People known to be working on getting GCC working better on Alpha are: Richard Henderson, David Mosberger, Catherine Moore. If you think any OS that uses GCC is something you would like to support, thank these people, and the others at GCC/EGCS, they are the ones that will give you the freedom to run something other than WinNT and Tru64 on your Alpha.
The Tru64 licence is still holding back the Alpha, and one has to honestly admit that looseing WinNT is going to hurt Alpha also. (Which, BTW, they are still advertizing on thier site). People on the high end of Intel hardware ($3000 to $7000 range) stick with Intel because of OS flexability (NT and Linux are good, and there are other choices like FreeBSD, etc..) Good Alpha hardware is avaliable in this range, but when you tack on the software costs, it shoots the "system costs" completely out of the Intel ballpark.
Alpha hardware has always been ahead, don't be fooled by the fact that people are saying how slow the Multia is, that came out when Intel only had 386's, and was dang fast for the time. Alphas are still fast, but you can't compare the old Alphas to the new Intels.
The Alpha market has problems because Tru64 UNIX costs soo much, and the compiler is another big $$$ on top of that. But, if you want to get the most out of your Alpha, you buy them.
If people out there really want to preserve Alpha as a choice in the CPU market, Linux could be an answer in the future, but it isn't now. Linux on Alpha is plagued with a few problems yet (or maybe it's just Red Hat Linux for Alpha?). In addition, gcc isn't bringing executable preformance to the levels of the commercial compilers on this hardware (more important that Linux itself).
Compaq would be wise to take some of the money they save cutting NT, and put a small fraction of that into patching up GCC for Alpha... Or, porting some commercial compilers to Linux/Alpha and selling them at a reasonable price (although this is a less preferable option).
If GCC can reach the level of efficency on Alpha hardware that it has reached on Intel (and now AMD hardware, see PGCC), Alpha will make a BIG come back. But, if Merced comes out before this happens, all bets are off. Alpha can beat Merced, but it will need the support of people NOW, not when Merced arrives. (Any Compaq guys out there? Hay, Mad Dog, how `bout getting the GCC guys a couple more 21264's, then we would all be happier!)
It would be very nice if Apple let XFree86 use TrueType.
Heh.. Yesterday I said something about how the IBM/G3 Linux systems might not cetch on, and several people replyed "Yea, but Apple will help get GCC up to speed, GCC is better than thier compiler." Well... I doubt it.
Apple's support of GNU has always been more hype IMHO than fact. They like to say they do to gain market share, but when it comes down to it, they seem to need to be forced to do anything. If people are going to hope it will happen, they will probably be SOL.
Think about it. IBM lets out motherboard specs for Motorola processors, hoping Linux will be used on them. What would Apple gain by getting GCC to work better with the G3? They wouldn't have people buying thier hardware, because it would be avaliable cheaper else where. They wouldn't have people buying thier OS, because if they developed GCC for the hardware, Linux would be stronger on the hardware. What's left? Well, maybe the "polish" like fonts, GUI stuff... Oh, hey, maybe Apple will let out thier font technology too, so no one has a reason to buy anything from them!
If AMD invested $1 million in Stampede, and $1 million in GCC/PGCC and had it optimized for AMD's (like say.k6.slp, k6-3d.slp, and k7.slp packages for specific tuning) assigned a single reasonably intellegent employee to handle documentation release to the Linux community for all thier other spiffy instructions for their processors...
Then, maybe AMD would really blow the doors off of Intel;-) And for a cost much less than $200 million.
The popularity of any CPU for use in Linux will probably be largly determined by how well the company pushing that processor supports the gcc project.
Intel's own compiler for the Pentiums is very good, but GCC is also great for x86, so it's popular. The commercial DEC (rr... Compaq) compiler really rocks on Alphas, but gcc isn't nearly as good for Alphas as the commercial compilers. So, Linux/Alpha isn't nearly as popular as you would expect it to be (give shear preformance factors of the CPU are masked by the results of the compilers).
I have no doubt in my mind Linux will run on almost any platform, the Linux community is very very active in getting the OS ported to new hardware.
I have doubts that PPC will become popular. If Motorola or IBM puts some money, work, and support into GCC, then the G3's will really rock in Linux. If they don't, it'll just be "another" platform that Linux runs on, but nobody really uses (much like Alpha is now). Before you consider this a flame, check benchmarks of Comercial C and Fortran compilers for Alphas and benchmarks for gcc on Alpha. And, then notice that there are a lot of people who would consider Linux, but end up buying a commercial OS and compiler for thier Alpha insted.
Re:Great Use for Old Computers
on
High Tech Junk
·
· Score: 2
My experiance with wdm, gdm, kdm, and login.app have been very bad. They work great at console, but for a remote xterminal, they weren't ready for prime time, some caused the terminal to respawn untill I thought the monitor was going to melt.
But, I just got the last version of kdm to work with "X -query xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx" so I think maybe some of them are getting closer. But, unless your really farmiliar with what your doing, and know how to kill the -indirect, I would stick with xdm, because respawns aren't a happy thing.
Great Use for Old Computers
on
High Tech Junk
·
· Score: 2
Back the truck up a second.... Are you saying that x86-Linux-binaries will run on a Linux-PPC system? Or are you saying that some of the gameing companies have ported thier game to Linux-PPC native? BIG differance.
I can believe that some companies have ported to Linux-PPC... But, AFA x86 binary compatability, you comment is somewhat misleading... (or is there something about PPC-Linux that I wasn't aware of).
Porting games to Linux by commercial companies is focused on x86 systems. They would not be open source, and the binaries wouldn't run on a G3.
It might be easy for the company to recompile on diffrent hardware after they already ported to Linux, but just because it's Linux doesn't mean it's compatiable.
Can someone please tell me how the people who recieved The Letter were choosen? AFAIK, it looks like it was just Friends and Family of people working for Red Hat that got the chance to buy stock first... "800,000 IPO shares for "directors, officers, employees and friends of Red Hat," the filing said." (Hmm... Isn't this close to "insider trading?" Well... Sure wish I would have got "The Letter";-)
It doesn't say ditching everything for Intel/Linux! "SGI will continue to introduce new MIPS processors into 2002, as previously planned, Vrolyk said...Going forward, SGI will shift its focus to the Linux operating systems for Intel-based platforms, while maintaining its investment in and support for MIPS-based systems into 2002, Vrolyk said...SGI will integrate Irix into the Linux environment"
That's the somewhat unclear part. MIPS will stick around, and SGI/MIPS hardware is something that would be a very sad thing to loose. Putting IRIX stuff into Linux is one thing, but my question is how willing are they to replace IRIX on MIPS with Linux?
When pondering a SGI purchace on the low end of the MIPS spectrum (from old Indy's for $600 to O2's that can go over $10,000), it would be nice to have that as an additional choice to x86 and G3. But, the reason I personally won't do it is because of IRIX... I could consider some of the used SGI/MIPS hardware from a financial point, but affording to keep up with IRIX is what holds most people back. SGI has been fairly supportive about getting Linux on the Indys...and I hope that continues.
GNU/GPL OS like Linux means you get the choice to put in some time to keep things current rather than putting money into OS subscriptions for something commercial like IRIX. That would be a new market segment for SGI's hardware, possably benifiting them greatly. But I don't see SGI making it very clear that they fully intend on helping Linux get up to speed and scaliable for some of the higher end hardware, and until they do that, I don't think they will let go of IRIX completely, only allow Linux to use parts of it so that it can be more compatiable with thier higher end hardware.
I'm sorry I am not as excited as everyone else about SGI doing Intel/Linux, to me, it's sorta just another Linux Hardware Vendor (which is good considering it _is_ SGI, and they are doing cool things even with Intel based hardware, but not overly thrilling). What I would like to see is a clearer stance on the scale up of Linux to MIPS, and how they might be willing to support Linux projects to help make Linux more ready for >4 CPU's, MIPS hardware, etc...
The reason Alpha/Linux isn't popular is because of GCC.
GCC is a fairly good compiler for x86, even when compaired to commercial compilers. GCC is really getting better every day for x86, literally.
But if you compare Alphas with True64-UNIX (formarly DEC-UNIX) and commercial compilers to Alphas running Linux using GCC, there is a HUGE gap in preformance. There is a simple solution though... Get the GCC guys some 21264's ASAP;-)
BTW, IBM is seems to putting faith into other people's CPU's for Linux ports is a popular idea now, check MU for a story on IBM porting Linux to PowerPC 405.
Well, currentlly, to get the newer versions of IRIX you need a support contract. Sure, they will probably have one for Linux. How are they going to not be in violation of GPL and prevent you from upgrading Linux on your own without paying them?
There is an overlapping area between Linux and IRIX, and that's where I think most people have problems. Specifically, the sub $10,000 systems with less than 4 CPU's. Linux does OK on a dual Xeon, and the low end on MIPS has a very high price tag. Then, on the low end of MIPS add a IRIX support contract, and at that point Linux has an edge.
Take the something from the high end at VAResearch, and compared it to a low end SGI (maybe an O2). But don't forget the hidden costs (SGI's wonderful support contracts, fees, licences for this and that, etc...).
That's the area where I have seen people pay for the SGI name, but would have been better served with a Linux box. But, heh... we still have a Personal Iris in use here, because it works better as a Xtermial than a Linux box (OpenGL support for one reason, graphics in general, although a good 486 will blow it out of the water for CPU preformance).
I guess I don't know off hand what sites were hosted there, but I suppose I could pick up maybe _A COUPLE_ of people who are left homeless on current.nu. (Seeing as Chris Gann got nailed by some users, I think I would insist on him vouching for you first though).
Actually, I am refering specificly to thier Insight package that they aquired when they bought out BioSym, and which has always only been an IRIX product. MSI has ported some of thier products to other OS's, so that wasn't a totally fair comment.
SGI is going to throw a lot of thier long term high dollar customers into total shock. I know a couple people personally who just bought new SGI's within the last year and don't want anything to do with Linux.:-) Heh...
Oh, this will be fun... Finally I will get to say "I told you so" to some people who thought SGI was the only way to go, and Linux wasn't even something they could consider.
What I wanna know is how the SGI ISV's are going to handle this news. Like MSI who have always been "we only port to IRIX" kind of people.
How diffrent is this book from the HTML user manual that's downloadable from the gimp site? My wife is trying to learn GIMP, and she thinks the User Manual sucks... (I learned to use it by just messing with it for over a year now, haven't read a single thing from either).
-h, --human-readable == print sizes in human readable format (e.g., 1K 234M 2G)
-H, --si == likewise, but use powers of 1000 not 1024
GNU fileutils 4.0, November 1998
Well, in Linux anyhow, I notice FreeBSD uses 4th Berkeley Distribution, May 8, 1995, and my IRIX boxes are totally out of date, I can't tell what OSF1 is using, but it doesn't support -h or -H either.
But thier experiance with systems on systems with less processing power also goes to my overall point. Your arguing the details are wrong, I'll give you that and say your right.
But, would it not then be better to start programming on something of lesser power first so you more clearly see the diffrences? Or, maybe learning about logic flow before even starting to code?
Programming and computing aside, the issue in question is, will giving children more tools help them learn? OR, will giving children more tools just make the people responsable for educating the children lazier?
My point in general is that a 4 year old at a computer isn't a good thing in itself. With good guidance, they can learn a lot. With poor guidance, they will just have another "crutch" to keep them from learning some skills they should know on thier own.
So, remove the tool, and re-analyze the situation. Find how to make things work better in general, THEN, add aproprate tools. Giving homeless people a nailgun and a truckload of lumber will not provide them homes, and a nailgun is dangerous in untrained hands.... Despite the fact it is a very usefull tool.
Give me a fish, I will eat today. Teach me to fish, I will eat long after you leave.
Internet or not isn't the point, I agree. But, I believe that the same debate came up a few years back about calculators in math class. And the conclusion was that calculators have to stay out of math for a while.
You can't learn spelling with a spelling checker. You can't learn basic math with a calculator (addition and subtraction). You can't learn grammer with a grammer checker. And you can't learn how and what a graph means with a spreadsheet.
Over the last 5 years, I have taught freshman chemistry labs, and I can honestly say, students are getting dumber. Sure more of them can reach me through email now than 5 years ago, but less of them can do basic algebra on a sheet of paper sitting in front of them in the lab with no computer in it. That's not progress.
The computer is a tool. And a useful one. I totally agree. But my point is simply that it can be a crutch too. Most of the basics need to be done with pencil and paper first for understanding.
People who learned programing with pencil and paper, and then after reviewing thier programs several times before submitting them to have punch cards made fully understand the value of writing efficent programs. People who use editors from the beginning and are just happy if things compile without errors are more likely to write bloat. I know a few people who worked with punchcards, and wrote programs by hand on paper first, and, as a "generalization" they write far less lines of code to do the exact same thing to this day, even when they are writing thousands and thousands of lines of code. In addition to being forced to do all the "extra" work was a step of "review" of thier code, because it helped to talk to others, look it over, and put a lot of thought into it BEFORE they tried to compile it. Even though they don't do that today, they benifited greatly from the experiance.
That is what I am saying. The "mentoring" needs to be there. Parents can be with thier children when they use a computer. A room full of 20 children with one supervisor is a situation with far less mentoring.
And, "Point and Click" isn't a hard skill to come by, learning how to create a logical procession of thought is something that is getting harder to come by. Logic can be taught much easier without the aid of something that thinks for you.:-)
Unlike the flamebait that I didn't respond to, I am not a Luddite. I believe that computers are useful, and have thier place, and will benifit children, adults, etc. I would like to see them in the schools. But, I would also like to see that they don't get top billing, that thier use is "earned" by proving they understand the logic behind what they intend on using the computers for BEFORE accessing them, etc, etc...
When I have kids, I'll give them a computer with a command line interface, and if they are interested in learning to use it, I will teach them. Then, when they get to be teenagers, they can have their GUI. That ought to be interesting.
Great idea, if you allow them to have one in thier own room or something. I think I will probably have a very good computer, up to date hardware and software, to make use of some of the wealth of educational software that's out there, which is mostly GUI. But, I intend to be there to keep an eye on that even. And, it will be in a "common" area, not in thier bedrooms.
As much fun as I have had drilling holes in the walls and floors and stringing stuff around to get diffrent rooms of my house to have access to a home LAN, I think I would at least wait until highschool before I let them have a computer with net access in thier own room... If then. Not sure. Hopefully, my children will be happy with using one in a common area, and will have the character to use it responsably. But I sure don't count on that, I plan on working on that, and being there, and watching out for problems, and dealing with them as they come up in a helpful way.
Yes, Yes yes yes yes yes. The internet exists to share knowledge. Children have thier whole lifes to learn, and unfortunatly not a lot of experiance to share.
Get the older people on the net. They have years of wisdom to share, that will benifit society as a whole.
Plus, if they waste a few hours looking at porn, or reading something inapproprate, where's the harm?
The risks and liabliaty is much lower.
The rewards for society are much higher. Documenting thier knowledge and skills for future generations is something that we all may benifit from someday. Need advice on a new buisness? Check Grandpa Wilson's experiances running his own hardware shop for 25 years on his web site... Need to learn to cook your own meals and save a few bucks? Read Great Aunt Jennys online recipies she developed after 40 years of feeding 8 children on a very low income....
Now, THIS is an idea I could get behind and would love to support.
Would you mind having your kid "babysitted" by a book?
Actually, this came up in the NPR debate as well. Yes, personally, I would mind. But it does depend a great deal on the age of the child. But, would you let you child pick out any book completely on thier own, not show it to you, take it into thier room, and spend hours away from you isolated with some book that you don't know anything about yourself? That's sort of the point. The supervision is missing. And, the supervision is the issue.
My point is simply, it has nothing to do with the "thing" the kid does. It has everything to do with who they do it with, or if they do it alone. And, that's where the dangers of Television and Computers come in... The children get an enormous amount of access to information that the parents don't take responsability for monitoring.
Society as a whole chose long long ago that children should listen to thier parents and obey until the age of 18, when they could declare thier independance. Anything that makes it easier for a parent to "get out of thier responsability" is something I am against.
So, no, I don't think it's wise to let them read a book on thier own as a substitute for reading with them or to them. And, if thier old enough to read on thier own and take a book into thier room to read it, it's highly unlikely they will click a button in the book and it will turn into something totally diffrent that something you as the parent saw them take into thier room. But, I sure wouldn't let them wander to the library on thier own at the age of 4 or 5, and pick something out on thier own, and take it into thier room without letting me know what it was... there are way to many things that can go wrong along the way.
I was just listening to a long debate about the internet, computers, and television in childrens lives a few days ago. They made some very good points about why computers and television should be taken out of the lifes of children more and more. The reasons were not porn, or violence, or anything that you would like to call censorship.
The cases were clearly showing that parents are relying more and more on "electronic" babysitters, hoping the kids would just watch TV or play with thier computers, and staying "out of the way." Children need guidance, even if they are not subject to "bad" influances. Children have to be taught some lessons that they can't get from "electronic babysitters."
Social skills for one. I wouldn't want a whole generation of people who developed thier social skills on Usenet and Slashdot like sites, would you? Another point was that computers don't require any extensive amount of "logic" development, and the "better" a computer is in the public eyes, the less it requires from the users. This is why you get the BOFH stories, because people are given access to "powerful" computers without being taught any "logic" skills first. If we start giveing children more computer access at earlier ages, before we teach the basics (reading, lots and lots of math, etc..) they may call the helpdesk less, but it's unlikely they will be a generation of "better hackers" because they will lack some fundemental reasoning skills.
What it boiled down to is this: Parents _must_ spend more time with thier children, and _anything_ that comes in the way of that is going to cause more harm. The list of excuses to avoid this is endless... I got a program that can teach them more about math than I can personally, they need to learn independance, I don't have time because I need to be away earning a living to support them, etc, etc, etc.... But the simple fact is, they should be learning independance, self respect, math, social skills, pride, and logic under parental guidance. The fact that the parent doesn't have the ability to teach these things is not an excuse to "let someone else do it." What really needs to be said is, who we need to be teaching is the parents, not the children. We need to give the parents the skills to confront thier children, one on one, and make them into the people we would want to be our neighbors, friends, and reletives.
That being said, sure, a donation to a school of computers is a somewhat nobel thing. My children will probably have computers of thier own as well. But be warned, if the child grows to be more involved with any device more than they want to be involved with thier parents, it is an indication of something bad. And it is NOT unreasonable to remove the childs access to television or computers if the child is unwilling to spend time with the parents first.
Aside: Look at me, I can attempt to look at my life and be self critical. I am suposadly a highly educated, responsable adult. BUT, I can't spell very well at all. And, I will say frankly, that somewhere along the line someone just pointed out a "spelling checker" to me insted of taking the time to show me how important it is to be able to do it on my own. So now, although I "educated" I am relyant on an electronic device, and trying to go back and teach myself something I should have learned 20 years ago from a parent or teacher.
Slashdot Mirror
People known to be working on getting GCC working better on Alpha are: Richard Henderson, David Mosberger, Catherine Moore. If you think any OS that uses GCC is something you would like to support, thank these people, and the others at GCC/EGCS, they are the ones that will give you the freedom to run something other than WinNT and Tru64 on your Alpha.
Alpha hardware has always been ahead, don't be fooled by the fact that people are saying how slow the Multia is, that came out when Intel only had 386's, and was dang fast for the time. Alphas are still fast, but you can't compare the old Alphas to the new Intels.
The Alpha market has problems because Tru64 UNIX costs soo much, and the compiler is another big $$$ on top of that. But, if you want to get the most out of your Alpha, you buy them.
If people out there really want to preserve Alpha as a choice in the CPU market, Linux could be an answer in the future, but it isn't now. Linux on Alpha is plagued with a few problems yet (or maybe it's just Red Hat Linux for Alpha?). In addition, gcc isn't bringing executable preformance to the levels of the commercial compilers on this hardware (more important that Linux itself).
Compaq would be wise to take some of the money they save cutting NT, and put a small fraction of that into patching up GCC for Alpha... Or, porting some commercial compilers to Linux/Alpha and selling them at a reasonable price (although this is a less preferable option).
If GCC can reach the level of efficency on Alpha hardware that it has reached on Intel (and now AMD hardware, see PGCC), Alpha will make a BIG come back. But, if Merced comes out before this happens, all bets are off. Alpha can beat Merced, but it will need the support of people NOW, not when Merced arrives. (Any Compaq guys out there? Hay, Mad Dog, how `bout getting the GCC guys a couple more 21264's, then we would all be happier!)
Heh.. Yesterday I said something about how the IBM/G3 Linux systems might not cetch on, and several people replyed "Yea, but Apple will help get GCC up to speed, GCC is better than thier compiler." Well... I doubt it.
Apple's support of GNU has always been more hype IMHO than fact. They like to say they do to gain market share, but when it comes down to it, they seem to need to be forced to do anything. If people are going to hope it will happen, they will probably be SOL.
Think about it. IBM lets out motherboard specs for Motorola processors, hoping Linux will be used on them. What would Apple gain by getting GCC to work better with the G3? They wouldn't have people buying thier hardware, because it would be avaliable cheaper else where. They wouldn't have people buying thier OS, because if they developed GCC for the hardware, Linux would be stronger on the hardware. What's left? Well, maybe the "polish" like fonts, GUI stuff... Oh, hey, maybe Apple will let out thier font technology too, so no one has a reason to buy anything from them!
Heh.. I don't see it happening.
Then, maybe AMD would really blow the doors off of Intel ;-) And for a cost much less than $200 million.
Intel's own compiler for the Pentiums is very good, but GCC is also great for x86, so it's popular. The commercial DEC (rr... Compaq) compiler really rocks on Alphas, but gcc isn't nearly as good for Alphas as the commercial compilers. So, Linux/Alpha isn't nearly as popular as you would expect it to be (give shear preformance factors of the CPU are masked by the results of the compilers).
I have no doubt in my mind Linux will run on almost any platform, the Linux community is very very active in getting the OS ported to new hardware.
I have doubts that PPC will become popular. If Motorola or IBM puts some money, work, and support into GCC, then the G3's will really rock in Linux. If they don't, it'll just be "another" platform that Linux runs on, but nobody really uses (much like Alpha is now). Before you consider this a flame, check benchmarks of Comercial C and Fortran compilers for Alphas and benchmarks for gcc on Alpha. And, then notice that there are a lot of people who would consider Linux, but end up buying a commercial OS and compiler for thier Alpha insted.
But, I just got the last version of kdm to work with "X -query xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx" so I think maybe some of them are getting closer. But, unless your really farmiliar with what your doing, and know how to kill the -indirect, I would stick with xdm, because respawns aren't a happy thing.
What the UofM Engineering Department did is a great example of where old hardware goes, and how it's still useful.
I can believe that some companies have ported to Linux-PPC... But, AFA x86 binary compatability, you comment is somewhat misleading... (or is there something about PPC-Linux that I wasn't aware of).
It might be easy for the company to recompile on diffrent hardware after they already ported to Linux, but just because it's Linux doesn't mean it's compatiable.
Can someone please tell me how the people who recieved The Letter were choosen? AFAIK, it looks like it was just Friends and Family of people working for Red Hat that got the chance to buy stock first... "800,000 IPO shares for "directors, officers, employees and friends of Red Hat," the filing said." (Hmm... Isn't this close to "insider trading?" Well... Sure wish I would have got "The Letter" ;-)
That's the somewhat unclear part. MIPS will stick around, and SGI/MIPS hardware is something that would be a very sad thing to loose. Putting IRIX stuff into Linux is one thing, but my question is how willing are they to replace IRIX on MIPS with Linux?
When pondering a SGI purchace on the low end of the MIPS spectrum (from old Indy's for $600 to O2's that can go over $10,000), it would be nice to have that as an additional choice to x86 and G3. But, the reason I personally won't do it is because of IRIX... I could consider some of the used SGI/MIPS hardware from a financial point, but affording to keep up with IRIX is what holds most people back. SGI has been fairly supportive about getting Linux on the Indys...and I hope that continues.
GNU/GPL OS like Linux means you get the choice to put in some time to keep things current rather than putting money into OS subscriptions for something commercial like IRIX. That would be a new market segment for SGI's hardware, possably benifiting them greatly. But I don't see SGI making it very clear that they fully intend on helping Linux get up to speed and scaliable for some of the higher end hardware, and until they do that, I don't think they will let go of IRIX completely, only allow Linux to use parts of it so that it can be more compatiable with thier higher end hardware.
I'm sorry I am not as excited as everyone else about SGI doing Intel/Linux, to me, it's sorta just another Linux Hardware Vendor (which is good considering it _is_ SGI, and they are doing cool things even with Intel based hardware, but not overly thrilling). What I would like to see is a clearer stance on the scale up of Linux to MIPS, and how they might be willing to support Linux projects to help make Linux more ready for >4 CPU's, MIPS hardware, etc...
GCC is a fairly good compiler for x86, even when compaired to commercial compilers. GCC is really getting better every day for x86, literally.
But if you compare Alphas with True64-UNIX (formarly DEC-UNIX) and commercial compilers to Alphas running Linux using GCC, there is a HUGE gap in preformance. There is a simple solution though... Get the GCC guys some 21264's ASAP ;-)
BTW, IBM is seems to putting faith into other people's CPU's for Linux ports is a popular idea now, check MU for a story on IBM porting Linux to PowerPC 405.
Well, currentlly, to get the newer versions of IRIX you need a support contract. Sure, they will probably have one for Linux. How are they going to not be in violation of GPL and prevent you from upgrading Linux on your own without paying them?
Take the something from the high end at VAResearch, and compared it to a low end SGI (maybe an O2). But don't forget the hidden costs (SGI's wonderful support contracts, fees, licences for this and that, etc...).
That's the area where I have seen people pay for the SGI name, but would have been better served with a Linux box. But, heh... we still have a Personal Iris in use here, because it works better as a Xtermial than a Linux box (OpenGL support for one reason, graphics in general, although a good 486 will blow it out of the water for CPU preformance).
If you know who might need a host, email me at rob@freshmeat.net.
Actually, I am refering specificly to thier Insight package that they aquired when they bought out BioSym, and which has always only been an IRIX product. MSI has ported some of thier products to other OS's, so that wasn't a totally fair comment.
Oh, this will be fun... Finally I will get to say "I told you so" to some people who thought SGI was the only way to go, and Linux wasn't even something they could consider.
What I wanna know is how the SGI ISV's are going to handle this news. Like MSI who have always been "we only port to IRIX" kind of people.
How diffrent is this book from the HTML user manual that's downloadable from the gimp site? My wife is trying to learn GIMP, and she thinks the User Manual sucks... (I learned to use it by just messing with it for over a year now, haven't read a single thing from either).
-H, --si == likewise, but use powers of 1000 not 1024
GNU fileutils 4.0, November 1998
Well, in Linux anyhow, I notice FreeBSD uses 4th Berkeley Distribution, May 8, 1995, and my IRIX boxes are totally out of date, I can't tell what OSF1 is using, but it doesn't support -h or -H either.
But thier experiance with systems on systems with less processing power also goes to my overall point. Your arguing the details are wrong, I'll give you that and say your right.
But, would it not then be better to start programming on something of lesser power first so you more clearly see the diffrences? Or, maybe learning about logic flow before even starting to code?
Programming and computing aside, the issue in question is, will giving children more tools help them learn? OR, will giving children more tools just make the people responsable for educating the children lazier?
My point in general is that a 4 year old at a computer isn't a good thing in itself. With good guidance, they can learn a lot. With poor guidance, they will just have another "crutch" to keep them from learning some skills they should know on thier own.
So, remove the tool, and re-analyze the situation. Find how to make things work better in general, THEN, add aproprate tools. Giving homeless people a nailgun and a truckload of lumber will not provide them homes, and a nailgun is dangerous in untrained hands.... Despite the fact it is a very usefull tool.
Give me a fish, I will eat today. Teach me to fish, I will eat long after you leave.
You can't learn spelling with a spelling checker. You can't learn basic math with a calculator (addition and subtraction). You can't learn grammer with a grammer checker. And you can't learn how and what a graph means with a spreadsheet.
Over the last 5 years, I have taught freshman chemistry labs, and I can honestly say, students are getting dumber. Sure more of them can reach me through email now than 5 years ago, but less of them can do basic algebra on a sheet of paper sitting in front of them in the lab with no computer in it. That's not progress.
The computer is a tool. And a useful one. I totally agree. But my point is simply that it can be a crutch too. Most of the basics need to be done with pencil and paper first for understanding.
People who learned programing with pencil and paper, and then after reviewing thier programs several times before submitting them to have punch cards made fully understand the value of writing efficent programs. People who use editors from the beginning and are just happy if things compile without errors are more likely to write bloat. I know a few people who worked with punchcards, and wrote programs by hand on paper first, and, as a "generalization" they write far less lines of code to do the exact same thing to this day, even when they are writing thousands and thousands of lines of code. In addition to being forced to do all the "extra" work was a step of "review" of thier code, because it helped to talk to others, look it over, and put a lot of thought into it BEFORE they tried to compile it. Even though they don't do that today, they benifited greatly from the experiance.
That is what I am saying. The "mentoring" needs to be there. Parents can be with thier children when they use a computer. A room full of 20 children with one supervisor is a situation with far less mentoring.
And, "Point and Click" isn't a hard skill to come by, learning how to create a logical procession of thought is something that is getting harder to come by. Logic can be taught much easier without the aid of something that thinks for you. :-)
Unlike the flamebait that I didn't respond to, I am not a Luddite. I believe that computers are useful, and have thier place, and will benifit children, adults, etc. I would like to see them in the schools. But, I would also like to see that they don't get top billing, that thier use is "earned" by proving they understand the logic behind what they intend on using the computers for BEFORE accessing them, etc, etc...
Great idea, if you allow them to have one in thier own room or something. I think I will probably have a very good computer, up to date hardware and software, to make use of some of the wealth of educational software that's out there, which is mostly GUI. But, I intend to be there to keep an eye on that even. And, it will be in a "common" area, not in thier bedrooms.
As much fun as I have had drilling holes in the walls and floors and stringing stuff around to get diffrent rooms of my house to have access to a home LAN, I think I would at least wait until highschool before I let them have a computer with net access in thier own room... If then. Not sure. Hopefully, my children will be happy with using one in a common area, and will have the character to use it responsably. But I sure don't count on that, I plan on working on that, and being there, and watching out for problems, and dealing with them as they come up in a helpful way.
Get the older people on the net. They have years of wisdom to share, that will benifit society as a whole.
Plus, if they waste a few hours looking at porn, or reading something inapproprate, where's the harm?
The risks and liabliaty is much lower.
The rewards for society are much higher. Documenting thier knowledge and skills for future generations is something that we all may benifit from someday. Need advice on a new buisness? Check Grandpa Wilson's experiances running his own hardware shop for 25 years on his web site... Need to learn to cook your own meals and save a few bucks? Read Great Aunt Jennys online recipies she developed after 40 years of feeding 8 children on a very low income....
Now, THIS is an idea I could get behind and would love to support.
Actually, this came up in the NPR debate as well. Yes, personally, I would mind. But it does depend a great deal on the age of the child. But, would you let you child pick out any book completely on thier own, not show it to you, take it into thier room, and spend hours away from you isolated with some book that you don't know anything about yourself? That's sort of the point. The supervision is missing. And, the supervision is the issue.
My point is simply, it has nothing to do with the "thing" the kid does. It has everything to do with who they do it with, or if they do it alone. And, that's where the dangers of Television and Computers come in... The children get an enormous amount of access to information that the parents don't take responsability for monitoring.
Society as a whole chose long long ago that children should listen to thier parents and obey until the age of 18, when they could declare thier independance. Anything that makes it easier for a parent to "get out of thier responsability" is something I am against.
So, no, I don't think it's wise to let them read a book on thier own as a substitute for reading with them or to them. And, if thier old enough to read on thier own and take a book into thier room to read it, it's highly unlikely they will click a button in the book and it will turn into something totally diffrent that something you as the parent saw them take into thier room. But, I sure wouldn't let them wander to the library on thier own at the age of 4 or 5, and pick something out on thier own, and take it into thier room without letting me know what it was... there are way to many things that can go wrong along the way.
I was just listening to a long debate about the internet, computers, and television in childrens lives a few days ago. They made some very good points about why computers and television should be taken out of the lifes of children more and more. The reasons were not porn, or violence, or anything that you would like to call censorship.
The cases were clearly showing that parents are relying more and more on "electronic" babysitters, hoping the kids would just watch TV or play with thier computers, and staying "out of the way." Children need guidance, even if they are not subject to "bad" influances. Children have to be taught some lessons that they can't get from "electronic babysitters."
Social skills for one. I wouldn't want a whole generation of people who developed thier social skills on Usenet and Slashdot like sites, would you? Another point was that computers don't require any extensive amount of "logic" development, and the "better" a computer is in the public eyes, the less it requires from the users. This is why you get the BOFH stories, because people are given access to "powerful" computers without being taught any "logic" skills first. If we start giveing children more computer access at earlier ages, before we teach the basics (reading, lots and lots of math, etc..) they may call the helpdesk less, but it's unlikely they will be a generation of "better hackers" because they will lack some fundemental reasoning skills.
What it boiled down to is this: Parents _must_ spend more time with thier children, and _anything_ that comes in the way of that is going to cause more harm. The list of excuses to avoid this is endless... I got a program that can teach them more about math than I can personally, they need to learn independance, I don't have time because I need to be away earning a living to support them, etc, etc, etc.... But the simple fact is, they should be learning independance, self respect, math, social skills, pride, and logic under parental guidance. The fact that the parent doesn't have the ability to teach these things is not an excuse to "let someone else do it." What really needs to be said is, who we need to be teaching is the parents, not the children. We need to give the parents the skills to confront thier children, one on one, and make them into the people we would want to be our neighbors, friends, and reletives.
That being said, sure, a donation to a school of computers is a somewhat nobel thing. My children will probably have computers of thier own as well. But be warned, if the child grows to be more involved with any device more than they want to be involved with thier parents, it is an indication of something bad. And it is NOT unreasonable to remove the childs access to television or computers if the child is unwilling to spend time with the parents first.
Aside: Look at me, I can attempt to look at my life and be self critical. I am suposadly a highly educated, responsable adult. BUT, I can't spell very well at all. And, I will say frankly, that somewhere along the line someone just pointed out a "spelling checker" to me insted of taking the time to show me how important it is to be able to do it on my own. So now, although I "educated" I am relyant on an electronic device, and trying to go back and teach myself something I should have learned 20 years ago from a parent or teacher.