Well, Linux runs on an SGI Intel Box.. Woo. Forgive me for not doing cartwheels.
This looks like a nice public relations press piece that SGI was happy to get out. Server? Thier Visual Workstation billed as a server? Sure sounds to me like they don't have X working yet.
We knew it would make a good Linux box last year when we saw the memory I/O, and chipset, and all the fancy hardware. Nothing new there, that happened last year. We knew Linux would run on it when kernel 2.2.0 came out and had Visual Workstation patches in it. Nothing new there, that happened last winter.
So, now, we get "news" that SGI has an Intel Linux Server... If that means they are just now getting it installed right, that's sort of slow progress, considering how long ago the first reports of it running were.
Maybe I am just in a bad mood this morning, but, what this story says to me is "Well, we still haven't got X to work, we promised OpenGL, and we don't even have X working yet... We can't get enough people working on it, it's taking way too long, what can we do? I know, let's get some press on it running Linux again, call it a 'server,' and maybe we'll look like we did something good."
Don't get me wrong, I like that SGI is supporting the Linux community. I just don't see any big reason to get excited by this specific story.
wow....you are that desparate for money and glory eh...
You wanna know how much I make? It's a matter of public record... $12,000/year. Yea, true sign of someone money hungry, huh? That's a riot, I needed a laugh this morning.
No, I'm not money of fame hungry. I am just pissed off at the Scientific Publishing industry, which charges outrageous amounts for "subscriptions," copywrites every printed word in thier pages even though they don't even understand what the work is or means, and has the nerve to charge the scientists if they want/need to publish a figure in color in thier papers.
There are too many existing problems, and of all the companies out there that would exploite open source, the publication companies are probably the worst I can think of.
It can be done, but I think it's time that the power be put back in the hands of the people actually doing the science, not the publishers. I repeat I would be happy to lay out a realistic plan for getting things back in the hands of the scientists, at no charge, with out any claim of "ownership" or ask for fame. But if you want me to tell someone who already charges $3000 for a 24 issue subscription how to make more money, your insane.
Open Source has made significant inroad in lab science. But, I really don't want to see the publication end of things continuing to be dominated by rich giants who don't care about the science, only the profit margin. Giving them another low cost tool to exploit science is pretty low on my list of things to do today.
Publish or Perish is a joke. I have never seen a hard working scientist have a lack of things to publish. Yes, they should be publishing, or else they are either 1) not working 2) have bad theories or 3) already raking in lots of money because they are working with an industry and patening everything under the sun.
You think publish or perish is bad now, think about how much junk science would be out there if you illiminate the peer review process completely. Sure it's flawed, but not that bad, authors can always "resubmit" articals to the _same_ journal, and the journal will send it out to a totally new set of reviewers. I think it could be better, and I have some ideas of how, but... I'd rather see them done by the community, for science, not for money.
I saw that was comming. I would LOVE to go. I would truely love to go. I would even be willing to do a presentation on how I feel in the right hands open source, scientific publication, and the right kind of "model" could truely change how science views the net, computing, etc.
I personally have strugled with getting Linux and FreeBSD accepted at my work. I know what it's like. Also, I have delt quite frequently with a range of quality and peer review in publication of scientific studies, and know what stands a chance at working, and what wouldn't.
I'd give anything just to get a chance to go to that confrance... But, as it now stands, I am very busy getting some new work published, writing up to graduate this fall, and getting things together to present at the 218th ACS National Meeting, and 2000 PittCon.:-( So, all my money and most of my time is wraped up in that.
If there is anyone out there going, please write me, and let me know if you could take notes, tap the talks, get me a program, or anything...
I would have to say, applying "open source" to science will be screwed up at every turn.
A lot of modern journals are on-line now, but they require a subscription (of sometimes over $300). So, net access has started, that's a given.
The problem is accessability, not peer review. Peer review is valid, very very valid. You can't do away with it or the result will be the "waste basket journals" that now exist in print being on the web. There are many "free" journals that will publish anything, send it to everyone they can, not peer review, and they don't care because they get advertizing money to print the journal.
I have sketched out a very elaborate plan for an online journal about 3 months ago, and it is possable, but it would require a total "rewrite" of the whole peer review process. And, like it or not, a whole lot of money is involved. In my plan, there would be extensive peer review, yet, completely accessable to anyone free of charge across the net. And, the peer review would be structured so that "old boys" and "grudge reviewers" would be cut out of the loop. (Yes, sometimes scientists who are working on similar projects can shred a journal submission, without makeing any valid points, and the editor is forced to "accept" this review, because it's "an expert" in that field).
The whole process can't be summed up in a "slashdot" story, it's very intense, and a very serious subject. But, I can say, there is a way, and from what I have seen that needs to be done, it will be a long way off, and we will be subject to years worth of "screwed up implementations" of the process before anyone fixes it.
Being that the scientific publishing world is a very high dollar buisness, I won't spell out how I think it can be done _correctly_, because I don't want to see someone else who is already exploiting scientists get a better idea to further rape the real solid scientists out there.
Now, if there were about a dozen strong willed, hard working scientists with the support of about a dozen hard working coders that were masters of system admin, web servers, and php3/sql, I would be happy to share the ideas I have _privately_ with them, only if they were willing to work on it, debate it, and develop something that worked the way _science_ should (meaning, the good work doesn't go unnoticed because it's not popular, the bad work was pointed out quickly and the authors shown the real holes in thier assumptions by real helpfull experts, and the scientists benifited from the process insted of further feeding the wealth of the publishing world).
Don't get me going on this, because it's an ugly mess, and slashdoting solid science isn't the answer. For one, slashdot is a "discussion/news" forum, and if a story isn't "accurate" it fades away into the archives before someone invests half a million dollars and 3 years of work trying to build on that idea.
Anyone besides me hoping for something similar to SGI going on here? (If I were to wish for IRIX-Highend->Linux-Lowend vs. AIX-Highend->Linux-Lowend, I think I'd pick IBM before SGI, given the service I have seen both show thier users in the past).
Not to underplay the importance of OpenGL or anything, but it sure looks like thier is a chance they could be positioning themselfs for the same market... Unix from lowend desktop scaling smoothly up to industrial strength servers...
Ok, I am going back to sleep and continue to dream now...
I am not suprized at all to hear that younger people are getting more work. And, I think it's in part due to corprate sterotypes, in a way diffrent than your thinking.
It's not the skill, it's the pay. Programmers are in high demand. Young talented programmers will often take thier first few jobs with a "wow, look how much they are going to pay me" attitude. The corporate world sits back and thinks "heh, they don't know how much were _were_ willing to pay to get this job done."
Of course it sounds all screwed up, but I think the older the potential employee is, the less likely a company is to think 1) here is someone we can exploit, 2) here is someone who doesn't know what we actually can offer them to work here.
MAJOR DISCLAIMER: Althought I know a few programmers as friends and/or family, I am not one, I am a chemist, so, what do I know?:P
Even gcc and it's branches give a broad range of results, so it Borland's defence I guess, it's a hard thing to compare. How can you compare?
The only way would be to find the best possable flags for that specific system, for that specific code (in the above case, a benchmark itself written in C). And the results would still be suspect because it would only show the results for that specific hardware, and that specific code.
In my mind, my solution is this, if/when I want a new compiler, I realize that I have got by with gcc/egcs for such a long time, I'll find the person who is working on the code specific to the hardware I am running, and donate money or equiptment directly to that person. Only other choice would be to pay for something that is "closed" and hope they did a good job, and hope it was a value.;-) So...
gcc/egcs isn't perfect, and has a ways to go, but it sure is a dang good value, and I believe it will get better. When open source comes up, I belive gcc/egcs is a better success story than Linux, FreeBSD, or any other piece of software, because without the compiler, the software would never be were it is today.
If I had kids, and they were in daycare, I would like the idea of seeing them on a webcam. BUT, I would not like the idea of the whole world watching them pick thier noses or whatever else.
PLEASE consider using some security system, and only allowing the parents to view thier kids (easily done with apache, you can give parents passwords, and the rest of the world can only see the general site for the daycare center).
The new Amiga will be based on a Netwinder, with an ATI video chip set, with Corel software, using QNX for the OS, with a logo by User Friendly, in a case shaped like a Maple Leaf.
It will be on sale in Duty Free shops to American Tourists, and include a free bottle of Canadian Wiskey, but of course, you can import the Netwinder and Wiskey, but not any Crypto Software.
Yes, this is a troll. I live in North Dakota, and I am SICK of dealing with your damn quarters sneaking into my change and jamming our Coke machines...:P
What other big companies are there in Canada that Amiga will team up with next? (QNX, and Corel are known, what else is up there in that frozen wasteland?)
This is all just my opinion, and it could be way off base. I bring it up only for a diffrent point of view.
"running Linux" (you know that's how the press will talk about it) In a way, Linux is to OS's what Ross Perot was the "the third party canadate." It has successfully shown that there are other options than the "Big Two" (GOP/DNP, and Windows/MacOS) for general user desktops. At the core of Linux is a kernel in heavy development. But out in userland, it's success is primarly due to "open source" applications. So, when you say " Linux binary compatability (read: large application base)..." it won't be. Binary isn't the issue at all. The issue is open source, and source portablity. The binaries are a non-issue, because they can be recompiled on diffrent platforms. Open source has opened the doors to a wide range of platforms.
Since open source "opens the door," the remaining issues are the platforms. On the hardware end, there are companies like Compaq who have a great chip in the Alpha, and AMD who might have a great chip comming in the K7. But, the the great chip in itself will not be enough, it will require strong support from the compiler community. Alpha's lack of success in the Linux community is primarily not do to Linux, it's insted due to the fact that although the chip is strong, and the OS is stable, the binaries generated by open source compilers are fairly weak. gcc/egcs has made a great effort, but for some hardware, it's "not there yet" and it will take the hardware vendors embracing _NOT THE OS_ but the open source compiler community insted. When the preformance of the applications can match the potential of the hardware, only then will the platform be considered "a good choice."
What if Amiga teamed with Linux is much like saying "what if George Bush Jr. teams with Mrs. Dole" It's a big "if" that hinges only on popularity, and may make a splash. But when it comes down to the issues, *BSD, QNX, or anyone able to provide a solid OS at a low cost WITH the ability to take instant advantage of the wide range of open source applications, and with the ability to optimize those applications successfully for the hardware will end up the "better choice."
The success of XFree86 is nice, and with the looks of 4.0, will be better. But, it's not the be all to end all. Berlin is comming down the pipe, and anything that is capable of creating a good solid windowing environment for the right target platform will be something that will not go un-noticed. If you want to talk about "cutting the cord," consider X11R6 standards, lackings, and the fact that XFree86 is fairly tied into x86 hardware. When do we "cut the cord" on legacy x86 compatability, and focus on portability, and _good_ preformance (optimized compilers) for other platforms?
All in all, if Transmeta and Amiga and Linux teamed together, I don't deny it would "make a splash that the press would notice." But would the waves generated be ripples in the ocean, or would they be big enough waves to wash some of the standing perminate fixtures on the shore away?
IMHO, the true unsung heros are not Linus, or Jordan Hubard, or any "OS" people. They get enough press. The true unsung heros are not AMD, or Amiga, or Alpha, they get enough press. The people with the potential to change the computing world are 1) the open source compiler community, and 2) the people who focus on making thier open source applications efficent and portable.
$1549 Student, $1599 Full Price, Direct from Apple, shipping Late September.
I guess, for Apple, the price isn't THAT bad... But, maybe I am just a little to "real-estate" hungry to think that 12.1" and 800x600 resolution is enough to use now days. Well, maybe to use, but buying new, I would want more....
"I also read someplace (sorry, don't remember where) that Intel's own compiler was the best x86 compiler around (for optimizing code)."
If that is true, Intel could make a great marketing move. They could recover a lot of the "Anti-WinTel" fallout where people are moveing to Linux/AMD by open-sourcing thier compiler and helping merge it into egcs. It's like $700 now though? But, if you could make absolutely outragesly fast binaries for Intel CPU's out of normal open source apps, they would gain a lot of support in the Open Source community.
I think if your going to recompile your kernel with optmization, that should be done long before your throwing the apps on it and it's a widely used server.
I was refering to _every_ level of software, I suppose Apache would be the most obvious example with all the httpd comparisons going on lately. It's not just the kernel you can optimize.
And you don't need to make the changes instantly, you can do make, and then later when your ready (after a backup, and work has stopped for the night), do the "make install."
If your into the Linux "kernel of the week" syndrome, well, optimizing or not doesn't make any differance in how often you reboot, only the speed after the reboot.
If you use FreeBSD, you simply uncomment one configuration line, add 2-3 flags, just one time, at the very beginning.
After that, to install, all you need to know is three words, "make install distclean", and even that third word is optional.
It does bring up the point that it should and could be easier. What is really needed is an expantion on the basic "uname" call, to include much more system information (specifically, the CPU, amount of memory, etc..) Then, it would be possable for open souce compilers to just make it one generic flag (like SGI's compiler does, -Ofast) and it would grab the system information for you and figure out the best flags on it's own. That is a realistic possability, and if something like POSIX, the LSB, or some other standardization body would implement this type of system call to get hardware information, it could potentially benifit the UNIX community in a way that Microsoft can't keep up with.
Just installed pgcc, moved gcc anc cc to gcc.old and cc.old, linked pgcc to gcc and cc. Then, went into/etc/make.conf and put all the best flags for my system in there.
Now, to install almost anything, and have it completely optimized for my system, I go into/usr/ports/, pick the application, and do a "make install distclean" and it's installed seemlessly and optimized for my K6:-)
I am still bothered by the fact that all these benchmarking tests and comments don't clearly address one of the basic advantages to open source. You can optimize the binaries for your specific system, and get rid of the 386/486 limitations... Sure, you loose binary compatiblity, but who cares when they can get thier own source and compile it too, and your system sees a 30% boost in speed?
System tuneing is IMPORTANT. Important enought that it can make one OS faster than another. I think we should be pointing out that open source is much more tunable, not only in the ability to modify the code, but also in the ability to optimize it for specific hardware. (quick note on some stuff I tried to see the diffrence, click here)
Why can't someone do some intellegen testing on this, and give credit to the people who REALLY make GNU/GPL and all of open source a success, the folks who write the COMPILERS! Linus did write some nice stuff, as well as many others, but without the right compiler, it's worthless.
Someone really needs to put this whole issue into terms that the American people can understand, ASAP. For Example:
"Basically, encryption is the equivlent of an envlope. Right now, e-mail is like a post-card, anyone who want's to read it can when it's on it's way to the person you sent it to.
What we should be able to do is have some small sence that only the intended reciepent get's to open the letter, not your internet providor, or any computer cracker that want's to take a peak. Encryption is basically our electronic envlope for email.
Even with encryption, if someone manages to open your letters, you won't have hard evidance that they did, because the recipent won't be able to see the tear in the envlope.
But as of today, the US government is saying that we can only send post cards across the border, your not allowed to use the electronic envlopes, because they want to read all of it."
SunPCi is a good thing? (IMHO loss of sbus in lower end Suns is a BAD thing)
Only 4 systems on thier one table, and it's a pdf table... I am a little dissapointed. I suppose buying $15,000 systems isn't the easiest thing to do for a comparison, but I would have thought an SGI would have made the cut of choices. Notice, HP, IBM and Sun only have 9-5 support, wheras Compaq is 24-7, and Compaq had the only money back guarentee if you didn't felt the system lived up to it's claims after it arrived. But that only gave it 20 points more out of the total of 1000 points. "None of the boxes in this comparison uses Linux tools, so the System Management Interface Tool used by the IBM model is the big administration winner." So, why not be fair and add a VAResearch box to the list? I'm sure they could have provided a $15,000 box for testing.
Also, note that the IBM was $17,587 and the Compaq was only $12,514, but that just factored into the score, and they didn't really cap the price at $15,000...
That was the least detailed, least comparitive comparison I have ever seen. Where are the tables on system preformance? Where is the list of features and details about what each system has for that price? Where is the valid reason why some systems didn't win?
Oh, they said IBM, I better go get one... (sarcasm). Not that there is anything wrong with IBM systems, but they didn't even specify which one and which configuration was thier winner, and what makes it better. IBM's RS/6000 43P Model 260 according to what they are saying is just under $15,000 and bearly nudges out the competition. What about this makes it hard for me to believe.
If I send them a 1G drive, will they fill it with a detailed comparison and get it on the web, since "space" was the problem in reporting the comparison?
I wonder who compiled apache, and with what compiler, and what flags;-) Compilers do matter, as I just learned myself today, I wonder how much they would affect apaches preformance.
Your logic is flawed. And unfortunately, that is what most people listen to, stuff like "it only happens every 100,000 years."
That's total BS. Sorry, but it is!
They are not regular events that can be predicted. They are not something that we know were safe from because it hasn't been 100,000 years yet!
When you get in your car to drive to work, do you say, "The average person only has 3 serious accidents in thier driving carrer, and since that's at LEAST 30 years, that is more than 10 years between accidents. Since I had an accident 3 years ago, I am safe for another 7 years! I can drive how ever I want, and will not get into one."
The fact is, actuary tables (spelling?) show that the most threatening thing to mankinds existance today is a comet/meteor/astorid impact. The probability of it happening, and the damage it could cause are well calculated. And, it is a HUGE risk that people just ignore because they follow your way of thinking about it, which is flawed logic.
Well, when it comes to calculating the potential risks, a comet/asteroid impact on the earth is one of the biggest threats to man kind we face.
One problem is, the US government spending is influenced by the people, and the people all went to see "Star Wars" and think NASA should focus on space travel. It's somewhat short sighted. Trying to figure out a way to populate other planets with people from earth is a very very long and very very expensive process. A true danger that NASA could be working on is to develop a defence against asteroids.
Look at all the craters in the moon. It's evidence that nasty stuff happens. We don't see those craters here on earth, not because they never have hit, but because the rain, weather, wind, etc.. have washed them away. The earth is a bigger target.
Some scientists, even those -outside- the study of space, have started to deticate some of thier time to inform people of these dangers... Kary Mullis comes to mind (he is a Nobel winning chemist, so he is invited to speak at a lot of events. He is asked what he thinks of "global warming" and he acknoledges it, but makes it clear that he does not view it as our biggest threat, because we see it comming, and people can generally adapt pretty well. But, he has started to make a point to talk about dangers of asteroids in every talk he gives, just to spread awareness. And he isn't even an athority on it, just an example, the first person that came into my mind).
Star Trek and Star Wars are good entertainment, but so is Beavis and Buthead, and South Park. Just because thier cool to watch doesn't mean we should try to do what the people in the shows do. Hollywood isn't known for it's accuracy or scientific achievement.
Think it's likeone of those automatic translators, not someone with poor english skills.;-) Least thier trying, Better open policy with a low budjet (won't hurt linux too much), than a bad policy with a big budget.
My guess is this project _just bearly_ has full corporate approval, so the budjet is tiny until they see some success.
Slashdot Mirror
This looks like a nice public relations press piece that SGI was happy to get out. Server? Thier Visual Workstation billed as a server? Sure sounds to me like they don't have X working yet.
We knew it would make a good Linux box last year when we saw the memory I/O, and chipset, and all the fancy hardware. Nothing new there, that happened last year. We knew Linux would run on it when kernel 2.2.0 came out and had Visual Workstation patches in it. Nothing new there, that happened last winter.
So, now, we get "news" that SGI has an Intel Linux Server... If that means they are just now getting it installed right, that's sort of slow progress, considering how long ago the first reports of it running were.
Maybe I am just in a bad mood this morning, but, what this story says to me is "Well, we still haven't got X to work, we promised OpenGL, and we don't even have X working yet... We can't get enough people working on it, it's taking way too long, what can we do? I know, let's get some press on it running Linux again, call it a 'server,' and maybe we'll look like we did something good."
Don't get me wrong, I like that SGI is supporting the Linux community. I just don't see any big reason to get excited by this specific story.
You wanna know how much I make? It's a matter of public record... $12,000/year. Yea, true sign of someone money hungry, huh? That's a riot, I needed a laugh this morning.
No, I'm not money of fame hungry. I am just pissed off at the Scientific Publishing industry, which charges outrageous amounts for "subscriptions," copywrites every printed word in thier pages even though they don't even understand what the work is or means, and has the nerve to charge the scientists if they want/need to publish a figure in color in thier papers.
There are too many existing problems, and of all the companies out there that would exploite open source, the publication companies are probably the worst I can think of.
It can be done, but I think it's time that the power be put back in the hands of the people actually doing the science, not the publishers. I repeat I would be happy to lay out a realistic plan for getting things back in the hands of the scientists, at no charge, with out any claim of "ownership" or ask for fame. But if you want me to tell someone who already charges $3000 for a 24 issue subscription how to make more money, your insane.
Open Source has made significant inroad in lab science. But, I really don't want to see the publication end of things continuing to be dominated by rich giants who don't care about the science, only the profit margin. Giving them another low cost tool to exploit science is pretty low on my list of things to do today.
Publish or Perish is a joke. I have never seen a hard working scientist have a lack of things to publish. Yes, they should be publishing, or else they are either 1) not working 2) have bad theories or 3) already raking in lots of money because they are working with an industry and patening everything under the sun.
You think publish or perish is bad now, think about how much junk science would be out there if you illiminate the peer review process completely. Sure it's flawed, but not that bad, authors can always "resubmit" articals to the _same_ journal, and the journal will send it out to a totally new set of reviewers. I think it could be better, and I have some ideas of how, but... I'd rather see them done by the community, for science, not for money.
I personally have strugled with getting Linux and FreeBSD accepted at my work. I know what it's like. Also, I have delt quite frequently with a range of quality and peer review in publication of scientific studies, and know what stands a chance at working, and what wouldn't.
I'd give anything just to get a chance to go to that confrance... But, as it now stands, I am very busy getting some new work published, writing up to graduate this fall, and getting things together to present at the 218th ACS National Meeting, and 2000 PittCon. :-( So, all my money and most of my time is wraped up in that.
If there is anyone out there going, please write me, and let me know if you could take notes, tap the talks, get me a program, or anything...
A lot of modern journals are on-line now, but they require a subscription (of sometimes over $300). So, net access has started, that's a given.
The problem is accessability, not peer review. Peer review is valid, very very valid. You can't do away with it or the result will be the "waste basket journals" that now exist in print being on the web. There are many "free" journals that will publish anything, send it to everyone they can, not peer review, and they don't care because they get advertizing money to print the journal.
I have sketched out a very elaborate plan for an online journal about 3 months ago, and it is possable, but it would require a total "rewrite" of the whole peer review process. And, like it or not, a whole lot of money is involved. In my plan, there would be extensive peer review, yet, completely accessable to anyone free of charge across the net. And, the peer review would be structured so that "old boys" and "grudge reviewers" would be cut out of the loop. (Yes, sometimes scientists who are working on similar projects can shred a journal submission, without makeing any valid points, and the editor is forced to "accept" this review, because it's "an expert" in that field).
The whole process can't be summed up in a "slashdot" story, it's very intense, and a very serious subject. But, I can say, there is a way, and from what I have seen that needs to be done, it will be a long way off, and we will be subject to years worth of "screwed up implementations" of the process before anyone fixes it.
Being that the scientific publishing world is a very high dollar buisness, I won't spell out how I think it can be done _correctly_, because I don't want to see someone else who is already exploiting scientists get a better idea to further rape the real solid scientists out there.
Now, if there were about a dozen strong willed, hard working scientists with the support of about a dozen hard working coders that were masters of system admin, web servers, and php3/sql, I would be happy to share the ideas I have _privately_ with them, only if they were willing to work on it, debate it, and develop something that worked the way _science_ should (meaning, the good work doesn't go unnoticed because it's not popular, the bad work was pointed out quickly and the authors shown the real holes in thier assumptions by real helpfull experts, and the scientists benifited from the process insted of further feeding the wealth of the publishing world).
Don't get me going on this, because it's an ugly mess, and slashdoting solid science isn't the answer. For one, slashdot is a "discussion/news" forum, and if a story isn't "accurate" it fades away into the archives before someone invests half a million dollars and 3 years of work trying to build on that idea.
Not to underplay the importance of OpenGL or anything, but it sure looks like thier is a chance they could be positioning themselfs for the same market... Unix from lowend desktop scaling smoothly up to industrial strength servers...
Ok, I am going back to sleep and continue to dream now...
It's not the skill, it's the pay. Programmers are in high demand. Young talented programmers will often take thier first few jobs with a "wow, look how much they are going to pay me" attitude. The corporate world sits back and thinks "heh, they don't know how much were _were_ willing to pay to get this job done."
Of course it sounds all screwed up, but I think the older the potential employee is, the less likely a company is to think 1) here is someone we can exploit, 2) here is someone who doesn't know what we actually can offer them to work here.
MAJOR DISCLAIMER: Althought I know a few programmers as friends and/or family, I am not one, I am a chemist, so, what do I know? :P
The only way would be to find the best possable flags for that specific system, for that specific code (in the above case, a benchmark itself written in C). And the results would still be suspect because it would only show the results for that specific hardware, and that specific code.
In my mind, my solution is this, if/when I want a new compiler, I realize that I have got by with gcc/egcs for such a long time, I'll find the person who is working on the code specific to the hardware I am running, and donate money or equiptment directly to that person. Only other choice would be to pay for something that is "closed" and hope they did a good job, and hope it was a value. ;-) So...
gcc/egcs isn't perfect, and has a ways to go, but it sure is a dang good value, and I believe it will get better. When open source comes up, I belive gcc/egcs is a better success story than Linux, FreeBSD, or any other piece of software, because without the compiler, the software would never be were it is today.
PLEASE consider using some security system, and only allowing the parents to view thier kids (easily done with apache, you can give parents passwords, and the rest of the world can only see the general site for the daycare center).
It will be on sale in Duty Free shops to American Tourists, and include a free bottle of Canadian Wiskey, but of course, you can import the Netwinder and Wiskey, but not any Crypto Software.
Yes, this is a troll. I live in North Dakota, and I am SICK of dealing with your damn quarters sneaking into my change and jamming our Coke machines... :P
What other big companies are there in Canada that Amiga will team up with next? (QNX, and Corel are known, what else is up there in that frozen wasteland?)
"running Linux" (you know that's how the press will talk about it) In a way, Linux is to OS's what Ross Perot was the "the third party canadate." It has successfully shown that there are other options than the "Big Two" (GOP/DNP, and Windows/MacOS) for general user desktops. At the core of Linux is a kernel in heavy development. But out in userland, it's success is primarly due to "open source" applications. So, when you say " Linux binary compatability (read: large application base)..." it won't be. Binary isn't the issue at all. The issue is open source, and source portablity. The binaries are a non-issue, because they can be recompiled on diffrent platforms. Open source has opened the doors to a wide range of platforms.
Since open source "opens the door," the remaining issues are the platforms. On the hardware end, there are companies like Compaq who have a great chip in the Alpha, and AMD who might have a great chip comming in the K7. But, the the great chip in itself will not be enough, it will require strong support from the compiler community. Alpha's lack of success in the Linux community is primarily not do to Linux, it's insted due to the fact that although the chip is strong, and the OS is stable, the binaries generated by open source compilers are fairly weak. gcc/egcs has made a great effort, but for some hardware, it's "not there yet" and it will take the hardware vendors embracing _NOT THE OS_ but the open source compiler community insted. When the preformance of the applications can match the potential of the hardware, only then will the platform be considered "a good choice."
What if Amiga teamed with Linux is much like saying "what if George Bush Jr. teams with Mrs. Dole" It's a big "if" that hinges only on popularity, and may make a splash. But when it comes down to the issues, *BSD, QNX, or anyone able to provide a solid OS at a low cost WITH the ability to take instant advantage of the wide range of open source applications, and with the ability to optimize those applications successfully for the hardware will end up the "better choice."
The success of XFree86 is nice, and with the looks of 4.0, will be better. But, it's not the be all to end all. Berlin is comming down the pipe, and anything that is capable of creating a good solid windowing environment for the right target platform will be something that will not go un-noticed. If you want to talk about "cutting the cord," consider X11R6 standards, lackings, and the fact that XFree86 is fairly tied into x86 hardware. When do we "cut the cord" on legacy x86 compatability, and focus on portability, and _good_ preformance (optimized compilers) for other platforms?
All in all, if Transmeta and Amiga and Linux teamed together, I don't deny it would "make a splash that the press would notice." But would the waves generated be ripples in the ocean, or would they be big enough waves to wash some of the standing perminate fixtures on the shore away?
IMHO, the true unsung heros are not Linus, or Jordan Hubard, or any "OS" people. They get enough press. The true unsung heros are not AMD, or Amiga, or Alpha, they get enough press. The people with the potential to change the computing world are 1) the open source compiler community, and 2) the people who focus on making thier open source applications efficent and portable.
Yea, I know. But, if it had a bigger screen, I would probably go look at it as a toy for my wife to play with. :-)
I guess, for Apple, the price isn't THAT bad... But, maybe I am just a little to "real-estate" hungry to think that 12.1" and 800x600 resolution is enough to use now days. Well, maybe to use, but buying new, I would want more....
If that is true, Intel could make a great marketing move. They could recover a lot of the "Anti-WinTel" fallout where people are moveing to Linux/AMD by open-sourcing thier compiler and helping merge it into egcs. It's like $700 now though? But, if you could make absolutely outragesly fast binaries for Intel CPU's out of normal open source apps, they would gain a lot of support in the Open Source community.
I was refering to _every_ level of software, I suppose Apache would be the most obvious example with all the httpd comparisons going on lately. It's not just the kernel you can optimize.
And you don't need to make the changes instantly, you can do make, and then later when your ready (after a backup, and work has stopped for the night), do the "make install."
If your into the Linux "kernel of the week" syndrome, well, optimizing or not doesn't make any differance in how often you reboot, only the speed after the reboot.
After that, to install, all you need to know is three words, "make install distclean", and even that third word is optional.
It does bring up the point that it should and could be easier. What is really needed is an expantion on the basic "uname" call, to include much more system information (specifically, the CPU, amount of memory, etc..) Then, it would be possable for open souce compilers to just make it one generic flag (like SGI's compiler does, -Ofast) and it would grab the system information for you and figure out the best flags on it's own. That is a realistic possability, and if something like POSIX, the LSB, or some other standardization body would implement this type of system call to get hardware information, it could potentially benifit the UNIX community in a way that Microsoft can't keep up with.
Now, to install almost anything, and have it completely optimized for my system, I go into /usr/ports/, pick the application, and do a "make install distclean" and it's installed seemlessly and optimized for my K6 :-)
System tuneing is IMPORTANT. Important enought that it can make one OS faster than another. I think we should be pointing out that open source is much more tunable, not only in the ability to modify the code, but also in the ability to optimize it for specific hardware. (quick note on some stuff I tried to see the diffrence, click here)
Why can't someone do some intellegen testing on this, and give credit to the people who REALLY make GNU/GPL and all of open source a success, the folks who write the COMPILERS! Linus did write some nice stuff, as well as many others, but without the right compiler, it's worthless.
"Basically, encryption is the equivlent of an envlope. Right now, e-mail is like a post-card, anyone who want's to read it can when it's on it's way to the person you sent it to.
What we should be able to do is have some small sence that only the intended reciepent get's to open the letter, not your internet providor, or any computer cracker that want's to take a peak. Encryption is basically our electronic envlope for email.
Even with encryption, if someone manages to open your letters, you won't have hard evidance that they did, because the recipent won't be able to see the tear in the envlope.
But as of today, the US government is saying that we can only send post cards across the border, your not allowed to use the electronic envlopes, because they want to read all of it."
Only 4 systems on thier one table, and it's a pdf table... I am a little dissapointed. I suppose buying $15,000 systems isn't the easiest thing to do for a comparison, but I would have thought an SGI would have made the cut of choices. Notice, HP, IBM and Sun only have 9-5 support, wheras Compaq is 24-7, and Compaq had the only money back guarentee if you didn't felt the system lived up to it's claims after it arrived. But that only gave it 20 points more out of the total of 1000 points. "None of the boxes in this comparison uses Linux tools, so the System Management Interface Tool used by the IBM model is the big administration winner." So, why not be fair and add a VAResearch box to the list? I'm sure they could have provided a $15,000 box for testing.
Also, note that the IBM was $17,587 and the Compaq was only $12,514, but that just factored into the score, and they didn't really cap the price at $15,000...
That was the least detailed, least comparitive comparison I have ever seen. Where are the tables on system preformance? Where is the list of features and details about what each system has for that price? Where is the valid reason why some systems didn't win?
Oh, they said IBM, I better go get one... (sarcasm). Not that there is anything wrong with IBM systems, but they didn't even specify which one and which configuration was thier winner, and what makes it better. IBM's RS/6000 43P Model 260 according to what they are saying is just under $15,000 and bearly nudges out the competition. What about this makes it hard for me to believe.
If I send them a 1G drive, will they fill it with a detailed comparison and get it on the web, since "space" was the problem in reporting the comparison?
I wonder who compiled apache, and with what compiler, and what flags ;-) Compilers do matter, as I just learned myself today, I wonder how much they would affect apaches preformance.
That's total BS. Sorry, but it is!
They are not regular events that can be predicted. They are not something that we know were safe from because it hasn't been 100,000 years yet!
When you get in your car to drive to work, do you say, "The average person only has 3 serious accidents in thier driving carrer, and since that's at LEAST 30 years, that is more than 10 years between accidents. Since I had an accident 3 years ago, I am safe for another 7 years! I can drive how ever I want, and will not get into one."
The fact is, actuary tables (spelling?) show that the most threatening thing to mankinds existance today is a comet/meteor/astorid impact. The probability of it happening, and the damage it could cause are well calculated. And, it is a HUGE risk that people just ignore because they follow your way of thinking about it, which is flawed logic.
One problem is, the US government spending is influenced by the people, and the people all went to see "Star Wars" and think NASA should focus on space travel. It's somewhat short sighted. Trying to figure out a way to populate other planets with people from earth is a very very long and very very expensive process. A true danger that NASA could be working on is to develop a defence against asteroids.
Look at all the craters in the moon. It's evidence that nasty stuff happens. We don't see those craters here on earth, not because they never have hit, but because the rain, weather, wind, etc.. have washed them away. The earth is a bigger target.
Some scientists, even those -outside- the study of space, have started to deticate some of thier time to inform people of these dangers... Kary Mullis comes to mind (he is a Nobel winning chemist, so he is invited to speak at a lot of events. He is asked what he thinks of "global warming" and he acknoledges it, but makes it clear that he does not view it as our biggest threat, because we see it comming, and people can generally adapt pretty well. But, he has started to make a point to talk about dangers of asteroids in every talk he gives, just to spread awareness. And he isn't even an athority on it, just an example, the first person that came into my mind).
Star Trek and Star Wars are good entertainment, but so is Beavis and Buthead, and South Park. Just because thier cool to watch doesn't mean we should try to do what the people in the shows do. Hollywood isn't known for it's accuracy or scientific achievement.
My guess is this project _just bearly_ has full corporate approval, so the budjet is tiny until they see some success.