Inheritance, templates, and namespaces are differences but that does not make them advantageous.
One could just as easily say that the lack of namespaces in C forces programmers to be through and articulate in declaring their symbols and functions.
Code that uses templates can be very hard to debug and compiler support is sometimes shoddy.
By a 'fuse' he's talking about the selective factory or post factory programming of a chip.
Intel has only 5 different pieces of silicon serving 150+ different Sandybridge and Sandybridge-E processors, the same is true for Ivybridge.
When the fabrication process is finished, the chips on each wafer are tested for quality. Chips that fail completely are discarded. Chips that have flaws in a core or cache segment will have that core or cache segment disabled disabled. This allows a faulty chip to be sold as a lower end model.
Similarly, if demand for a lower end model is higher than the supply of the lower end models, higher quality chips can have parts disabled so that they may be repackaged as a lower end product for marketing purposes.
All of this is done at the factory before the chip is inserted into a processor package. An additional step invented by IBM allows for firmware upgrades themselves to reprogram the chip, possibly reactivating parts that have been deactivated at the factory, or changing CPU parameters so that older firmware revisions cannot be installed (this is done with the PS3)
Intel chips are nothing more than dressed up RISC processors. The high level CISC instructions are converted into RISC micro-ops before execution. Similarly, no one in their right mind would call ARMv7/ARMv8 "reduced"
In order for an application to be perfectly portable between Windows 8, Windows RT, and Windows Phone 8 it needs to target the WinRT Run Time (related to, but not synonymous with Windows RT). Currently, VLC presumably targets the Win32 runtime which means it will run just fine on Windows 8, but not on Windows RT or Windows Phone 8.
Many of their predictions have come to pass in some form or another, just perhaps not in the way they initially envisioned or in a way that is practical and/or realizable.
Given that IBM is one of the firms consistently doing original research on new technologies that won't be brought to market for 5-15 years (if ever) I think that it's important for them to have some sort of internal guidebook, if only for motivation and inspiration.
It's a completely american product. The US Department of Commerce controlled it almost completely until 1998, when it turned over most routine administrative tasks to a non-profit organization, ICANN. The DoC still maintains administrative oversight and control of the root name servers.
that would require additional memory controllers and doesn't solve anything that can't be solved more efficiently simply by fragmenting the system memory like the Wii U does.
GDDR3 is based on DDR2. GDDR4 and GDDR5 are based on DDR3. All have additional features which are designed specifically to cater to the memory access patterns used by GPUs. The added components in GDDR chips increase cost and decrease memory density, but allow GPU memory operations to be nicely ordered and compressed. GDDRx SDRAM can be used for microprocessors (as is the case for the XBox 360 which shares it between the two, a rather ingenious implementation if I may say so), and DDRx SDRAM can be used for graphics processors (as is the case with some really low end cards), but this all needs to be factored into a cost-benefit analysis.
DDR DIMMs are cheap yes, but extra capacity adds cost and complexity. PC motherboards have DIMM sockets and motherboards with 4 DIMM sockets cost more than motherboards with 2, motherboards with 8 cost more than 4. On consoles this cost is still present in the form of motherboard design and it's multiplied by millions of consoles which are often sold below cost.
IANA handles administration and implementation of internet protocols, numbers, and symbols as specified by the various policy and engineering groups such as W3C, IETF, and ICANN.
ICANN handles development, policy and coordination. In addition to this it also operates IANA from an arms length (this keeping policy and administration separate).
ICANN (which is a non-profit corporation) was created by the US DoC specifically to take control of IANA (which is a division, not a corporation) and other tasks previously performed by the DoC. ICANN operates largely autonomously but is still subject to unilateral administrative oversight by the DoC and the DoC has final say in many manners. From time to time the DoC still takes the reigns with certain matters such as DNSSEC. ICANN operates IANA under contract which is renewed every 5 or so years.
There are several functions previously administered by the DoC which were not transferred to ICANN, such as the root zone administration. These functions are still administered by the DoC
Don't forget that ICANN gets its authority from a contract with the US Department of Commerce and the DoC can still exert veto power or sidestep IANA should it choose to do so and has done so in the past. Then there's also the root zones which the DoC still has complete control over
They were absolutely right. PC games have required full installation for years, and consoles even require significant portions of many games to be installed to the hard drive first. Meanwhile, Flash/EEPROM based cartridges are functionally very similar to USB sticks and SSDs which are more ubiquitous than ever before.
heh, that exact structure is used by most legitimate install scripts for perfectly legitimate applications installed from source or tarball. It's not required when installing from a repository but repositories are often modified by maintainers or not kept up to date.
The crux of my argument is that on Linux, root access = pwned. SELinux provides some degree of protection against malicious attacks against the system itself but almost nothing protects against obnoxious behavior and most of today's malware is more obnoxious than it is malicious. Under the current Linux ecosystem getting root access is difficult not because of any inherent security, but because administrators aren't stupid.
Sudo is close enough to root for the purposes of causing irreparable damage. SELinux is pretty good but it's a royal PITA from a UX perspective. I agree though, that the level of security achievable via SELinux and Windows NT6+ is comparable. This is assuming that we're talking about system security, not preventing users from compromising their own little sandbox. Multi-user environments are naturally stronger as you said, the user doesn't need to be able to perform system-level operations such as changing networks, restarting services, and cycling the power. The easiest way to deal with a stupid user is just to nuke their home directory and tell them not to be such a dumbass next time.
Linux repositories and digital signing are a huge strength in ensuring that users have a proper avenue to install clean software but if Linux is to ever seriously compete on the desktop it will have to contend with morons who don't care about security as they will download and install stuff without doing any sort of vetting first. Most of the infected machines in the world aren't located in datacenters under the careful eye of trained sysops, they're located in households and increasingly in developing countries which don't respect IP.
Slashdot Mirror
Inheritance, templates, and namespaces are differences but that does not make them advantageous.
One could just as easily say that the lack of namespaces in C forces programmers to be through and articulate in declaring their symbols and functions.
Code that uses templates can be very hard to debug and compiler support is sometimes shoddy.
I'll give you Inheritance though. I love classes
Those aren't clear advantages. Rather, they're a shortcut toward writing shitty code.
By a 'fuse' he's talking about the selective factory or post factory programming of a chip.
Intel has only 5 different pieces of silicon serving 150+ different Sandybridge and Sandybridge-E processors, the same is true for Ivybridge.
When the fabrication process is finished, the chips on each wafer are tested for quality. Chips that fail completely are discarded. Chips that have flaws in a core or cache segment will have that core or cache segment disabled disabled. This allows a faulty chip to be sold as a lower end model.
Similarly, if demand for a lower end model is higher than the supply of the lower end models, higher quality chips can have parts disabled so that they may be repackaged as a lower end product for marketing purposes.
All of this is done at the factory before the chip is inserted into a processor package. An additional step invented by IBM allows for firmware upgrades themselves to reprogram the chip, possibly reactivating parts that have been deactivated at the factory, or changing CPU parameters so that older firmware revisions cannot be installed (this is done with the PS3)
That's funny. The Lumia 920 is selling quite well in the EU and Asia
The 5750 is still on the old VLIW5 architecture, this optimization only affects cards on the GCN architecture
Most kernel developers and maintainers are paid employees of Novell, IBM, or RedHat.
Intel chips are nothing more than dressed up RISC processors. The high level CISC instructions are converted into RISC micro-ops before execution. Similarly, no one in their right mind would call ARMv7/ARMv8 "reduced"
In order for an application to be perfectly portable between Windows 8, Windows RT, and Windows Phone 8 it needs to target the WinRT Run Time (related to, but not synonymous with Windows RT). Currently, VLC presumably targets the Win32 runtime which means it will run just fine on Windows 8, but not on Windows RT or Windows Phone 8.
That was solder, not copper. Copper melts at over 1000 degrees centigrade
Many of their predictions have come to pass in some form or another, just perhaps not in the way they initially envisioned or in a way that is practical and/or realizable.
Given that IBM is one of the firms consistently doing original research on new technologies that won't be brought to market for 5-15 years (if ever) I think that it's important for them to have some sort of internal guidebook, if only for motivation and inspiration.
xUbuntu 12.10 is solid. I run it in VMs on both my desktop and my laptop and do all my work on it.
It's a completely american product. The US Department of Commerce controlled it almost completely until 1998, when it turned over most routine administrative tasks to a non-profit organization, ICANN. The DoC still maintains administrative oversight and control of the root name servers.
The touchscreens are about $100 a piece
It's estimated that the original 60GB PS3 cost over $900 for Sony to produce, the 360 was not much lower.
that would require additional memory controllers and doesn't solve anything that can't be solved more efficiently simply by fragmenting the system memory like the Wii U does.
It's not a design failure.
GDDR3 is based on DDR2. GDDR4 and GDDR5 are based on DDR3. All have additional features which are designed specifically to cater to the memory access patterns used by GPUs. The added components in GDDR chips increase cost and decrease memory density, but allow GPU memory operations to be nicely ordered and compressed. GDDRx SDRAM can be used for microprocessors (as is the case for the XBox 360 which shares it between the two, a rather ingenious implementation if I may say so), and DDRx SDRAM can be used for graphics processors (as is the case with some really low end cards), but this all needs to be factored into a cost-benefit analysis.
DDR DIMMs are cheap yes, but extra capacity adds cost and complexity. PC motherboards have DIMM sockets and motherboards with 4 DIMM sockets cost more than motherboards with 2, motherboards with 8 cost more than 4. On consoles this cost is still present in the form of motherboard design and it's multiplied by millions of consoles which are often sold below cost.
It used to be, but not anymore.
IANA handles administration and implementation of internet protocols, numbers, and symbols as specified by the various policy and engineering groups such as W3C, IETF, and ICANN.
ICANN handles development, policy and coordination. In addition to this it also operates IANA from an arms length (this keeping policy and administration separate).
ICANN (which is a non-profit corporation) was created by the US DoC specifically to take control of IANA (which is a division, not a corporation) and other tasks previously performed by the DoC. ICANN operates largely autonomously but is still subject to unilateral administrative oversight by the DoC and the DoC has final say in many manners. From time to time the DoC still takes the reigns with certain matters such as DNSSEC. ICANN operates IANA under contract which is renewed every 5 or so years.
There are several functions previously administered by the DoC which were not transferred to ICANN, such as the root zone administration. These functions are still administered by the DoC
Don't forget that ICANN gets its authority from a contract with the US Department of Commerce and the DoC can still exert veto power or sidestep IANA should it choose to do so and has done so in the past. Then there's also the root zones which the DoC still has complete control over
Right, at the same price.
Modern Flash memory chips have a much higher data density than any optical storage medium and prices have been falling for years.
They were absolutely right. PC games have required full installation for years, and consoles even require significant portions of many games to be installed to the hard drive first. Meanwhile, Flash/EEPROM based cartridges are functionally very similar to USB sticks and SSDs which are more ubiquitous than ever before.
Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be attributed to stupidity.
Corollary: Any sufficiently shocking display of stupidity is indistinguishable from malice
heh, that exact structure is used by most legitimate install scripts for perfectly legitimate applications installed from source or tarball. It's not required when installing from a repository but repositories are often modified by maintainers or not kept up to date.
The crux of my argument is that on Linux, root access = pwned. SELinux provides some degree of protection against malicious attacks against the system itself but almost nothing protects against obnoxious behavior and most of today's malware is more obnoxious than it is malicious. Under the current Linux ecosystem getting root access is difficult not because of any inherent security, but because administrators aren't stupid.
it's very easy to do
if [ "$USER" == "root" ] then
foo
else
echo "Must be root"
fi
Sudo is close enough to root for the purposes of causing irreparable damage. SELinux is pretty good but it's a royal PITA from a UX perspective. I agree though, that the level of security achievable via SELinux and Windows NT6+ is comparable. This is assuming that we're talking about system security, not preventing users from compromising their own little sandbox. Multi-user environments are naturally stronger as you said, the user doesn't need to be able to perform system-level operations such as changing networks, restarting services, and cycling the power. The easiest way to deal with a stupid user is just to nuke their home directory and tell them not to be such a dumbass next time.
Linux repositories and digital signing are a huge strength in ensuring that users have a proper avenue to install clean software but if Linux is to ever seriously compete on the desktop it will have to contend with morons who don't care about security as they will download and install stuff without doing any sort of vetting first. Most of the infected machines in the world aren't located in datacenters under the careful eye of trained sysops, they're located in households and increasingly in developing countries which don't respect IP.