
Doesn't require any schooling. Just requires a skeptical, enquiring mind.
No, it really hasn't.
Humanity has saved precisely nothing, just as the mass-murdering German nurse currently on trial can't claim they saved some of their potential victims.
Back story: German nurse gets it into their head that they're a resuscitation genius, so murders 170 of their patients and tries to revive them to prove it. According to the news, they did succeed in reviving one.
Can they claim to be a hero in that one case? No.
Did they save a life? No, they simply avoided another count of murder.
Extinctions or near-misses entirely caused by humans are no different from the actions of the nurse. All humanity did was avoid another count of extinction.
There is a difference between a species that was no longer relevant to the ecological web going extinct and a species that was critical to the ecological web going extinct.
I want you to take those two groups of numbers and exclude the irrelevant. Then come back and tell me how they compare. Show your working.
Want a cheat sheet answer? Almost none of the naturally extinct species were relevant, so essentially that becomes zero. Almost all the animals humans have made extinct were relevant and were hunted to extinction precisely for that reason. So the 60% remains.
Sorry, you cannot compare apples and oranges unless you're making fruit salad.
How would that help? Replacing hippies with morons will improve the health of Taco Bell and McDonald's but thats about it. You still get a dead planet.
We need a seventh the global population and we need that as a fixed ceiling. There aren't that many hippies and you lot can't be trusted. You haven't the courage to do the next right thing.
Besides, killing yourself increases entropy and reduces intelligence, precisely what you don't want. You want reduced entropy and increased intelligence.
I don't expect you to understand that. I do expect you to get to the point where you can.
Usually quick-growing trees as they're worth more per unit time and unit area.
Don't blame others for your conduct or your imagination.
Nothing leftwing about the Soviet Union. You really need to learn a bit about terminology. Socialism is the antithesis of communism.
The left has deplatformed nobody. The right has. That's why the right is so obsessed with the issue. As long as they can accuse others of their own cruelty and censorship, as long as they can drown out others, they'll be able to impose their Orwellian fantasies.
I doubt you saw anything over your drinking glass. You were too busy reading The Sun, page 3, to care about freedoms. As long as you voted Tory or whatever other neo-fascist government you had in your country, you were alright. Never mind the suffering, the censorship, the spying, the illegal arrests, the outright executions of dissidents by the state. You had your point of beer.
So you're aware that GNU introduced features often way in advance of any standard and that the GNU syntax/semantics don't always match the ISO version.
Let's see what ISO says about VLAs:
C99 adds a new array type called a variable length array type. The inability to declare arrays whose size is known only at execution time was often cited as a primary deterrent to using C as a numerical computing language. Adoption of some standard notion of execution time arrays was considered crucial for C’s acceptance in the numerical computing world.
Does this match your experience?
Would discontiguous pools of contiguous memory, giving you the ability to make anything flexible size, be that much worse as that's what the compiler will be using anyway?
Well, most machines probably do treat a machine-level 64-bit pointer as a 64-bit pointer if the opcode says to. It's an atomic operation to load into a register, after all.
In practice, the compiler won't use a 64-bit opcode if a smaller operation is faster and will work. One reason strongly-typed languages are good for optimizers - you can place things precisely and thus work out how large pointers need to be.
That's the compiler. The machine just runs the opcode as provided.
Contiguous memory is the correct solution, yes. But nothing stops you having an index that tells you where the base is for a given offset. That lets you have a discontinuous set of arrays where each one is accessed as a contiguous array.
Examples: Memory pages in Linux.
If you go onto a different page, you have a different base address. But each page is contiguous. It works, we know it works, and except on crossing boundaries, it's t h e fastest method as you point out.
1. Calm down
2. You're assuming GNU's method is the only method and thus the standard method
3. Plenty of people staple together blocks to create virtual arrays. Some are called filing systems, some are called Linux memory managers, and there's one called GMP. It's the method underlying any potentially fragmented workspace if you don't want to keep copying. Because it's required in a lot of Linux, a standard, portable, form in a helper library would be nice. It might mean we can get rid of the umpteen queue and stack implementations, too.
There's lots of stuff in the Linux kernel that uses a GNU variant of a concept rather than the ISO variant. Often because GNU was there first. If you switch from the vendor-specific form, the isms, to the standard form, you don't change the concepts involved but you do make it more portable.
The GNU over Linux refers to GNU userspace over Linux kernelspace. So a GNU userspace over OpenBSD would be GNU/OpenBSD. BSD/BSD is 1, since you're dividing by itself.
The estimated defect density is around 0.014 (ie: about 14 issues per million lines of code). That gives you an upper threshold on exploitable defects.
However, if we can reduce that to 0.001, through Clang, which implies 325 defects found with Clang, I'm not going to complain. I'm going to cheer.
What matters is cache size, L2 and L1. Losing a few cores and bolstering cache will improve performance in quite a lot of cases.
The Key is that threads don't talk that much. The amount of shared information needed to justify cores in close proximity and a huge shared cache isn't there a lot of the time.
Cheaper SMP - not difficult with PCI-E's design - would leave much more room for the critical L1 cache, reduce the heat burden on a CPU, and potentially quadruple the number of cores (since 4-way SMP is not too bad).
Close proximity on silicon only matters when you're communicating between units. Totally independent computation can be done anywhere. Port Linux to SystemC and compile it to an ASIC if you want. Should run fine, even if taking no cores at all.
There's zero relationship between half the system services on Windows/Linux and the applications being run, so there's no gain through physical proximity. There's no latency issue to resolve.
On the other hand, those same services reduce the L2 cache space your applications have available, so your applications are fetching from main memory more than they have to, just so that the services can poll for any work, scan your computer for viruses, etc. Not essential activity when playing Elite:Dangerous or Kerbal Space Program.
Not dissimilar to splitting off cores that were connected with graphics, now known as GPUs.
I'm thinking back to a model of an Amdahl mainframe. Similar sort of concept, segregated processing.
They can't move their research overseas if the bulk of the money they need is from the government, if they rely on a clearance in the U.S., or if they need access to GFE.
(The Feds are opposed to foreigners having secrets that were public knowledge after the next Defcon anyway.)
It's also seriously disruptive to families, and few countries want to be seen to be offering space to political refugees from America after the extraordinary rendition in Italy and the U.S. threatening to shoot down the Bolivian president as he flew over Europe. Tends to chill the atmosphere.
Because most of the other actions were instigated by him. That they were invariably stupid is merely a product of that.
This decision was made by a quasi-independent group of civil servants entirely off their own bat. It's not perfect, but it's about par with decisions made by competent people.
The Doctor: Good men don't need rules. Today is not the day to find out why I have so many.
People are often sociopathic, empathy-free and self-indulgent. They don't care when it hurts others, only when it hurts them, and not at all if they don't believe it'll hurt them.
People cared about global warming when they saw effects. In America, the ambivalence outside of agriculture is because the effects have been small for those isolated from their environment.
People don't care about far-off wars, only the increased employment that follows.
People don't care about violence, as long as it's somebody else getting killed.
Movements based on empathy and mutual support often get trashed by the majority who don't know, don't want to know, don't care and don't mind another beer.
So if the U.S. (or any other country) is becoming isolated, don't imagine it's because of some new-found maturity. It's because that country stepped on too many toes. Those other countries are looking after themselves, not the welfare of the world.
If they had, you'd have seen a very different sort of globalism, with no Neuromancer/Shadowrunner-style megacorps. Whether it would have been better or worse is something most people will guess at by their politics/religion and not by any examination. Must be good to know all the answers to questions nobody asked.
Can you find evidence of wanton censorship when the NSF ran the entire U.S. side of the Internet?
Can you find any evidence of the alleged censorship in Chattanooga, TN?
If no, there's your proof, plus proof of deliberate falsehood by the FCC.
The big bad wolf has a vested interest in straw arguments.