Add to that list: Windows 200 and Windows XP. (...) Windows 200 had major problems with hardware drivers.
Eh, 200? And you're repeating it twice? And what was probably the best Windows releases for business (2000) and home (XP) ever? I'd mark you troll, but I figure stupid is more on target...
While IE is switching from versions 6/7/8 at a glacial pace, Firefox users are upgrading rapidly. Since May with 20.03% vs 0.44% for FF 3.0 vs FF 3.5, it's now 9.62% vs 12.65%. That means you can much more rapidly rely on Firefox being a recent version and not dealing with supporting ancient versions.
Why do I care about that? Because browser stats drives most the ways I have to interact with the world. Linux has 1% or whatever, but what matters is how well it works together wtih the other 99%. Therefore, death to IE:)
Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see that the submitter mentioned what type of development he's doing. If he's trying to do game development, virtualization may not be ideal for him.
If you're doing game development for Windows 98, I'd say you have much bigger problems...
All (correct) mathematical proofs are true, if the axioms are true. However, there's an infinite set of axioms and the only reason you have to believe any of them correspond to the system you are trying to predict is through observation. If you don't have any observations, if you're trying to make a priori knowledge, then your prediction power is thus infintesimal. Or in English, you don't know shit. As for pure mathematics, imagine it a little bit like infinite quantum universes in sci-fi. For every mathmatical result there are other sets of axioms leading to all other possible results. Without excluding axioms you can not exclude any results, so you're only going in circles defining your own results. In English, anything's possible.
Of course in practice you would have to create insane and arbtrary axioms to do this. But "logical" axioms like the set of real numbers or three dimensional space only appear so because of observation and how it reflects the real world. A priori you have no basis to say why one set of axioms should better reflect reality than the other. So I would say the answer is simply false, you can not have meaningful mathematics without context. However, once you do have meaningful axioms through observation you can get many results through mathematics that are non-obvious through observation. Honestly though, you're more heading into philsophy than mathematics once you go that deep.
I've never felt it applied since I actually like emacs for text editing, but boy does the same type of line apply to Notes: it'd be a great OS if only it included a decent email client.
That'd be like what, Windows ME with a decent email client?
Just because you have multiple problems, doesn't mean you have to tackle them one at a time. Several of the early file sharing apps were intentionally vague, because they figured more content == popularity so they tried to let users share as much as possible with as little effort as possible, hidden away in defaulted checkboxes or EULAs. As usual the legislation is very late though, this might have been useful around napster, kazaa and edonkey but these days most tools are a lot more serious. Not to mention torrents, that don't really have the problem at all. I guess it's just another way of trying to kill off the authors of P2P tools to kill P2P, not that it will be more successful than the last 34234 attempts.
Meh, check out Theo's wikiquote page: "So the HP guy comes up to me (at the Melbourne conference) and he says, 'If you say nasty things like that to vendors you're not going to get anything'. I said 'no, in eight years of saying nothing, we've got nothing, and I'm going to start saying nasty things, in the hope that some of these vendors will start giving me money so I'll shut up'."
Doesn't sound much like "love" or "charity" to me. Sounds to me like a man that's tried of giving and giving and giving and never getting anything back, yet refuses to acknowledge that as long as the license doesn't require anyone to give anything back, corporations don't. Their obligations are to the stockholders, not to fair dealings. Squeeze your costs as much as possible, get as much money as possible out of your customers, turn a big profit. That's what drives most companies all the time and all companies most of the time. Theo seems to be going by much the same drive as Linus, he wants to do this "right", he wants to make the best possible product. But unlike Linus, he hasn't gotten everyone else on board.
It's possible what is in OpenBSD is better, per se. But compared to Linux it's like an obscure niche site compared to wikipedia, it's where everyone contributes and it's huge, hard to manage but ends up being so much more useful. You got people working on Linux to make it run better on everything from cell phones to supercomputers. You got people working on getting all sorts of wierd hardware work. You got people working on desktop responsiveness and heavy server workloads. You got all sorts of research work, build farms and regression tests being run all over the place. OpenSSH may be a polished gem, but it's only the front door lock. But for everything else if you're relying on the masses to develop your OS, I'm going where the masses are. That is in no small part the license, though I know there's also other reasons...
I don't think the OpenSSH guys want to add it, and I agree with them. It's a tool used by so many that understand so little, but at least they've sorta understood that SSH = secure. They'd still fall for any certificate trickery because they don't really understand, but I digress. The point is that once sshfs means maybe secure, maybe not secure you can bet idiots will do stuff like disable crypto and go "Hey look, it's still ssh, it's still secure, and it's 100x faster" and completely ignore all the blinkenlights.
If you don't want SSH, what's wrong with NFS/FTP and remote telnet/X? You're going naked anyway, there's no point to pretend you're even remotely secure. That'd be a pathetic attempt at security by obscurity since the source is out there and any "weak mode" crypto would be a plugin in the hacker tools in no time. I think it's fairly proven now that insecure crypto is probably the worst of all worlds, not being secure yet people mindlessly using it as if it were. So no crypto and then there's really no point in calling it ssh either. The notsshfs, perhaps.
Q: "Do you want to pay $1 from your wallet or give me $1 worth of eyeball time I can sell ads for?" A: "Well you're sure not getting my money" Q: "Ads are only worth something if they lead to sales, do you want tons of uninteresting ads?" A: "Let's get this over wtih as fast as possible"
Of course you want it free as in beer and no ads and a free pony. But if you phrase is as "How do you want to pay?" not "Do you want to pay?" it's not that unreasonable a conclusion...
They've been saying it forever, but it's starting to come true. Let me quote you from Anandtech's HD 5850 review, benchmarks starting at page 3:
"Crysis Warhead: Warhead is still the single most demanding game in our arsenal, with cards continuing to struggle to put out a playable frame rate with everything turned up." "Far Cry 2: Thankfully it's not nearly as punishing as Crysis, and it's possible to achieve a good framerate even with all the settings at their highest." "Battleforge: [Has no real one-sentence summary, but 30+ fps with everything max'ed]" "World of Warcraft: (...) As WoW is known to be CPU limited, we can turn it up to rather silly settings and still get a playable framerate on just about anything." "HAWX is another game that's not particularly GPU-bound, which means we can turn in some high numbers." "Dawn of War II is our other RTS benchmark. It's among the more challenging games in our collection, leading to there being a definite cutoff for playability." "Resident Evil 5: (...) As is often the case with console ports, it's not particularly GPU starved, and can crank out high numbers on just about anything" "Batman: Arkham Asylum: (...) Since we can't use AA, the name of the game is still "runaway performance", with the 5850 bringing in 88fps." "Left 4 Dead: As the Source engine is CPU limited, this is once again going to be a collection of ridiculously high frame rates."
These are all comments at 2560x1600 with everything cranked up to max. And yet half the branchmarks they could come up with are basicly irrelevant even with everyhting cranked to max. If you play at anything less, like I do at 1920x1200 then most of the other half too. There's Crysis but cards are leaping ahead of the games, what we lack for realism isn't more power but lots and lots of programming of details for all those shaders - which is expensive as hell. I'm saying that even with the hardware, it might not pay off to invest that money in the software.
An expression describing the act of a company using its own products for day-to-day operations. (...) This slang was popularized during the dotcom craze when some companies did not use their own products and thus could "not even eat their own dog food".
In other words, to NOT eat your own dog food means you SELL it but you're not using it yourself. If you are using it too, you are eating your own dog food. I'm not sure when that expression changed, if ever, to mean that you're not selling it yet. I guess your use is more a result of the other, because there's so much focus on "eating your own dogfood" you end up eating crap for marketing purposes.
You do realize this implies you work for ATI/AMD? If not, perhaps you should do a quick check on what dogfood means.
Umm... no, it means to use whatever you're selling and recommending. To take a car analogy (surprise) if you sell Fords for a living and drive a Toyota you're not eating your own dogfood. The implied message is that you'd go to a different store and buy a Toyota, even though you don't work for Ford. Same if you're selling clothes you'd never wear yourself, even though you're a retailer and not working for the brands you carry. So if he was recommending AMD systems to everyone but using Intel systems himself, I'd say he's using the expression absolutely correctly. Of course you shouldn't pull the concept to absurdity, but it's certainly broader than you imply.
It was my understanding they had only dropped updated support for older cards (R500?), which are pretty well supported by the OS driver these days anyway, now that ATI is publishing specs again. Am I confused?
According to what I've read, the open source driver is obviously a different code base and a new code base, so a lot of stuff didn't work quite as well. But yeah, that is the general intention.
I am curious why this is not also a violation of the first sale doctrine. If I am allowed by law to sell a copyrighted work which I have legally purchased, Autodesk should not be permitted to implement a system which takes this right away.
To put it very briefly, because you have right that makes it legal but not a right that requires it be practical. Which is why you see so much digital trickery to make it practically impossible. A modern version of first-sale should require that there be a way to permanently transfer the work, or else the buyer is entitled to a full refund. That should stop such bullshit rather easily...
What nonsense. You can refuse answering questions or giving evidence, but the police can observe your actions without warrant where possible and with warrant where necessary. If that reveals your crimes that's fair game, the 5th amendment doesn't apply unless you've been asked or instructed to provide something. It is then your right to refuse.
If politicians had to listen to all hypotheticals, including all the batshit insane ones, they'd never find time to deal with reality. If it hasn't happened once in the entire history of the courts, it's probably not worth piling another law on top of an extremely long list already to deal with it unless it's a major new principle.
On the other hand, most companies are either infected with WTF culture or bureaucracy or they're not. Unless they've bought up a different company, the attitude and quality procedures (or lack thereof) is usually the same.
I'm guessing it's exactly enough for the "checklist" users, do you have antivirus? Yes. It'll be somewhat ok and no antivirus is perfect. I don't really think that's an either-or in Symantec's comments, I doubt it's that great but I do think they're very worried about their bottom line anyway.
Documents with formatting perhaps, science data in wierd formats from early space exploration need transcoding perhaps. But most forms of art in text, pictures, sound and video are trivial to the extreme. Also, I don't think there's reason to believe we'll continue to have a million different formats. Without diving too far into information theory, things are not infinitely compressible. We are going to quite quickly - at the timescales we're talking about here - create codecs that are close to that limit, and that 20 years after that are patent free. At that point, why bother using anything else?
This is based more on public media impression than actual knowledge (now there's a first on slashdot!) but I get the impression it's the big CYA-reflex against someone filing suit for sexual harassment or creating a sexually hostile work environment. They don't even have to be really offended, just a gold digger and with the US being the most hypocritical society on earth when it comes to sexuality they can get some absurd damage awards. That sort of thing doesn't happen even if an employee wastes all his time on youtube.
Slashdot Mirror
Add to that list: Windows 200 and Windows XP. (...) Windows 200 had major problems with hardware drivers.
Eh, 200? And you're repeating it twice? And what was probably the best Windows releases for business (2000) and home (XP) ever? I'd mark you troll, but I figure stupid is more on target...
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=1
IE: -1,26%
FF: +0.77%
Safari: +0.17%
Chrome: +0.33%
Opera: +0.15%
Everybody's taking a piece of Microsoft. The version graph is pretty interesting too:
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=3
While IE is switching from versions 6/7/8 at a glacial pace, Firefox users are upgrading rapidly. Since May with 20.03% vs 0.44% for FF 3.0 vs FF 3.5, it's now 9.62% vs 12.65%. That means you can much more rapidly rely on Firefox being a recent version and not dealing with supporting ancient versions.
Why do I care about that? Because browser stats drives most the ways I have to interact with the world. Linux has 1% or whatever, but what matters is how well it works together wtih the other 99%. Therefore, death to IE :)
Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see that the submitter mentioned what type of development he's doing. If he's trying to do game development, virtualization may not be ideal for him.
If you're doing game development for Windows 98, I'd say you have much bigger problems...
All (correct) mathematical proofs are true, if the axioms are true. However, there's an infinite set of axioms and the only reason you have to believe any of them correspond to the system you are trying to predict is through observation. If you don't have any observations, if you're trying to make a priori knowledge, then your prediction power is thus infintesimal. Or in English, you don't know shit. As for pure mathematics, imagine it a little bit like infinite quantum universes in sci-fi. For every mathmatical result there are other sets of axioms leading to all other possible results. Without excluding axioms you can not exclude any results, so you're only going in circles defining your own results. In English, anything's possible.
Of course in practice you would have to create insane and arbtrary axioms to do this. But "logical" axioms like the set of real numbers or three dimensional space only appear so because of observation and how it reflects the real world. A priori you have no basis to say why one set of axioms should better reflect reality than the other. So I would say the answer is simply false, you can not have meaningful mathematics without context. However, once you do have meaningful axioms through observation you can get many results through mathematics that are non-obvious through observation. Honestly though, you're more heading into philsophy than mathematics once you go that deep.
I've never felt it applied since I actually like emacs for text editing, but boy does the same type of line apply to Notes: it'd be a great OS if only it included a decent email client.
That'd be like what, Windows ME with a decent email client?
n/t
Just because you have multiple problems, doesn't mean you have to tackle them one at a time. Several of the early file sharing apps were intentionally vague, because they figured more content == popularity so they tried to let users share as much as possible with as little effort as possible, hidden away in defaulted checkboxes or EULAs. As usual the legislation is very late though, this might have been useful around napster, kazaa and edonkey but these days most tools are a lot more serious. Not to mention torrents, that don't really have the problem at all. I guess it's just another way of trying to kill off the authors of P2P tools to kill P2P, not that it will be more successful than the last 34234 attempts.
Meh, check out Theo's wikiquote page:
"So the HP guy comes up to me (at the Melbourne conference) and he says, 'If you say nasty things like that to vendors you're not going to get anything'. I said 'no, in eight years of saying nothing, we've got nothing, and I'm going to start saying nasty things, in the hope that some of these vendors will start giving me money so I'll shut up'."
Doesn't sound much like "love" or "charity" to me. Sounds to me like a man that's tried of giving and giving and giving and never getting anything back, yet refuses to acknowledge that as long as the license doesn't require anyone to give anything back, corporations don't. Their obligations are to the stockholders, not to fair dealings. Squeeze your costs as much as possible, get as much money as possible out of your customers, turn a big profit. That's what drives most companies all the time and all companies most of the time. Theo seems to be going by much the same drive as Linus, he wants to do this "right", he wants to make the best possible product. But unlike Linus, he hasn't gotten everyone else on board.
It's possible what is in OpenBSD is better, per se. But compared to Linux it's like an obscure niche site compared to wikipedia, it's where everyone contributes and it's huge, hard to manage but ends up being so much more useful. You got people working on Linux to make it run better on everything from cell phones to supercomputers. You got people working on getting all sorts of wierd hardware work. You got people working on desktop responsiveness and heavy server workloads. You got all sorts of research work, build farms and regression tests being run all over the place. OpenSSH may be a polished gem, but it's only the front door lock. But for everything else if you're relying on the masses to develop your OS, I'm going where the masses are. That is in no small part the license, though I know there's also other reasons...
I don't think the OpenSSH guys want to add it, and I agree with them. It's a tool used by so many that understand so little, but at least they've sorta understood that SSH = secure. They'd still fall for any certificate trickery because they don't really understand, but I digress. The point is that once sshfs means maybe secure, maybe not secure you can bet idiots will do stuff like disable crypto and go "Hey look, it's still ssh, it's still secure, and it's 100x faster" and completely ignore all the blinkenlights.
If you don't want SSH, what's wrong with NFS/FTP and remote telnet/X? You're going naked anyway, there's no point to pretend you're even remotely secure. That'd be a pathetic attempt at security by obscurity since the source is out there and any "weak mode" crypto would be a plugin in the hacker tools in no time. I think it's fairly proven now that insecure crypto is probably the worst of all worlds, not being secure yet people mindlessly using it as if it were. So no crypto and then there's really no point in calling it ssh either. The notsshfs, perhaps.
Q: "Do you want to pay $1 from your wallet or give me $1 worth of eyeball time I can sell ads for?"
A: "Well you're sure not getting my money"
Q: "Ads are only worth something if they lead to sales, do you want tons of uninteresting ads?"
A: "Let's get this over wtih as fast as possible"
Of course you want it free as in beer and no ads and a free pony. But if you phrase is as "How do you want to pay?" not "Do you want to pay?" it's not that unreasonable a conclusion...
Yep, there's so much hot air there they burn way better.
They've been saying it forever, but it's starting to come true. Let me quote you from Anandtech's HD 5850 review, benchmarks starting at page 3:
"Crysis Warhead: Warhead is still the single most demanding game in our arsenal, with cards continuing to struggle to put out a playable frame rate with everything turned up."
"Far Cry 2: Thankfully it's not nearly as punishing as Crysis, and it's possible to achieve a good framerate even with all the settings at their highest."
"Battleforge: [Has no real one-sentence summary, but 30+ fps with everything max'ed]"
"World of Warcraft: (...) As WoW is known to be CPU limited, we can turn it up to rather silly settings and still get a playable framerate on just about anything."
"HAWX is another game that's not particularly GPU-bound, which means we can turn in some high numbers."
"Dawn of War II is our other RTS benchmark. It's among the more challenging games in our collection, leading to there being a definite cutoff for playability."
"Resident Evil 5: (...) As is often the case with console ports, it's not particularly GPU starved, and can crank out high numbers on just about anything"
"Batman: Arkham Asylum: (...) Since we can't use AA, the name of the game is still "runaway performance", with the 5850 bringing in 88fps."
"Left 4 Dead: As the Source engine is CPU limited, this is once again going to be a collection of ridiculously high frame rates."
These are all comments at 2560x1600 with everything cranked up to max. And yet half the branchmarks they could come up with are basicly irrelevant even with everyhting cranked to max. If you play at anything less, like I do at 1920x1200 then most of the other half too. There's Crysis but cards are leaping ahead of the games, what we lack for realism isn't more power but lots and lots of programming of details for all those shaders - which is expensive as hell. I'm saying that even with the hardware, it might not pay off to invest that money in the software.
Answers.com has this:
An expression describing the act of a company using its own products for day-to-day operations. (...) This slang was popularized during the dotcom craze when some companies did not use their own products and thus could "not even eat their own dog food".
In other words, to NOT eat your own dog food means you SELL it but you're not using it yourself. If you are using it too, you are eating your own dog food. I'm not sure when that expression changed, if ever, to mean that you're not selling it yet. I guess your use is more a result of the other, because there's so much focus on "eating your own dogfood" you end up eating crap for marketing purposes.
even going so far as to eat my own dogfood
You do realize this implies you work for ATI/AMD? If not, perhaps you should do a quick check on what dogfood means.
Umm... no, it means to use whatever you're selling and recommending. To take a car analogy (surprise) if you sell Fords for a living and drive a Toyota you're not eating your own dogfood. The implied message is that you'd go to a different store and buy a Toyota, even though you don't work for Ford. Same if you're selling clothes you'd never wear yourself, even though you're a retailer and not working for the brands you carry. So if he was recommending AMD systems to everyone but using Intel systems himself, I'd say he's using the expression absolutely correctly. Of course you shouldn't pull the concept to absurdity, but it's certainly broader than you imply.
It was my understanding they had only dropped updated support for older cards (R500?), which are pretty well supported by the OS driver these days anyway, now that ATI is publishing specs again. Am I confused?
According to what I've read, the open source driver is obviously a different code base and a new code base, so a lot of stuff didn't work quite as well. But yeah, that is the general intention.
Ding! This is like a $1 fine to normal people, the important part for all the other vendors is they can now say this ad was bogus.
I am curious why this is not also a violation of the first sale doctrine. If I am allowed by law to sell a copyrighted work which I have legally purchased, Autodesk should not be permitted to implement a system which takes this right away.
To put it very briefly, because you have right that makes it legal but not a right that requires it be practical. Which is why you see so much digital trickery to make it practically impossible. A modern version of first-sale should require that there be a way to permanently transfer the work, or else the buyer is entitled to a full refund. That should stop such bullshit rather easily...
What nonsense. You can refuse answering questions or giving evidence, but the police can observe your actions without warrant where possible and with warrant where necessary. If that reveals your crimes that's fair game, the 5th amendment doesn't apply unless you've been asked or instructed to provide something. It is then your right to refuse.
If politicians had to listen to all hypotheticals, including all the batshit insane ones, they'd never find time to deal with reality. If it hasn't happened once in the entire history of the courts, it's probably not worth piling another law on top of an extremely long list already to deal with it unless it's a major new principle.
Isn't that exactly what declaratory judgment is supposed to be?
On the other hand, most companies are either infected with WTF culture or bureaucracy or they're not. Unless they've bought up a different company, the attitude and quality procedures (or lack thereof) is usually the same.
I'm guessing it's exactly enough for the "checklist" users, do you have antivirus? Yes. It'll be somewhat ok and no antivirus is perfect. I don't really think that's an either-or in Symantec's comments, I doubt it's that great but I do think they're very worried about their bottom line anyway.
Documents with formatting perhaps, science data in wierd formats from early space exploration need transcoding perhaps. But most forms of art in text, pictures, sound and video are trivial to the extreme. Also, I don't think there's reason to believe we'll continue to have a million different formats. Without diving too far into information theory, things are not infinitely compressible. We are going to quite quickly - at the timescales we're talking about here - create codecs that are close to that limit, and that 20 years after that are patent free. At that point, why bother using anything else?
This is based more on public media impression than actual knowledge (now there's a first on slashdot!) but I get the impression it's the big CYA-reflex against someone filing suit for sexual harassment or creating a sexually hostile work environment. They don't even have to be really offended, just a gold digger and with the US being the most hypocritical society on earth when it comes to sexuality they can get some absurd damage awards. That sort of thing doesn't happen even if an employee wastes all his time on youtube.
Don't know about you, but I want to go to the grocery story at 20,000 MPH, and be able to bring back a container full of stuff too!
If you live so far from the grocery store you need a 20,000 MPH craft to get there, it's time to start growing your own.