The key is in the code, not in the hardware itself when it comes to dual core. In the area of games, you have Neverwinter Nights(no one has benchmarked using it, but from what I have heard, it does use a multi-threaded design. What's the other title, Doom 3 that uses multi-threading?
AMD is still able to get more speed out of the Athlon design, so we will be seeing a 3GHz or faster version of the Athlon 64/Opteron within 12 months from what I've been reading.
With GPUs, Nvidia really lagged behind during their Geforce FX(5000 series), and it took until the 6800s before they recovered. Both ATH and Nvidia are adding pixel pipelines to each new generation because they have discovered that it's the best way to improve performance for the moment. There is a lot of work that can be done in parallel in a GPU to render an image. To do the same thing, to split up application code to run in parallel would need either a pre-processor to break down code within an individual thread and properly assign it to different virtual threads for execution and then re-intigration, or just have the applications themselves be coded as a multi-threaded app which is what developers are FINALLY doing today.
Intel ran out of steam with their P4 design until they get the 65nm process figured out. It's why you don't see anything faster than a 3.8GHz version. An AMD processor running at 3GHz would be a pretty good jump from your 3GHz P4.
The 200 and 800 series Opteron processors have the extra HyperTransport links to talk to each other. But since there is a memory controller on each CPU, you get a LOT of bandwidth going to memory.
AMD doesn't go through a northbridge to get to memory.
As a result of that design, going multi-core was very simple for AMD, all they had to do is link the cores via the extra HT link from two Opteron 200 series cores.
An interesting result of this design compared to the Intel design is that the current Intel dual-core samples will be bus bandwidth limited while the dual core AMD chips won't.
Keep in mind that dual-core Opteron and Athlon 64 chips will still lag behind a little due to the higher clock speed of the Intel chips in SOME applications. AMD is within a year of 3GHz single-core chips while Intel may still be unable to get to 4GHz. As a result, for the few areas that Intel has the clear advantage in speed TODAY, next year AMD will be close to catching up in.
The potential for nanotechnology to go wrong and do something bad is still there. That is the problem.
If you have a technology that can repair cells, what's to say that a mistake couldn't happen that would create cancer or some other problems? That is the fear. Also, as the technology advances, it may become possible that new diseases are created while trying to come up with cures for other diseases.
On today's topic, I'm not afraid of what they are doing currently, but the direction will scare many people.
Of course, even the movie ratings are a guide and arn't something that are enforced today. So video game ratings are just as useless. Until you need to show ID to buy games with a mature rating and be above a certain age, these things won't help.
The problem isn't as much about the games as it is about those people who are borderline homicidal in the first place.
Think about it, most people who attack or defend violence in entertainment don't seem to understand the real issue behind the violent behavior they are trying to stop.
The real problem isn't that children or teens may emulate what they see in games or movies, it's that a lot of people in the world today are closer to insanity than most of us want to think about. There are people of all age groups that become violent for whatever reason, and nothing we do will stop that. So the only thing that can be done is to keep those who are on the edge from going over the edge and doing something violent.
For those who arn't emotionally stable, games like GTA are a real problem because they give these mentally defective people ideas. For those who are sane, these games arn't going to be a problem, for those who arn't, they are a big problem for all of us, no matter how old or young.
Politicians arn't known for being terribly intelligent, so it's no surprise that they miss the real problem. We as members of society need to help keep people from going over the edge. People used to talk about postal workers going crazy and shooting people, but you have to wonder what would happen if there were a focus on keeping people from being upset.
An issue here is that if you arn't trying to sell the browser, the issue becomes a bit less clear.
For example, if you sell a computer, and put a number of free open-source products on it(Firefox, OpenOffice, or others), that isn't a violation of the GPL. In most cases, you arn't allowed to SELL the GPL licensed product, but you can sell a product and then include the GPL licensed products for free I believe. If you couldn't, then you would never see a computer sold with Linux pre-installed.
So, is the web browser we are talking about here one of the features of the product, or was it put on there for free as a convenience for the customer?
I never said that I want to see a violent revolution since I am against violence. But I see a gradual degradation of trust here in this country that EVENTUALLY will lead to a revolution of some kind. If it happens in ten years, or one hundred, or longer or shorter isn't the point, but it is going to happen if the US government doesn't remember that there IS a point where the people they theoretically govern and represent will not accept their abuses.
The problem is that since the early 1970s, there has been less and less confidence and support of the US government from the people who live in the USA. As a result of this, the government has a valid concern that groups of people here in the USA may decide to do more than just talk about how they dislike how the government has developed.
So, now the government is trying to keep anti-government types from talking, but doesn't care about the rights of others.
Doesn't every movie do this? It is a natural evolution of an existing idea, and as such would be thrown out. It's like saying that after the invention of the wheel that using two of them together couldn't be done due to a patent.
If you think about it, Peer to Peer isn't much different than any normal file transfers, except that it is automated. Do they block you from using FTP, or from running an FTP server that has fully legal software on it? How about an FTP server that allows for anonymous uploads and downloads of files without authentication?
The problem that most schools have is that they have a limited amount of bandwidth on their network connections to the Internet, and they need to avoid paying more just because students want to use peer to peer networks. They also need to avoid lawsuits so stupid rules go into effect.
It would make more sense for a university or school to put a limit on the upload bandwidth provided per interface to avoid problems like this, rather than putting down a blanket statement saying that peer to peer isn't allowed.
Back in the old days, a common way to write a program was to make code that can be used in many different places from within the program. Routines that are similar would be considered a bad thing, so you make routines that are designed to handle the differet situations that need similar code.
The problem with Microsoft is that they have forgotten or never learned how to design a program before their people have started to write anything. As a result, we see 384k patches from Microsoft that take several minutes to install on some systems.
Another problem is that there is a LOT of duplicate code that is in use even within common libraries.
The people who suggest that there are too many features are almost correct, but the problem isn't with the number of features, it's the way those features are added to programs.
Also, there is only so far you can take a given design while you add features before things start to break due to design. If you start with a good DESIGN, then implement that design in code, it becomes a LOT easier to debug.
Microsoft needs to come up with a NEW OS that isn't an extension of Windows NT or Windows 3.0(95/98/ME are still based on that old code in many ways). Windows NT was the right idea back when it was first developed. Toss the old design, start from scratch, and you end up with a better product. The only problem that Windows NT really had was that compatability wasn't written into the core design of the OS, it was a layer added on top, which means you need a "translator" to handle that. If it's in the design, then you figure out how to do the emulation of the old system in a way that is compatable with the "new" way of doing things. Today, it's not as difficult as it used to be back in those early days of Windows NT. We have enough processing power to make virtual machines that can handle just about anything if they are coded properly. The only problem is that the emulation of the old DOS environment or Windows environment hasn't been implemented by Microsoft.
But I've gone off topic a bit. The key to easily debugged code is to design in a way to make things properly modular. Almost all features within Windows should be TIGHT code. To open a file probably has 200 different versions of that code within the Windows XP code base scattered through all the programs that come with Windows XP or 2003. Think about that, and wonder why it's hard to debug.
Nope. Debian is NOT a product of the FSF, though there is a lot of good will between the two groups. The GNU in the name is a tribute to the old GNU OS which ended up being the majority of the OS the Linux Kernel was the heart of. Since that time, Linux has grown to the point where the GNU portion is fairly small compared to the rest(not counting programs compiled by gcc but written by other groups).
The HOWTOs are very useful for many reasons. For starters, the scripts that come with each distribution STILL only help with the maintenance and configuration of the different "packages" available. BUT, these same tools do NOT replace the need for the tools listed in the HOWTOs. If you read the NET3-HOWTO(or are we up to NET4 by now?), you will see a reference to programs such as pppd, ifconfig, route, and so on. The pppconfig script available for some distributions will only help with setting up pppd, but does not replace the need for pppd. You can also use the HOWTO to understand how the pppconfig script works, and perhaps overcome any weaknesses in the pppconfig script. The same is true for setting up ethernet cards, and for anything else. The HOWTO will almost always tell you how to do things by hand, without forcing you to use a script you may not understand, and which may not suit your needs.
I hope this helps. Each distribution attempts to simplify installation and maintenance of the system in it's own way. Redhat goes for the graphical approach. Slackware goes for a barebones type of approach. Debian tends to be halfway between these two extremes. So, before looking at the differences, take a look at what is similar between the distributions. Yes, there are always people who argue about which is better, but the vast majority choose the distribution they prefer for their own reasons, and while they may not like another distribution, they will USUALLY not care what other people use(until that person who went with Redhat starts asking their Debian or Slackware using friends for help).
My own bias is toward Debian, since there is generally a larger online user base who is available for help than the other distributions, and there is more a feeling of wanting to help other Linux users than the commercial distribution users.
Yep, the original game "castles" used a similar method. They code a formula into the program. Then the program comes up with a random number. You call the company which has the formula on file, then gives a response number. If the response number doesn't match the number the formula thinks you should get, it doesn't work. In some cases, it's a CMOS checksum, or it could be keyed to some other values in the machine, perhaps a BIOS revision, or the seed number for the original number the program comes from a combination of other values in the BIOS that can be captured.
Now, on the problem here, Microsoft has been makeing a huge ammount of money from Intel's chip sales for a long time now. Because of this, I wonder if Intel made a deal with Microsoft on this issue. Perhaps Intel, not being able to shut AMD out by themselves, has figured out a way to get MICROSOFT to shut down AMD and other Intel competitors? This sounds like something both companies are known for. Anti-competitive behavior. First, Intel tries to kill AMD by going to Slot 1. It didn't work, AMD came up with chips that did so much more with socket 7 that AMD managed to gain market share. Now AMD is about to release the K7 in another few months. Intel is scared, so had to figure out another strategy to shut down AMD. They talk to Microsoft, and get CPU serial numbers that can be read by software. I wonder if the DOJ has enough of a clue to figure out that this happened?
Yep, if your motherboard supports the K6-2 400(CTX core), then it will automatically support the K6-3, and the L2 cache on the motherboard will become L3 cache. This is according to AMD. I know that the FIC PA-2013 and VA-503+ will support this.
Let's see, we have virtually every major database being ported to Linux. We have games beginning to be written for Linux now(as part of the initial release, not an afterthought or port) as well. There are who knows how many millions of systems running Linux. So, it's gone a bit beyond, "fad" stage when commercial products are showing up for it regularly. As for the problem of bloat, you may have noticed that many distributions have an FTP site where additional packages can be downloaded from. This will allow for the bloat to be removed from the initial release, and to keep things to a reasonable level. So, bloat isn't an issue either, as long as the packages are organized in a way that can be managed by the users. This can be dealt with by offering different "levels" of install for users. I know that Debian GNU/Linux began to implement a "function" question to help make installation easier for beginners with the 2.0 release. I suspect that when 2.1 is released, it will build upon this feature to help make the initial install easier. Redhat and SuSE have used a GUI install to aid users through the install. This shows that it will not take much longer before Linux becomes "accessable" for many endusers to move to.
Slashdot Mirror
The key is in the code, not in the hardware itself when it comes to dual core. In the area of games, you have Neverwinter Nights(no one has benchmarked using it, but from what I have heard, it does use a multi-threaded design. What's the other title, Doom 3 that uses multi-threading?
AMD is still able to get more speed out of the Athlon design, so we will be seeing a 3GHz or faster version of the Athlon 64/Opteron within 12 months from what I've been reading.
With GPUs, Nvidia really lagged behind during their Geforce FX(5000 series), and it took until the 6800s before they recovered. Both ATH and Nvidia are adding pixel pipelines to each new generation because they have discovered that it's the best way to improve performance for the moment. There is a lot of work that can be done in parallel in a GPU to render an image. To do the same thing, to split up application code to run in parallel would need either a pre-processor to break down code within an individual thread and properly assign it to different virtual threads for execution and then re-intigration, or just have the applications themselves be coded as a multi-threaded app which is what developers are FINALLY doing today.
Intel ran out of steam with their P4 design until they get the 65nm process figured out. It's why you don't see anything faster than a 3.8GHz version. An AMD processor running at 3GHz would be a pretty good jump from your 3GHz P4.
The 200 and 800 series Opteron processors have the extra HyperTransport links to talk to each other. But since there is a memory controller on each CPU, you get a LOT of bandwidth going to memory.
AMD doesn't go through a northbridge to get to memory.
As a result of that design, going multi-core was very simple for AMD, all they had to do is link the cores via the extra HT link from two Opteron 200 series cores.
An interesting result of this design compared to the Intel design is that the current Intel dual-core samples will be bus bandwidth limited while the dual core AMD chips won't.
Keep in mind that dual-core Opteron and Athlon 64 chips will still lag behind a little due to the higher clock speed of the Intel chips in SOME applications. AMD is within a year of 3GHz single-core chips while Intel may still be unable to get to 4GHz. As a result, for the few areas that Intel has the clear advantage in speed TODAY, next year AMD will be close to catching up in.
The potential for nanotechnology to go wrong and do something bad is still there. That is the problem.
If you have a technology that can repair cells, what's to say that a mistake couldn't happen that would create cancer or some other problems? That is the fear. Also, as the technology advances, it may become possible that new diseases are created while trying to come up with cures for other diseases.
On today's topic, I'm not afraid of what they are doing currently, but the direction will scare many people.
Of course, even the movie ratings are a guide and arn't something that are enforced today. So video game ratings are just as useless. Until you need to show ID to buy games with a mature rating and be above a certain age, these things won't help.
The problem isn't as much about the games as it is about those people who are borderline homicidal in the first place.
Think about it, most people who attack or defend violence in entertainment don't seem to understand the real issue behind the violent behavior they are trying to stop.
The real problem isn't that children or teens may emulate what they see in games or movies, it's that a lot of people in the world today are closer to insanity than most of us want to think about. There are people of all age groups that become violent for whatever reason, and nothing we do will stop that. So the only thing that can be done is to keep those who are on the edge from going over the edge and doing something violent.
For those who arn't emotionally stable, games like GTA are a real problem because they give these mentally defective people ideas. For those who are sane, these games arn't going to be a problem, for those who arn't, they are a big problem for all of us, no matter how old or young.
Politicians arn't known for being terribly intelligent, so it's no surprise that they miss the real problem. We as members of society need to help keep people from going over the edge. People used to talk about postal workers going crazy and shooting people, but you have to wonder what would happen if there were a focus on keeping people from being upset.
An issue here is that if you arn't trying to sell the browser, the issue becomes a bit less clear.
For example, if you sell a computer, and put a number of free open-source products on it(Firefox, OpenOffice, or others), that isn't a violation of the GPL. In most cases, you arn't allowed to SELL the GPL licensed product, but you can sell a product and then include the GPL licensed products for free I believe. If you couldn't, then you would never see a computer sold with Linux pre-installed.
So, is the web browser we are talking about here one of the features of the product, or was it put on there for free as a convenience for the customer?
I never said that I want to see a violent revolution since I am against violence. But I see a gradual degradation of trust here in this country that EVENTUALLY will lead to a revolution of some kind. If it happens in ten years, or one hundred, or longer or shorter isn't the point, but it is going to happen if the US government doesn't remember that there IS a point where the people they theoretically govern and represent will not accept their abuses.
The problem is that since the early 1970s, there has been less and less confidence and support of the US government from the people who live in the USA. As a result of this, the government has a valid concern that groups of people here in the USA may decide to do more than just talk about how they dislike how the government has developed.
So, now the government is trying to keep anti-government types from talking, but doesn't care about the rights of others.
Doesn't every movie do this? It is a natural evolution of an existing idea, and as such would be thrown out. It's like saying that after the invention of the wheel that using two of them together couldn't be done due to a patent.
If you think about it, Peer to Peer isn't much different than any normal file transfers, except that it is automated. Do they block you from using FTP, or from running an FTP server that has fully legal software on it? How about an FTP server that allows for anonymous uploads and downloads of files without authentication?
The problem that most schools have is that they have a limited amount of bandwidth on their network connections to the Internet, and they need to avoid paying more just because students want to use peer to peer networks. They also need to avoid lawsuits so stupid rules go into effect.
It would make more sense for a university or school to put a limit on the upload bandwidth provided per interface to avoid problems like this, rather than putting down a blanket statement saying that peer to peer isn't allowed.
Back in the old days, a common way to write a program was to make code that can be used in many different places from within the program. Routines that are similar would be considered a bad thing, so you make routines that are designed to handle the differet situations that need similar code.
The problem with Microsoft is that they have forgotten or never learned how to design a program before their people have started to write anything. As a result, we see 384k patches from Microsoft that take several minutes to install on some systems.
Another problem is that there is a LOT of duplicate code that is in use even within common libraries.
The people who suggest that there are too many features are almost correct, but the problem isn't with the number of features, it's the way those features are added to programs.
Also, there is only so far you can take a given design while you add features before things start to break due to design. If you start with a good DESIGN, then implement that design in code, it becomes a LOT easier to debug.
Microsoft needs to come up with a NEW OS that isn't an extension of Windows NT or Windows 3.0(95/98/ME are still based on that old code in many ways). Windows NT was the right idea back when it was first developed. Toss the old design, start from scratch, and you end up with a better product. The only problem that Windows NT really had was that compatability wasn't written into the core design of the OS, it was a layer added on top, which means you need a "translator" to handle that. If it's in the design, then you figure out how to do the emulation of the old system in a way that is compatable with the "new" way of doing things. Today, it's not as difficult as it used to be back in those early days of Windows NT. We have enough processing power to make virtual machines that can handle just about anything if they are coded properly. The only problem is that the emulation of the old DOS environment or Windows environment hasn't been implemented by Microsoft.
But I've gone off topic a bit. The key to easily debugged code is to design in a way to make things properly modular. Almost all features within Windows should be TIGHT code. To open a file probably has 200 different versions of that code within the Windows XP code base scattered through all the programs that come with Windows XP or 2003. Think about that, and wonder why it's hard to debug.
Nope. Debian is NOT a product of the FSF, though there is a lot of good will between the two groups. The GNU in the name is a tribute to the old GNU OS which ended up being the majority of the OS the Linux Kernel was the heart of. Since that time, Linux has grown to the point where the GNU portion is fairly small compared to the rest(not counting programs compiled by gcc but written by other groups).
The HOWTOs are very useful for many reasons. For starters, the scripts that come with each distribution STILL only help with the maintenance and configuration of the different "packages" available. BUT, these same tools do NOT replace the need for the tools listed in the HOWTOs. If you read the NET3-HOWTO(or are we up to NET4 by now?), you will see a reference to programs such as pppd, ifconfig, route, and so on. The pppconfig script available for some distributions will only help with setting up pppd, but does not replace the need for pppd. You can also use the HOWTO to understand how the pppconfig script works, and perhaps overcome any weaknesses in the pppconfig script. The same is true for setting up ethernet cards, and for anything else. The HOWTO will almost always tell you how to do things by hand, without forcing you to use a script you may not understand, and which may not suit your needs.
I hope this helps. Each distribution attempts to simplify installation and maintenance of the system in it's own way. Redhat goes for the graphical approach. Slackware goes for a barebones type of approach. Debian tends to be halfway between these two extremes. So, before looking at the differences, take a look at what is similar between the distributions. Yes, there are always people who argue about which is better, but the vast majority choose the distribution they prefer for their own reasons, and while they may not like another distribution, they will USUALLY not care what other people use(until that person who went with Redhat starts asking their Debian or Slackware using friends for help).
My own bias is toward Debian, since there is generally a larger online user base who is available for help than the other distributions, and there is more a feeling of wanting to help other Linux users than the commercial distribution users.
Yep, the original game "castles" used a similar method. They code a formula into the program. Then the program comes up with a random number. You call the company which has the formula on file, then gives a response number. If the response number doesn't match the number the formula thinks you should get, it doesn't work. In some cases, it's a CMOS checksum, or it could be keyed to some other values in the machine, perhaps a BIOS revision, or the seed number for the original number the program comes from a combination of other values in the BIOS that can be captured.
Now, on the problem here, Microsoft has been makeing a huge ammount of money from Intel's chip sales for a long time now. Because of this, I wonder if Intel made a deal with Microsoft on this issue. Perhaps Intel, not being able to shut AMD out by themselves, has figured out a way to get MICROSOFT to shut down AMD and other Intel competitors? This sounds like something both companies are known for. Anti-competitive behavior. First, Intel tries to kill AMD by going to Slot 1. It didn't work, AMD came up with chips that did so much more with socket 7 that AMD managed to gain market share. Now AMD is about to release the K7 in another few months. Intel is scared, so had to figure out another strategy to shut down AMD. They talk to Microsoft, and get CPU serial numbers that can be read by software. I wonder if the DOJ has enough of a clue to figure out that this happened?
Yep, if your motherboard supports the K6-2 400(CTX core), then it will automatically support the K6-3, and the L2 cache on the motherboard will become L3 cache. This is according to AMD. I know that the FIC PA-2013 and VA-503+ will support this.
Let's see, we have virtually every major database being ported to Linux. We have games beginning to be written for Linux now(as part of the initial release, not an afterthought or port) as well. There are who knows how many millions of systems running Linux. So, it's gone a bit beyond, "fad" stage when commercial products are showing up for it regularly. As for the problem of bloat, you may have noticed that many distributions have an FTP site where additional packages can be downloaded from. This will allow for the bloat to be removed from the initial release, and to keep things to a reasonable level. So, bloat isn't an issue either, as long as the packages are organized in a way that can be managed by the users. This can be dealt with by offering different "levels" of install for users. I know that Debian GNU/Linux began to implement a "function" question to help make installation easier for beginners with the 2.0 release. I suspect that when 2.1 is released, it will build upon this feature to help make the initial install easier. Redhat and SuSE have used a GUI install to aid users through the install. This shows that it will not take much longer before Linux becomes "accessable" for many endusers to move to.