You guys, I don't hear any noise. Are you sure you're doing it right? -- My Life With the Thrill Kill Kult
Thrill Kill Kult rocks..... though I like the early tracks more than the later "Disco Porn Soundtrack" era. Confessions of a Knife, now thats the good stuff...
Clarification: 64-bits means a larger address space. This means clean support for more than 4GB ram
Though may be necessary for RISC chips (need a fixed instruction/data size and known predictable boundaries to be efficient) this is not a requirement for CISC chips. Natural word size of processor doesn't necessarily equal size of data bus. In fact, the fact that they're both equal to 32 bits or both 64 bits is a fairly recent import. The I8086, I8088, I80286, M68000, MOS6502 all had address bus sizes different than the natural word length. Later M680x0 chips with the new MMU had 32 bit natural address bus, but I think it could be switched back to 68000 style 24 bits for bad programs (anyone remember 32 bit addressign in MacOS?). I think some of the new Pentiums have ability to address more than 4Gb, but no one is going to rewrite the VM code in their OS to take advantage of this. Maybe some Linux or FreeBSD hackers with more skill than I have can try. It would be interesting to see the performance on this, but many things would have to be rewritten (gcc obviously) and recompiled (pointers are now different sizes) for anybody to bother I think.
What about IBM and Power4? What OS (AIX?) and applications run on that platform?
Besides the inhouse IBM OSes (OS/400, or whatver it's called, pOS I think..., and AIX) remember that the PowerPC architecture is a subset of the POWER architecture, therefore a subset of POWER4. At my work we have a test IBM 6xx series box with SuSE PowerPC Linux on it (not going to be used besides testing, not enough third party software really for PowerPC Linux yet). With IBM software already being ported to x86 Linux, I'm sure shortly they'll have a large amount of software soon. I'm assuming NetBSD would run as well without a hitch.
He took about 10 seconds before he started talking.
He's probably on an autodialer. They call you, they get a signal that you picked up, then switch it to an available operator. If no answer, doesn't bug a human telemarketer at all. Efficiency baby, efficient on etheir end anyway. This is why those phone zappers are so effective, even if you do pick up the phone - the machine recognizes the "bad number" tone and disconnects, but if a human actually dialed the number out, they'd just hear the tone and continue on with their spiel. It probably won't be long until the autodialers hold the line a bit and analyze the end of the line to see if it's someone talking and if so keep the connection.
Of course they want to optimize their telemarketers (and not your) time so there's a fair amount of modeling going on with percentage of calls getting real people, average length of call and all that. An ideal situation would have a new call from the machine at the exact second the last call was terminated. I'm surprised there aren't more delays, though I bet if it was much more than 20 seconds you would have already hung up and never known it was a telemarketer.
My favorite is how ads are "enhancements": To further enhance your media viewing experience, Xupiter reserves the right to run advertisements and promotions
To further enhance your sensory experience, Xtupider reserves the right to beat you upside the head with a large multi-colored baseball bat.
Re:You'll shoot your eye out, kid!
on
Potato Bazookas
·
· Score: 1
Maybe they should just stick to getting a Red Rider BB gun, with a compass in the stock.
I'm glad someone is finally releasing software for the Atari Jaguar, it was such an unloved system.
Bad jokes aside, too many damn codenames that mean the same thing. Sometimes i realize why folks make stupid names like Itanium and Infinium.... no one else will be stupid enough to use them.
The HURD was supposed to let you do something like this. Every thing was supposed to be a 'server' which obviously would have defaults, but would be replaceable. Cool thing it was supposed to be replaceable system wide, per-user or per-process. So in theory I could mount ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub onto/net/ftp/FreeBSD or whatever, and you'd be able to browse the files like a normal mount (forgetting that ftp really isn't a protocol designed for that, but it's still cool).
RMS has found out that while replacing all these old crufty OSes, there's a reason they stay around; revolutionary stuff is just plain hard, for a variety of reasons.
Heh, I thought this was a troll, but this is on www.stallman.org. If this actually was written by him the "My 19-year-old child, the Free Software Movement" tells more about the whole GNU/Linux naming thing than a thousand Slashdot trolls ever could.
FreeBSD has their own announcement channels. If you look at Freshmeat, they're not even current anyway, they still have 4.5.
FreeBSD servers can take the load. Remember that ftp.cdrom.com was a SINGLE FreeBSD server for years, and hosted FreeBSD.isos and a couple Linux distros (I think they had slack and RedHat.isos as well). The problem is not that their wasn't a good precedure to announce this, but that procedure wasn't followed.
Does it have anything to do with linux being monolithic kernel?
FreeBSD is also built on a monolithic kernel. Monolithic kernels tend to be as fast or (usually) faster than MicroKernels - no message passing, everything is essentially 'global' and readily accessed. As far as monolithic goes, you might be having a brainfart about MacOS X, which is a MicroKernel (Mach) with a kernel level BSD blob (a mix of Free and NetBSD).
FreeBSD has always been able to withstand higher loads than Linux. Just been around longer. It has a more mature VM that can take the load, and has a more mature TCP/IP stack.
Not a troll, I just FreeBSD has stability advantages over Linux under high load. Linux has a lot of other advantages, take your pick. I don't know why folks get into religious arguments and start yelling over what free UNIX you should use. "You know if you use THIS free, stable, x86 UNIX-like system with a lot of application support, you're real cool, but if you use THAT free, stable, x86 UNIX-like system with a lot of application support, you're a total asshole man." I must be clueless; I just don't get it.
Not UNIX, try VAX. It was designed with a lot of the old DEC boys, though over the years as it has grown it has added more and more and put the VAX stuff farther and farther away in the deep recesses.
The average consumer (Walmart or not) has only the vaguest notion of how any of this plays out. Don't assume they have the same opinions that you do. They'd say "Bruce who?" and wonder what the fuss is about, probably even agree with the substitution since the "guy who makes their OS" (Lindows) is talking, instead of some guy they have no clue who they are. A mention of Torvalds (without Linus in front) would also get a blank stare from 98% of them probably. They don't care about personalities, they just want to browse the net.
Sometimes folks on Slashdot preach to the choir so much that they forget that there are other folks out there that don't even know the church exists. This is not a personal dig, or a flame. Just a reminder that Slashdot, for all the arguments on here, is a relatively hegemonic subculture vs. some of the real variations in the world at large.
Kwality is one of the reasons I don't trust Jaguar
Since Ford bought them out, Jaguar quality has improved greatly. From the butt of jokes, to one of the best in Europe, in fact won a JD Power survey for best quality (put whatever weight you want into that). Unfortunately Ford spend too much time buying other companies and not enough time making cars - the Focus is a great car but it has kwality problems.
I use Cygwin heavily, very cool toolset. IIRC, GNUWin doesn't use an emulation layer like the Cygwin.dll. It's a lot more native. Because of that, the GNUWin set is noticeably faster (or is it Cygwin is noticeably slower). So there's that speed tradeoff.
The other thing would be redistributing stuff. If I want to give someone an app, I have to track down cygwin.dll, set something up so they can use it. Multipl apps, well it then makes sense to give them one copy, so then you need to put it in a dir, and change your PATH.
My personal thing, use Cygwin. Slick installer, most of the chain is there, and a lot of apps are fairly quickly released (I use cygwin to track openssl progress - they have a compile within a day) while others sometimes are slower (There's a wmaker bug in 0.80 fixed in 0.80.2) but when there are no upgrades I just build it myself, its fairly complete. I compiled a few DockApps, including speyes.
For folks who just want a couple apps, maybe GNUWin would be better. Me, I like the completeness of Cygwin. Besides, cygwin has strace, and watching the cygwin/win32 exchange is real cool.
And The Register had this yesterday. Someone probably submitted from that. The submission process never was guarantee to be fair. Life somehow goes on.
As opposed to MS OSes that are also sped up by this? If anything, it's more of a threat to other UNIX vendors where Linux and other x86 based free Unices get better performance/cost ratios.
TCP/IP design is initially from DARPA. The idea was to have a control protocol for ICBMS that couldn't be destroyed. Make it packet switched, node to node, with multiple paths. Some nodes can be destroyed, but as long as you have one path, you're good. Wired had a good interview with one of the architects a while back.
This exact network design was never actually built, but heavily influenced the actual TCP/IP, which was built with help from DARPA, and a lot of work from Berkely. sockets are a Berkely thing, not SCO. Maybe a particular implementation could be IP (Intel. Prop.) but I'm sure if anything SCO would need to worry about BSD copyrights. Linux TCP/IP is pretty much written from the BSD side, including one (very annoying) difference. The original select() man page had the time you passed in being decremented by the amount of time it waited. Linux saw this, and implemented it as so. Problem is NOBODY did it this way. So now you have to remember that the time parameter you pass in is not constant on Linux. If anything, this is further proof that TCP/IP under Linux doesn't infringe on SCO stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
You guys, I don't hear any noise. Are you sure you're doing it right? -- My Life With the Thrill Kill Kult
Thrill Kill Kult rocks..... though I like the early tracks more than the later "Disco Porn Soundtrack" era. Confessions of a Knife, now thats the good stuff...
Clarification:
64-bits means a larger address space. This means clean support for more than 4GB ram
Though may be necessary for RISC chips (need a fixed instruction/data size and known predictable boundaries to be efficient) this is not a requirement for CISC chips. Natural word size of processor doesn't necessarily equal size of data bus. In fact, the fact that they're both equal to 32 bits or both 64 bits is a fairly recent import. The I8086, I8088, I80286, M68000, MOS6502 all had address bus sizes different than the natural word length. Later M680x0 chips with the new MMU had 32 bit natural address bus, but I think it could be switched back to 68000 style 24 bits for bad programs (anyone remember 32 bit addressign in MacOS?). I think some of the new Pentiums have ability to address more than 4Gb, but no one is going to rewrite the VM code in their OS to take advantage of this. Maybe some Linux or FreeBSD hackers with more skill than I have can try. It would be interesting to see the performance on this, but many things would have to be rewritten (gcc obviously) and recompiled (pointers are now different sizes) for anybody to bother I think.
What about IBM and Power4? What OS (AIX?) and applications run on that platform?
Besides the inhouse IBM OSes (OS/400, or whatver it's called, pOS I think..., and AIX) remember that the PowerPC architecture is a subset of the POWER architecture, therefore a subset of POWER4. At my work we have a test IBM 6xx series box with SuSE PowerPC Linux on it (not going to be used besides testing, not enough third party software really for PowerPC Linux yet). With IBM software already being ported to x86 Linux, I'm sure shortly they'll have a large amount of software soon. I'm assuming NetBSD would run as well without a hitch.
He took about 10 seconds before he started talking.
He's probably on an autodialer. They call you, they get a signal that you picked up, then switch it to an available operator. If no answer, doesn't bug a human telemarketer at all. Efficiency baby, efficient on etheir end anyway. This is why those phone zappers are so effective, even if you do pick up the phone - the machine recognizes the "bad number" tone and disconnects, but if a human actually dialed the number out, they'd just hear the tone and continue on with their spiel. It probably won't be long until the autodialers hold the line a bit and analyze the end of the line to see if it's someone talking and if so keep the connection.
Of course they want to optimize their telemarketers (and not your) time so there's a fair amount of modeling going on with percentage of calls getting real people, average length of call and all that. An ideal situation would have a new call from the machine at the exact second the last call was terminated. I'm surprised there aren't more delays, though I bet if it was much more than 20 seconds you would have already hung up and never known it was a telemarketer.
My favorite is how ads are "enhancements":
To further enhance your media viewing experience, Xupiter reserves the right to run advertisements and promotions
To further enhance your sensory experience, Xtupider reserves the right to beat you upside the head with a large multi-colored baseball bat.
Maybe they should just stick to getting a Red Rider BB gun, with a compass in the stock.
A recent survey of 1 million monkeys indicates that 99.99% of them say that computers are unnecessary
But the remaining 0.01% of monekys need DNS to communicate using the Infinite Monkey Protocol Suite
OpenEXR runs on Linux, Jaguar , and Irix
I'm glad someone is finally releasing software for the Atari Jaguar, it was such an unloved system.
Bad jokes aside, too many damn codenames that mean the same thing. Sometimes i realize why folks make stupid names like Itanium and Infinium.... no one else will be stupid enough to use them.
being sold for a few bugs on every corner in Moscow
Still thinking about Windows quality are we?
The HURD was supposed to let you do something like this. Every thing was supposed to be a 'server' which obviously would have defaults, but would be replaceable. Cool thing it was supposed to be replaceable system wide, per-user or per-process. So in theory I could mount ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub onto /net/ftp/FreeBSD or whatever, and you'd be able to browse the files like a normal mount (forgetting that ftp really isn't a protocol designed for that, but it's still cool).
RMS has found out that while replacing all these old crufty OSes, there's a reason they stay around; revolutionary stuff is just plain hard, for a variety of reasons.
Heh, I thought this was a troll, but this is on www.stallman.org. If this actually was written by him the "My 19-year-old child, the Free Software Movement" tells more about the whole GNU/Linux naming thing than a thousand Slashdot trolls ever could.
From the efficient screensaver dept.: POKE 53281,0:POKE 53280,0
So when is FreeBSD being ported to the C-64? Or would that actually be a NetBSD port...
FreeBSD has their own announcement channels. If you look at Freshmeat, they're not even current anyway, they still have 4.5.
.isos and a couple Linux distros (I think they had slack and RedHat .isos as well). The problem is not that their wasn't a good precedure to announce this, but that procedure wasn't followed.
FreeBSD servers can take the load. Remember that ftp.cdrom.com was a SINGLE FreeBSD server for years, and hosted FreeBSD
Does it have anything to do with linux being monolithic kernel?
FreeBSD is also built on a monolithic kernel. Monolithic kernels tend to be as fast or (usually) faster than MicroKernels - no message passing, everything is essentially 'global' and readily accessed. As far as monolithic goes, you might be having a brainfart about MacOS X, which is a MicroKernel (Mach) with a kernel level BSD blob (a mix of Free and NetBSD).
FreeBSD has always been able to withstand higher loads than Linux. Just been around longer. It has a more mature VM that can take the load, and has a more mature TCP/IP stack.
Not a troll, I just FreeBSD has stability advantages over Linux under high load. Linux has a lot of other advantages, take your pick. I don't know why folks get into religious arguments and start yelling over what free UNIX you should use. "You know if you use THIS free, stable, x86 UNIX-like system with a lot of application support, you're real cool, but if you use THAT free, stable, x86 UNIX-like system with a lot of application support, you're a total asshole man." I must be clueless; I just don't get it.
Not UNIX, try VAX. It was designed with a lot of the old DEC boys, though over the years as it has grown it has added more and more and put the VAX stuff farther and farther away in the deep recesses.
The average consumer (Walmart or not) has only the vaguest notion of how any of this plays out. Don't assume they have the same opinions that you do. They'd say "Bruce who?" and wonder what the fuss is about, probably even agree with the substitution since the "guy who makes their OS" (Lindows) is talking, instead of some guy they have no clue who they are. A mention of Torvalds (without Linus in front) would also get a blank stare from 98% of them probably. They don't care about personalities, they just want to browse the net.
Sometimes folks on Slashdot preach to the choir so much that they forget that there are other folks out there that don't even know the church exists. This is not a personal dig, or a flame. Just a reminder that Slashdot, for all the arguments on here, is a relatively hegemonic subculture vs. some of the real variations in the world at large.
Network Associates, not NSI. Both are kinda slimey, just get the slime-type right.
Kwality is one of the reasons I don't trust Jaguar
Since Ford bought them out, Jaguar quality has improved greatly. From the butt of jokes, to one of the best in Europe, in fact won a JD Power survey for best quality (put whatever weight you want into that). Unfortunately Ford spend too much time buying other companies and not enough time making cars - the Focus is a great car but it has kwality problems.
I use Cygwin heavily, very cool toolset. IIRC, GNUWin doesn't use an emulation layer like the Cygwin.dll. It's a lot more native. Because of that, the GNUWin set is noticeably faster (or is it Cygwin is noticeably slower). So there's that speed tradeoff.
The other thing would be redistributing stuff. If I want to give someone an app, I have to track down cygwin.dll, set something up so they can use it. Multipl apps, well it then makes sense to give them one copy, so then you need to put it in a dir, and change your PATH.
My personal thing, use Cygwin. Slick installer, most of the chain is there, and a lot of apps are fairly quickly released (I use cygwin to track openssl progress - they have a compile within a day) while others sometimes are slower (There's a wmaker bug in 0.80 fixed in 0.80.2) but when there are no upgrades I just build it myself, its fairly complete. I compiled a few DockApps, including speyes.
For folks who just want a couple apps, maybe GNUWin would be better. Me, I like the completeness of Cygwin. Besides, cygwin has strace, and watching the cygwin/win32 exchange is real cool.
Needless to say I have never seen a Microsoft 5 nines solution.
But I've seen some 9 fives solutions...
(OK, old joke, but I had to say it).
And The Register had this yesterday. Someone probably submitted from that. The submission process never was guarantee to be fair. Life somehow goes on.
Typo, I assume you meant GNUmake -j, not gcc.
As opposed to MS OSes that are also sped up by this? If anything, it's more of a threat to other UNIX vendors where Linux and other x86 based free Unices get better performance/cost ratios.
TCP/IP design is initially from DARPA. The idea was to have a control protocol for ICBMS that couldn't be destroyed. Make it packet switched, node to node, with multiple paths. Some nodes can be destroyed, but as long as you have one path, you're good. Wired had a good interview with one of the architects a while back.
This exact network design was never actually built, but heavily influenced the actual TCP/IP, which was built with help from DARPA, and a lot of work from Berkely. sockets are a Berkely thing, not SCO. Maybe a particular implementation could be IP (Intel. Prop.) but I'm sure if anything SCO would need to worry about BSD copyrights. Linux TCP/IP is pretty much written from the BSD side, including one (very annoying) difference. The original select() man page had the time you passed in being decremented by the amount of time it waited. Linux saw this, and implemented it as so. Problem is NOBODY did it this way. So now you have to remember that the time parameter you pass in is not constant on Linux. If anything, this is further proof that TCP/IP under Linux doesn't infringe on SCO stuff.
Hmm.. Is that Free as in beer? Or Free as in love?
Or Free as in "damn, I gotta get down to that free clinic..."