Everywhere you turn on Slashdot and in the Real World Linux nerds are constantly pushing Linux of Windows. So, sure, Linus and a few of his friends aren't trying to compete, but guess what, it's Open Source, and Linux doesn't OWN it. So the rest of the 99.9% that ARE using Linux to compete with Windows make my origonal argument true: Linux is competing with Windows.
A development goal is different then a market goal. So Linus doesn't care about competing with windows... so what? There are TONS of people pushing Linux for business, government, and educational use. In doing so you ARE competing with windows, regardless of what anyone says.
Actually... according to everything I have ever read about linux the unstable development tree is 2.odd.whatever. Everything in 2.even.whatever is called the "stable tree".
Close, but it's actually the 2.whatever.whatever that's the "unstable tree". The stable tree starts at "5.00.2195".:-)
Whethor or not it's free has nothing to do with it. If you want to compete with Windows, you can't say, "We have more bugs but hey it's FREE!". The whole argument FOR open source is that it's better software AND it's free (as in purchase price), not that it's free and "almost as good" software. So, yes, you must hold Linux to the same standards that you hold OS X or Windows too.
Except that it's not possible to state that the universe (or the earth) is infinite because we can observe through science that the universe is finite.
I'm sorry to have made such a blanket statement. Most agnostics I know are lazy because they say, "well, I think there probably is a god but I'm not interested". This is of course, anecdotal evidence and I shouldn't be using it to define all agnostics as I understand that many are trying to seek the truth. I appologize for my reactionary comments.
No, both require equal faith. First, you are making assumptions based on a limited understanding of religon. I don't care about religon at this point. Yes, there are people who blindly believe what they believe because "mommy and daddy told me so". Just as there are people who believe what they believe becase "Mr. Science teacher told me so".
This has NOTHING to do with arrogant fundamentalists who believe that all are agents of satan if you don't share their same moral beliefs. Please don't confuse the issues because of your implicit passion against "religon". I'm simply stating that either way requires a reasonable amount of faith based on a set of untestable theories.
Not religion per se, more importantly our existance in the Universe. Where did we come from? What are we doing here? These are extremely relevant issues, as the outcome (regardless of belief) will change your perspective on life.
It's one thing to be religously agnostic. This means that you have your beliefs but you don't associate them with a particular religion. I disagree with your definition being the most honest - rather, I believe that it's intellectually lazy. Although I'm not a fundamentalist (I don't believe that I KNOW all moral truth, for example), God has made himself known through many ways, and it behooves us to seek Him. However, if you are Atheist (great point on the faith issue), then you have nothing to pursue, because there is no god. If you are a "none", then you must the most intellectually lazy of all. They should add an option like "undecided but actively pursuing the Truth", for those who are not lazy, but are also unsure.
I also find it interesting that most people (not myself) believe that defining ethical and moral values is done by the popular vote. If this is the case, instead of protesting, vote. If the majority thinks something is OK, then who are you to question the majority? (this is more food for thought then me trying to continue a debate)
First, as incredible as he was, that doesn't make all of his actions RIGHT (the end never justifies the means). Second, most of his "protesting" was done via fasting, as opposed to chaining himself to a doorway and blocking public roads.
Aha, but then I will come back at you with a bold reference stating that it is YOU SIR that are still missing the point:-).
Seriously, you bring up a good point. Although a small part of me agrees with the fact that it would be better if they had the AthlonXP 5x or something, that would actually defeat the purpose (the antithesis of your argument). As an interim solution, AMD is "playing along" with a market that always looks at the "magic number". So, they are giving similar numbers that translate (to the average consumer) to performance of the "magic number". Eventually, that rating will hopefully (as AMD is pursuing) be based on a third party analysis. Again, this is an interim solution.
Here's an analogy. Gore wanted to ban soft money for the presidental campaigns. Many people said, "if you believe that so much, why do you take soft money". Well, the answer is, his opponent would have had a HUGE advantage if that happened. However, if BOTH agree on the terms, it's an equal playing field. This is what AMD is trying to do. Educate the customer about the performance of their chip (in the customers language) while pursuing a better option that will hopefully get industry support.
Re:AMD's speed rating MUCH more realistic
on
AthlonXP Released
·
· Score: 2
Good points. Based on the breadth of benchmarks I don't think that they where all FPU intensive, however. I think that we'll continue to see an across the board performance win with the AMD chips, not just in specific application groups.
Agreed. I was just stating that they "could have" if they where really trying to trick people (and still be accurate). My point was that the fact that they are being so conservative points to the fact that their ambition is to honestly inform the customer, not trick them.
They are trying to confuse and obscificute the issue...
This is where you are missing the fundamental point. Mhz ratings confuse and obfuscate the issue - which is the whole reason they are looking for a new rating system. AMD's not trying to "hide" the mhz, they're forcing companies to NOT market by a confusing number that misleads customers.
Thank you for your insightful post - I hope many read it with respect.
Participating in civil disobedience generally makes you look like a fool. I've never had much respect for the "mob mentality" or for extremists who chain themselves to things or block the very roads that I try to get to work every day. There are much more intelligent and effective options to getting the message accross.
The only reason I may ever still go for Intel, is for the Flask encoding speeds
According to Anandtech the new Athlon 1800+ beats the Intel in Flask encoding.
Re:A chip by any other name...
on
AthlonXP Released
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
How can this be fraud? It's like selling an Audi A4 and calling it an "A4 150hp" and comparing it to a "Honda Accord 150hp". Now, anybody who knows anything about cars knows that the Audi A4 will easily outperform the Honda even though they both output 150hp. The same goes for the Athlon 1.53ghz... these chips are becoming less and less dependant on clock cycles for performance. Especially when you look at the real world benchmarks - The Athlon 1800+ (1.53ghz) is outperforming the P4 2.0ghz in the vast majority of suites. However, the consumer will be comparing the 1800+ to the P4 1.8ghz, which simply get's crushed by the 1800+. I don't see how this is in any way the least bit misleading.
Re:will the trickery work?
on
AthlonXP Released
·
· Score: 4, Informative
This isn't trickery, it's consumer educating. Back in the days of Cyrix, MHZ ment a lot more, and Cyrix was a lot less realistic than AMD is being. AMD could safely call their 1.53Ghz chip the 2000+ instead of the 1800+. With a combination of a conservative "ratin" and a very well performing chip, I think AMD will be successful with their new offering.
Actually,.NET has a better chance of being secure for two reasons:
1) Microsoft has said (real developers not marketing drones) that security was a huge focus of.NET.
2).NET is a brand new platform that is built from the ground-up. Running a.NET EXE is not like running a VB or C++/MFC EXE. It stands on it's own, and is closer to a Java-like model when it comes to application execution (ala "Sandbox Security", etc.).
Now, this doesn't mean that it's "airtight", but I believe that it will prove to be more resiliant from a security standpoint.
Re:Palm is just not exciting anymore
on
Pocket PC 2002
·
· Score: 2
My Palm is collecting dust. Mainly because the handwriting recognition is not fast enough. If I decide to go back to school, I'm either going for a small transmeta laptop or a pocket PC.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Even every point of technical communication was plain text and traceable, the "security" you recieve is more of a myth. Your philosphy is a slap in the face to the thousands that died for our freedom.
Slashdot Mirror
Is Your Elected Official Really Listening?
No, but the Feds are.
Everywhere you turn on Slashdot and in the Real World Linux nerds are constantly pushing Linux of Windows. So, sure, Linus and a few of his friends aren't trying to compete, but guess what, it's Open Source, and Linux doesn't OWN it. So the rest of the 99.9% that ARE using Linux to compete with Windows make my origonal argument true: Linux is competing with Windows.
A development goal is different then a market goal. So Linus doesn't care about competing with windows... so what? There are TONS of people pushing Linux for business, government, and educational use. In doing so you ARE competing with windows, regardless of what anyone says.
Actually... according to everything I have ever read about linux the unstable development tree is 2.odd.whatever. Everything in 2.even.whatever is called the "stable tree".
:-)
Close, but it's actually the 2.whatever.whatever that's the "unstable tree". The stable tree starts at "5.00.2195".
Whethor or not it's free has nothing to do with it. If you want to compete with Windows, you can't say, "We have more bugs but hey it's FREE!". The whole argument FOR open source is that it's better software AND it's free (as in purchase price), not that it's free and "almost as good" software. So, yes, you must hold Linux to the same standards that you hold OS X or Windows too.
Ya, and at least we don't have to patch Windows with crap like this: ;)
--- linux/drivers/parport/ieee1284_ops.c.orig Thu Oct 11 09:40:39 2001
+++ linux/drivers/parport/ieee1284_ops.c Thu Oct 11 09:40:42 2001
@@ -362,7 +362,7 @@
} else {
DPRINTK (KERN_DEBUG "%s: ECP direction: failed to reverse\n",
port->name);
- port->ieee1284.phase = IEEE1284_PH_DIR_UNKNOWN;
[ETC]
Except that it's not possible to state that the universe (or the earth) is infinite because we can observe through science that the universe is finite.
I'm sorry to have made such a blanket statement. Most agnostics I know are lazy because they say, "well, I think there probably is a god but I'm not interested". This is of course, anecdotal evidence and I shouldn't be using it to define all agnostics as I understand that many are trying to seek the truth. I appologize for my reactionary comments.
No, both require equal faith. First, you are making assumptions based on a limited understanding of religon. I don't care about religon at this point. Yes, there are people who blindly believe what they believe because "mommy and daddy told me so". Just as there are people who believe what they believe becase "Mr. Science teacher told me so".
This has NOTHING to do with arrogant fundamentalists who believe that all are agents of satan if you don't share their same moral beliefs. Please don't confuse the issues because of your implicit passion against "religon". I'm simply stating that either way requires a reasonable amount of faith based on a set of untestable theories.
Not religion per se, more importantly our existance in the Universe. Where did we come from? What are we doing here? These are extremely relevant issues, as the outcome (regardless of belief) will change your perspective on life.
It's one thing to be religously agnostic. This means that you have your beliefs but you don't associate them with a particular religion. I disagree with your definition being the most honest - rather, I believe that it's intellectually lazy. Although I'm not a fundamentalist (I don't believe that I KNOW all moral truth, for example), God has made himself known through many ways, and it behooves us to seek Him. However, if you are Atheist (great point on the faith issue), then you have nothing to pursue, because there is no god. If you are a "none", then you must the most intellectually lazy of all. They should add an option like "undecided but actively pursuing the Truth", for those who are not lazy, but are also unsure.
I also find it interesting that most people (not myself) believe that defining ethical and moral values is done by the popular vote. If this is the case, instead of protesting, vote. If the majority thinks something is OK, then who are you to question the majority? (this is more food for thought then me trying to continue a debate)
First, as incredible as he was, that doesn't make all of his actions RIGHT (the end never justifies the means). Second, most of his "protesting" was done via fasting, as opposed to chaining himself to a doorway and blocking public roads.
Aha, but then I will come back at you with a bold reference stating that it is YOU SIR that are still missing the point :-).
Seriously, you bring up a good point. Although a small part of me agrees with the fact that it would be better if they had the AthlonXP 5x or something, that would actually defeat the purpose (the antithesis of your argument). As an interim solution, AMD is "playing along" with a market that always looks at the "magic number". So, they are giving similar numbers that translate (to the average consumer) to performance of the "magic number". Eventually, that rating will hopefully (as AMD is pursuing) be based on a third party analysis. Again, this is an interim solution.
Here's an analogy. Gore wanted to ban soft money for the presidental campaigns. Many people said, "if you believe that so much, why do you take soft money". Well, the answer is, his opponent would have had a HUGE advantage if that happened. However, if BOTH agree on the terms, it's an equal playing field. This is what AMD is trying to do. Educate the customer about the performance of their chip (in the customers language) while pursuing a better option that will hopefully get industry support.
Good points. Based on the breadth of benchmarks I don't think that they where all FPU intensive, however. I think that we'll continue to see an across the board performance win with the AMD chips, not just in specific application groups.
Agreed. I was just stating that they "could have" if they where really trying to trick people (and still be accurate). My point was that the fact that they are being so conservative points to the fact that their ambition is to honestly inform the customer, not trick them.
They are trying to confuse and obscificute the issue...
This is where you are missing the fundamental point. Mhz ratings confuse and obfuscate the issue - which is the whole reason they are looking for a new rating system. AMD's not trying to "hide" the mhz, they're forcing companies to NOT market by a confusing number that misleads customers.
Thank you for your insightful post - I hope many read it with respect.
Participating in civil disobedience generally makes you look like a fool. I've never had much respect for the "mob mentality" or for extremists who chain themselves to things or block the very roads that I try to get to work every day. There are much more intelligent and effective options to getting the message accross.
Apparently it didn't do so well :).
The only reason I may ever still go for Intel, is for the Flask encoding speeds
According to Anandtech the new Athlon 1800+ beats the Intel in Flask encoding.
How can this be fraud? It's like selling an Audi A4 and calling it an "A4 150hp" and comparing it to a "Honda Accord 150hp". Now, anybody who knows anything about cars knows that the Audi A4 will easily outperform the Honda even though they both output 150hp. The same goes for the Athlon 1.53ghz... these chips are becoming less and less dependant on clock cycles for performance. Especially when you look at the real world benchmarks - The Athlon 1800+ (1.53ghz) is outperforming the P4 2.0ghz in the vast majority of suites. However, the consumer will be comparing the 1800+ to the P4 1.8ghz, which simply get's crushed by the 1800+. I don't see how this is in any way the least bit misleading.
This isn't trickery, it's consumer educating. Back in the days of Cyrix, MHZ ment a lot more, and Cyrix was a lot less realistic than AMD is being. AMD could safely call their 1.53Ghz chip the 2000+ instead of the 1800+. With a combination of a conservative "ratin" and a very well performing chip, I think AMD will be successful with their new offering.
Actually, .NET has a better chance of being secure for two reasons:
.NET.
.NET is a brand new platform that is built from the ground-up. Running a .NET EXE is not like running a VB or C++/MFC EXE. It stands on it's own, and is closer to a Java-like model when it comes to application execution (ala "Sandbox Security", etc.).
1) Microsoft has said (real developers not marketing drones) that security was a huge focus of
2)
Now, this doesn't mean that it's "airtight", but I believe that it will prove to be more resiliant from a security standpoint.
My Palm is collecting dust. Mainly because the handwriting recognition is not fast enough. If I decide to go back to school, I'm either going for a small transmeta laptop or a pocket PC.
Boy do I have to be reundant these days:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Even every point of technical communication was plain text and traceable, the "security" you recieve is more of a myth. Your philosphy is a slap in the face to the thousands that died for our freedom.