inline is a compiler directive that will cause the compiler to emit a copy of that routine every time it is called. This saves on function calls, makes for faster code (generally) but increases bloat.
What exactly is "bloat"? I think what you are trying to say is that it increases size.
For shows you record from OTA, cable, or satellite, it doesn't have to be significantly faster than real time. How many tuners does your PC have? You could put one video encode on each core, plus another core for the audio encodes. But then I confess ignorance as to how much CPU power it takes to encode video at, say, full 1080p/24.
Well obviously that recommendation is pretty baseless, unless the specific CPU's individual cores are sufficient to handle encoding video at that resolution for the specific chosen codec in realtime then you may need more cores, and that's before considering if the encoder is optimized for parallel processing and that I/O is not the bottleneck.
But plenty of people run streaming media servers (XBMC, PS3 media server, iTunes, VideoLAN) that do video/audio conversion or transcode media on the fly and certainly plenty of people have DVRs (multicore CPUs and applications is in no way limited to PCs) with the capability to encode/decode, record and playback multiple video streams at a time.
Then there's not really much of a benefit to adding more than a dual core, which will probably end up running the application with which the user is interacting on one core and the background applications and system processes on the other. To go beyond that, you have to either parallelize the application, run more than one CPU-bound application at once (which most desktop PC users tend not to do), or run more than one user at once using dual monitors, dual keyboards, and dual mice (which most desktop PC operating systems tend not to support).
No, anytime you are doing multiple things at once you are better off with more cores. If you are watching a video or playing music or encoding/decoding content like running a media server that is serving other devices while you are doing other things on your system then more cores is going to speed up the system. You are trying to generalize it for all use cases but not all use cases are the same, it all depends on what you are doing with your system, how many programs you are running at once and the ability of those programs to exploit parallel processing power.
And what tech company doesn't have dodgy or "unethical" business practices?
"Netscape and DRDOS lost out, big fucking whoop."
Embrace, extend, extinguish.
Do you actually have any idea what that means? It doesn't apply to Netscape or DRDOS at all. Netscape's decline came when it turned to shit with V4 and people switched to IE instead. Yes DRDOS had some advantages over MSDOS but the problem was that those technical advantages did not result in actual benefits to users. But for a counter example take Windows Mobile Vs iOS, where the latter may not have had much in the way of technical advantages - and was lambasted early on this site for exactly that - but provided tangible benefits to the user.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say, as the GP said it clearly does have a proper desktop and the key thing that has changed is the start menu so obviously its poor sales aren't anything to do with lack of a desktop. It is probably more to do with the boom of tablets and smartphones reducing the need for desktop/laptop PCs which is also the reason for the lack of growth of the PC market in general.
Agreed! The whole complaint around Windows 8 was people not wanting a tablet OS on their desktop, so this is just proof that these OEMs have absolutely no clue about satisfying their customers.
hrm...actually it seems that's perhaps what they are planning to do, by re-licensing GPL components. Interesting Google+ post from the developer of Focal about Cyanogen Inc.
What do people that have contributed to the code base get? Who is getting money for this? I don't understand how you can go from an opensource project to a for-profit project.
Why not? Open source has nothing to do with software cost and they can't just create a closed source derivative. That said I'm not sure what their monetization plan is, but maybe that was your point.
You see, in the church of St iGNUcius, even offering polluted un-liberated software to members of the flock who want it is the equivalent of offering softdrinks to school kids in CA who want them: Debian is supposed to deny them that choice b'cos it's not good for them. Since they don't, and give the lowly users a choice (gasp!) of using polluted un-liberated software, they are blasphemers who don't deserve to be supported by the FSF. Even if the distros like Trisquel are ultimately based on their product (and the much hated Ubuntu).
Apparently users aren't supposed to have the freedom to choose if they want to give up a particular element of freedom in a particular context for a particular time. Easy response to deny people who want to borrow your phone "Oh no, I'm sorry it would be immoral of me to allow you the choice to use my proprietary phone."
The idea is to prevent minified code, but of course you can beautify minified code and the result is usually just obfuscated but nothing stops people from writing obfuscated code and that in itself doesn't make it non-free.
When was the last time a proprietary video card driver or wifi chipset called home and caused you any problem?
I have no idea, and that's the scary part.
Even if everything is free and open and under your control and you can actually verify everything the ability to "phone home" is predicated on connection to a network, a network of systems that you don't control and that are potentially hostile. If you're genuinely paranoid about the potential for your system to "phone home" with some information then you could trap your network traffic and identify anything abnormal.
Read all the sentences in the post - not just the first. As stated, shipping always needs to be paid for, but shipping on a tablet shouldn't exceed $8 (and realistically will be closer to $5). Over $20 and that's not shipping - that's just moving major parts of the cost from one highly visible line item to another to make something look cheaper.
And everyone in the industry recognizes this and we are already seeing stratification of the game development into good/better/best categories. Everything you listed is being addressed on some level. The PC and console development system is coalescing into one pipeline that addresses good/better/best hardware configs, and tailors the build for a specific platform at the end.
Wrong, that most certainly does not address the problem, that is simply going the path of an unoptimized and terribly inefficient methodology that does not utilize the specific aspects of the available hardware. So I don't see why you are so keen to pretend this is a good thing. If everything I listed is being addressed and fits into a good/better/best then what are the definitions of these with respect to what I listed?
At the end of the day, it makes more money for the publisher, but a small community library got absolutely burned in the process, and only ended up with a handful of books, and limited benefit
Wow that sounds like incredibly poor planning, if you set yourself on fire of course you're going to get burned.
Yes, I know later people were able to do it. But phoronix being unable to do it for a while is proof that the question being asked:
The problem was related to the bootloader, it was specific to that device and implementation. People have had problems installing Linux due to the incompatibilities of different BIOS's and various other hardware and software even before UEFI came about.
And this question being asked does not have anything to do with SecureBoot, so I have no idea why you deemed it necessary to bring it up here.
You have no idea why? Really? If you take a look up a couple of posts and you'll see that's exactly what this thread is about...that's why.
(U)EFI , or at least its particular implementation, is the problem, as you yourself mention.
It's this specific implementation, but what's your point?
Depends on who that someone is. How about Phoronix ?
Looks more like their problem is they didn't use EFI-compatible bootable image, it's nothing to do with SecureBoot at all, the process is pretty straightforward and documented here.
But the user still has to find how to turn off Secure Boot in a given UEFI implementation's setup screen to get an OS without code signing to work. Is that easy on all UEFI implementations?
Yes, and if you can't find it then read the manual or ask on a forum.
Slashdot Mirror
inline is a compiler directive that will cause the compiler to emit a copy of that routine every time it is called. This saves on function calls, makes for faster code (generally) but increases bloat.
What exactly is "bloat"? I think what you are trying to say is that it increases size.
For shows you record from OTA, cable, or satellite, it doesn't have to be significantly faster than real time. How many tuners does your PC have? You could put one video encode on each core, plus another core for the audio encodes. But then I confess ignorance as to how much CPU power it takes to encode video at, say, full 1080p/24.
Well obviously that recommendation is pretty baseless, unless the specific CPU's individual cores are sufficient to handle encoding video at that resolution for the specific chosen codec in realtime then you may need more cores, and that's before considering if the encoder is optimized for parallel processing and that I/O is not the bottleneck.
But plenty of people run streaming media servers (XBMC, PS3 media server, iTunes, VideoLAN) that do video/audio conversion or transcode media on the fly and certainly plenty of people have DVRs (multicore CPUs and applications is in no way limited to PCs) with the capability to encode/decode, record and playback multiple video streams at a time.
Then there's not really much of a benefit to adding more than a dual core, which will probably end up running the application with which the user is interacting on one core and the background applications and system processes on the other. To go beyond that, you have to either parallelize the application, run more than one CPU-bound application at once (which most desktop PC users tend not to do), or run more than one user at once using dual monitors, dual keyboards, and dual mice (which most desktop PC operating systems tend not to support).
No, anytime you are doing multiple things at once you are better off with more cores. If you are watching a video or playing music or encoding/decoding content like running a media server that is serving other devices while you are doing other things on your system then more cores is going to speed up the system. You are trying to generalize it for all use cases but not all use cases are the same, it all depends on what you are doing with your system, how many programs you are running at once and the ability of those programs to exploit parallel processing power.
But this is just a bunch of Atom cores....who wants that?
Saying they are "Atom cores" is meaningless, in this case they are Silvermont Atom cores which are based on the current i7 CPU architecture.
I really REALLY wouldn't want to do any heavy lifting with 'em.
And why wouldn't you want to do any "heavy lifting" with a package that puts 72 of them together to provide 3 teraflops of computing power?
And, in fact, I later got that message when I attempted to install Windows on MS-DOS 6.22.
So the error probably had nothing to do with AARD at all.
There are pages and pages of those practices.
And what tech company doesn't have dodgy or "unethical" business practices?
"Netscape and DRDOS lost out, big fucking whoop."
Embrace, extend, extinguish.
Do you actually have any idea what that means? It doesn't apply to Netscape or DRDOS at all. Netscape's decline came when it turned to shit with V4 and people switched to IE instead. Yes DRDOS had some advantages over MSDOS but the problem was that those technical advantages did not result in actual benefits to users. But for a counter example take Windows Mobile Vs iOS, where the latter may not have had much in the way of technical advantages - and was lambasted early on this site for exactly that - but provided tangible benefits to the user.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say, as the GP said it clearly does have a proper desktop and the key thing that has changed is the start menu so obviously its poor sales aren't anything to do with lack of a desktop. It is probably more to do with the boom of tablets and smartphones reducing the need for desktop/laptop PCs which is also the reason for the lack of growth of the PC market in general.
Agreed! The whole complaint around Windows 8 was people not wanting a tablet OS on their desktop, so this is just proof that these OEMs have absolutely no clue about satisfying their customers.
Yes, but the point is there is another surface (pro) that doesnt run windows rt and on it you can turn off secureboot and install linux if you like.
hrm...actually it seems that's perhaps what they are planning to do, by re-licensing GPL components. Interesting Google+ post from the developer of Focal about Cyanogen Inc.
What do people that have contributed to the code base get? Who is getting money for this? I don't understand how you can go from an opensource project to a for-profit project.
Why not? Open source has nothing to do with software cost and they can't just create a closed source derivative. That said I'm not sure what their monetization plan is, but maybe that was your point.
You see, in the church of St iGNUcius, even offering polluted un-liberated software to members of the flock who want it is the equivalent of offering softdrinks to school kids in CA who want them: Debian is supposed to deny them that choice b'cos it's not good for them. Since they don't, and give the lowly users a choice (gasp!) of using polluted un-liberated software, they are blasphemers who don't deserve to be supported by the FSF. Even if the distros like Trisquel are ultimately based on their product (and the much hated Ubuntu).
Apparently users aren't supposed to have the freedom to choose if they want to give up a particular element of freedom in a particular context for a particular time. Easy response to deny people who want to borrow your phone "Oh no, I'm sorry it would be immoral of me to allow you the choice to use my proprietary phone."
The idea is to prevent minified code, but of course you can beautify minified code and the result is usually just obfuscated but nothing stops people from writing obfuscated code and that in itself doesn't make it non-free.
When was the last time a proprietary video card driver or wifi chipset called home and caused you any problem?
I have no idea, and that's the scary part.
Even if everything is free and open and under your control and you can actually verify everything the ability to "phone home" is predicated on connection to a network, a network of systems that you don't control and that are potentially hostile. If you're genuinely paranoid about the potential for your system to "phone home" with some information then you could trap your network traffic and identify anything abnormal.
Becasue XBone sounds a bit rude, like boner.
oh...i see.
Yeah I know all that, but how is "X-Bone" derogatory?
X-Bone? I get its some derogatory xbox one thing but what is it supposed to mean? And surely xb1, like ps4, is quicker to type.
Read all the sentences in the post - not just the first. As stated, shipping always needs to be paid for, but shipping on a tablet shouldn't exceed $8 (and realistically will be closer to $5). Over $20 and that's not shipping - that's just moving major parts of the cost from one highly visible line item to another to make something look cheaper.
Well Datawind charges $50 shipping.
And everyone in the industry recognizes this and we are already seeing stratification of the game development into good/better/best categories. Everything you listed is being addressed on some level. The PC and console development system is coalescing into one pipeline that addresses good/better/best hardware configs, and tailors the build for a specific platform at the end.
Wrong, that most certainly does not address the problem, that is simply going the path of an unoptimized and terribly inefficient methodology that does not utilize the specific aspects of the available hardware. So I don't see why you are so keen to pretend this is a good thing.
If everything I listed is being addressed and fits into a good/better/best then what are the definitions of these with respect to what I listed?
That "$44" tablet has a shipping price of $23.
So presumably this $38 tablet will be shipped for free?
At the end of the day, it makes more money for the publisher, but a small community library got absolutely burned in the process, and only ended up with a handful of books, and limited benefit
Wow that sounds like incredibly poor planning, if you set yourself on fire of course you're going to get burned.
Yes, I know later people were able to do it. But phoronix being unable to do it for a while is proof that the question being asked :
The problem was related to the bootloader, it was specific to that device and implementation. People have had problems installing Linux due to the incompatibilities of different BIOS's and various other hardware and software even before UEFI came about.
And this question being asked does not have anything to do with SecureBoot, so I have no idea why you deemed it necessary to bring it up here.
You have no idea why? Really? If you take a look up a couple of posts and you'll see that's exactly what this thread is about...that's why.
(U)EFI , or at least its particular implementation, is the problem, as you yourself mention.
It's this specific implementation, but what's your point?
Depends on who that someone is. How about Phoronix ?
Looks more like their problem is they didn't use EFI-compatible bootable image, it's nothing to do with SecureBoot at all, the process is pretty straightforward and documented here.
But the user still has to find how to turn off Secure Boot in a given UEFI implementation's setup screen to get an OS without code signing to work. Is that easy on all UEFI implementations?
Yes, and if you can't find it then read the manual or ask on a forum.