A bit much into conspiracy theory aren't we? Been watching too much X-Files and playing Deus Ex?
Most software has to be installed as root, especially if it's going to be of any use to its participents. With a file disk quota of 5 megs standard on most machines, do you think most users will be able to install Office (or StarOffice, or anything for that matter?)
This will be a good chance for Linux to really shine: to show that supposedly buggy code can be run and not crash the whole system. It's a win-win situation. If the code runs right, we have another great office app. If the code runs wrong, we have more evidence that Microsoft writes bad code (and the system will recover just fine).
Nail me with an offtopic if you want, but I'm curious (since I've never used FreeBSD) I thought FreeBSD and Linux used all the same libraries? Don't they have the same file system structure? Won't running the install scripts built for Linux (essentially) put the files in the right place?
Interesting arguments, but the truth is Sony *does* build their systems for video compositing and editing (look at the PictureBook for example).
Crystal clear video editing may not be totally practical right now, but everyone's looking at world where battery life holds us back. Give it a couple of a years, and we will have batteries that can last all day *without* a Crusoe chip.
In a recent programming languages class we made an effort to construct a language based on "natural" english. Something akin to "make the sum of a and b equal to c" as a typical line.
It was hard! Just building a parser for a regular language like C++ is hard enough (you have to provide for all the different ways to write and prototype functions, for instance), but in a natural language you have to provide for dozens of ways and dialects made to say the same thing.
"a and b should equal c", "let the sum, which is a plus b, equal c" and "c should equal the sum of a and b" are all different ways of saying the above.
In The Code Book, they diagram how quantum cryptography is going to easily beat quantum cryptanalysis.
True, it's easier to break traditional prime-number based ciphers with quantum machines, but there is an effectively unbreakable cipher which can be built off a quantum computer - one that relies off the position of the atoms used as they fly through refractors that "trap" the states, and a system that relies on public-key ideas to keep that atom key a secret.
They cite quantum money as a potential example (an idea developed in the 1970s). There are some truly mindblowing consequences to an unbreakable cipher.
One of Sony's standing points with laptops is that they're built for multimedia. A/V outs, firewire, the whole bit. No one has yet questioned, however, whether a Crusoe chip is going to be any good at CPU-intensive functions like light video-editing (especially with all that x86 emulation going on). Wouldn't it be better to stick with a tried and true Intel or AMD chip?
(Also, with 15-inch XGA screens on some of their machines, what benefit is a Crusoe chip going to afford? Isn't most of the power going to be sucked through the screen anyway?)
For someone who changes his Linux distribution, what do you guys recommend as a good base? I currently use Caldera OpenLinux (it by far had the easiest installer), but was a user of RedHat up until a year ago.
Keep in mind, while I've been working with computers for 15 years (began programming TI-99/4A basic when I was 6:) ), Linux is relatively new to me. I'm teaching myself all the Unix commands as I go along, and I've been playing around with it for a year or two.
I've heard good things about Debian, but the install freaks me out (same reason I don't want to try FreeBSD). Apparently the new stable release is a little easier on the install. What's the default, KDE or Gnome? Should I stick with Caldera OpenLinux (it seems to do the job for me, all I do is browse the internet and program C++ on it), or is there something more Debian can offer?
A standardized GUI? What's next, a standardized kernel for everyone to use? Standardized apps on startup? Maybe we'll have a nice little option like Win98 has on install to not put online services on the machine, and then put them anyway.
Anyone see a major problem here? I, for one (a KDE user), am a little downheartened. I'm going to have to get used to the "standard GUI", because mine will go the way of the dinosaurs.
The more important issue the article was trying to make was that the total cost for ownership for Linux is far more than it is touted to be (they say the cost of the OS is 3% of the total. I don't know where they came up with that figure). But they're right.
MS has certification programs and paid support teams and the like. When you have a problem, at least you can blame someone. With Linux, the admin is generally expected to tweak the system until it works. Anyone who's had experience adding new hardware to Linux, this can take 5-10 times as long as a Windows 2000 machine (provided drivers are available on the Windows side somewhere, which they usually are).
Why would companies want Windows over Linux? Quite simply, they'd rather spend a few bucks to get a little support and have someone to blame then get the OS for free. Getting something for free, anything, worries companies. In the case of the article, they worry that time will be wasted on admins tweaking the system. I'd be more concerned if, when a problem arised, the ritualistic point of the fingers went around the IT department instead of to an external source that could fix the dumb thing.
The problem with today's users is that UNIX-mavens naturally assume what they like and use is what the general populace should use. The truth is, regular users don't really care about the same features that mavens like.
Case point, I tried installing Linux on my family's home machine. I tried to explain that the system would rarely (if ever) crash, that each person in the family would get their own desktop, and they would get the access to the internet they always had.
You know what? They hated it.
'Why do I need to type a password every time I want to get on a machine I own, in my home?' my mother complained. The kids said they couldn't install any games they liked, and the ones they could rarely ran. They wondered why they needed something called a 'superuser' to install Q3A.
And here's the kicker: 'Why do we have to worry about crashes?' To them a crash was standard behavior, like a car misfiring on startup or a TV channel fizzed out for a few minutes. 'But then you won't have to reboot,' I'd explain. 'But we have to reboot anyway. We shut off the machine every night.'
You see, the practices of the UNIX/Linux world don't seem to jive with the world of "Joe User". They've ascribed to practices that, for better or for worse, they don't want to deliniate from. Case in point: the whole VHS vs. Beta debate a while back. Not looking at which format was "better", once people started using VHS they never looked back.
Same thing with Windoze PCs. Once people started looking at the pretty icons, the ability to run all those games, relatively simply document/folder analogy (even though copied from Mac) and the ability to use all kinds of neat hardware, they were hooked. Password protection, uncrashable system? This was a family computer living in the den. They didn't care what was the pride of sys admins, web servers and academic folk in college. Unix never existed in their mind, and if it did, it was that brief glimmer of "nerdiness" they all wanted to avoid.
My commentary on the state of technology and the world.
The need for console ports is simple. Right now, there is no better way to entertain guests (particularly friends) by sitting around the TV and playing video games or watching videos. The game companies know this: that's why 3 of the 4 upcoming next-generation systems support DVD playback (Sega is considering an add-on for Dreamcast).
The PC has been repeatly touted to "merge" with television, but it just doesn't happen. I don't think it ever will. The ultimate computers of the future will be like X-Box or PS2: a centralized box that can serve as entertainment, internet, and eventually a server for the whole home.
It's hard for Carmack to comment on the Dolphin since no development kits have been released and all but the barest details about the system's processor has been said. We don't even know Nintendo's full online strategy yet.
I would doubt an N64 port would be very fruitful. Getting all those textures to fit on one cart would be hell.
After seeing the dismal reviews of Daikatana, I had all but lost faith in the overhyped company known as Ion Storm, but Deus Ex changed my view. Warren Spector, the maker of the two System Shock games, has made an awesome example of what could be done with the Unreal Engine.
Now, hopefully, he will lend his "slide and stealth" expertise to Thief. This should be awesome.
Unfortunately, Linux had lower benchmark scores on nearly every test, at nearly every resolution. Marginally, of course, but it's still there.
I would go for Linux as my primary gaming platform if they were more games (like Deus Ex, The Sims, etc.) and more support for games. As it stands, Win2000 is my primary gaming platform, with Linux as my programming platform.
I've never seen a voxel game that makes good use of the technology, let alone looked any good. Even with the acceleration, the graphics are going to be pixelly and blockly.
What I wouldn't mind seeing is an emotion-engine enabled graphics card strapped to a high-end PIII or Athlon, but I'm a dreamer.
I think Intel held off for as long as they did because the *potential* for something better was there. Rambus really wasn't designed for today's machines, it was designed for tomorrow's to cure some future bottleneck issues. The bottlenecks are bad now, but they'll be even worse when we're talking 2-3 GHz machines.
With PC133 RAM you're ok now, but stuck with potential problems down the road. I don't mean to be hypocritical: I use PC100 in my Athlon system. But I really don't think that old RAM is the way of the future.
Why not be able to choose your programs through a cell phone (either web-enabled or just by pressing buttons?) Wouldn't that be a hell of a lot more mobile, and defeat the whole "cracking" issue (most digital cell phones have pretty high-level encryption as it is).
Actually, let me add a caveat emptor. I think cooling might be an important issue after all, at least with bacteria. Hotter temperatures cause bacteria to multiply (one of the reasons why you're not supposed to take very hot showers, you're defeating the purpose of the hygiene).
Cooling may be needed to decrease the bacteria supply, not cool the DNA in particular. More bacteria would destroy your "chip".
I would actually think there would be less cooling needed, not more. The gates would work at an atomic to subatomic level, so changes in "voltage" with the registers would be extremely small.
You're unto something about that "denaturing" process, however. How would we keep DNA-based electronics from being torn apart by bacteria?
Why would we try to do logic gates with DNA when we're already completing work on molecular computing? It's crystal based so it assembles on its own, works on the atomic level (electrons moving from orbit to orbit register as bit changes), and doesn't have that nasty ethics aftertaste.
Slashdot Mirror
Most software has to be installed as root, especially if it's going to be of any use to its participents. With a file disk quota of 5 megs standard on most machines, do you think most users will be able to install Office (or StarOffice, or anything for that matter?)
This will be a good chance for Linux to really shine: to show that supposedly buggy code can be run and not crash the whole system. It's a win-win situation. If the code runs right, we have another great office app. If the code runs wrong, we have more evidence that Microsoft writes bad code (and the system will recover just fine).
Run a game. There's your bluescreen of death right there. :)
Just so y'all know, I offered this guy a copy of Windows 2000. Good folk, here. :)
Yes, you always have to make sure you don't mention the word "Windows" around here, or you are instantly branded "flamebait" without rhyme or reason.
Nail me with an offtopic if you want, but I'm curious (since I've never used FreeBSD) I thought FreeBSD and Linux used all the same libraries? Don't they have the same file system structure? Won't running the install scripts built for Linux (essentially) put the files in the right place?
Food for thought. :)
Crystal clear video editing may not be totally practical right now, but everyone's looking at world where battery life holds us back. Give it a couple of a years, and we will have batteries that can last all day *without* a Crusoe chip.
It was hard! Just building a parser for a regular language like C++ is hard enough (you have to provide for all the different ways to write and prototype functions, for instance), but in a natural language you have to provide for dozens of ways and dialects made to say the same thing.
"a and b should equal c", "let the sum, which is a plus b, equal c" and "c should equal the sum of a and b" are all different ways of saying the above.
True, it's easier to break traditional prime-number based ciphers with quantum machines, but there is an effectively unbreakable cipher which can be built off a quantum computer - one that relies off the position of the atoms used as they fly through refractors that "trap" the states, and a system that relies on public-key ideas to keep that atom key a secret.
They cite quantum money as a potential example (an idea developed in the 1970s). There are some truly mindblowing consequences to an unbreakable cipher.
(Also, with 15-inch XGA screens on some of their machines, what benefit is a Crusoe chip going to afford? Isn't most of the power going to be sucked through the screen anyway?)
Keep in mind, while I've been working with computers for 15 years (began programming TI-99/4A basic when I was 6 :) ), Linux is relatively new to me. I'm teaching myself all the Unix commands as I go along, and I've been playing around with it for a year or two.
I've heard good things about Debian, but the install freaks me out (same reason I don't want to try FreeBSD). Apparently the new stable release is a little easier on the install. What's the default, KDE or Gnome? Should I stick with Caldera OpenLinux (it seems to do the job for me, all I do is browse the internet and program C++ on it), or is there something more Debian can offer?
Anyone see a major problem here? I, for one (a KDE user), am a little downheartened. I'm going to have to get used to the "standard GUI", because mine will go the way of the dinosaurs.
MS has certification programs and paid support teams and the like. When you have a problem, at least you can blame someone. With Linux, the admin is generally expected to tweak the system until it works. Anyone who's had experience adding new hardware to Linux, this can take 5-10 times as long as a Windows 2000 machine (provided drivers are available on the Windows side somewhere, which they usually are).
Why would companies want Windows over Linux? Quite simply, they'd rather spend a few bucks to get a little support and have someone to blame then get the OS for free. Getting something for free, anything, worries companies. In the case of the article, they worry that time will be wasted on admins tweaking the system. I'd be more concerned if, when a problem arised, the ritualistic point of the fingers went around the IT department instead of to an external source that could fix the dumb thing.
Case point, I tried installing Linux on my family's home machine. I tried to explain that the system would rarely (if ever) crash, that each person in the family would get their own desktop, and they would get the access to the internet they always had.
You know what? They hated it.
'Why do I need to type a password every time I want to get on a machine I own, in my home?' my mother complained. The kids said they couldn't install any games they liked, and the ones they could rarely ran. They wondered why they needed something called a 'superuser' to install Q3A.
And here's the kicker: 'Why do we have to worry about crashes?' To them a crash was standard behavior, like a car misfiring on startup or a TV channel fizzed out for a few minutes. 'But then you won't have to reboot,' I'd explain. 'But we have to reboot anyway. We shut off the machine every night.'
You see, the practices of the UNIX/Linux world don't seem to jive with the world of "Joe User". They've ascribed to practices that, for better or for worse, they don't want to deliniate from. Case in point: the whole VHS vs. Beta debate a while back. Not looking at which format was "better", once people started using VHS they never looked back.
Same thing with Windoze PCs. Once people started looking at the pretty icons, the ability to run all those games, relatively simply document/folder analogy (even though copied from Mac) and the ability to use all kinds of neat hardware, they were hooked. Password protection, uncrashable system? This was a family computer living in the den. They didn't care what was the pride of sys admins, web servers and academic folk in college. Unix never existed in their mind, and if it did, it was that brief glimmer of "nerdiness" they all wanted to avoid.
My commentary on the state of technology and the world.
John said once he is considering programming in the aerospace field. But, a couple million dollars and a new red Ferrari hedge my bets toward "no". :)
The PC has been repeatly touted to "merge" with television, but it just doesn't happen. I don't think it ever will. The ultimate computers of the future will be like X-Box or PS2: a centralized box that can serve as entertainment, internet, and eventually a server for the whole home.
I would doubt an N64 port would be very fruitful. Getting all those textures to fit on one cart would be hell.
Now, hopefully, he will lend his "slide and stealth" expertise to Thief. This should be awesome.
I would go for Linux as my primary gaming platform if they were more games (like Deus Ex, The Sims, etc.) and more support for games. As it stands, Win2000 is my primary gaming platform, with Linux as my programming platform.
What I wouldn't mind seeing is an emotion-engine enabled graphics card strapped to a high-end PIII or Athlon, but I'm a dreamer.
With PC133 RAM you're ok now, but stuck with potential problems down the road. I don't mean to be hypocritical: I use PC100 in my Athlon system. But I really don't think that old RAM is the way of the future.
Why not be able to choose your programs through a cell phone (either web-enabled or just by pressing buttons?) Wouldn't that be a hell of a lot more mobile, and defeat the whole "cracking" issue (most digital cell phones have pretty high-level encryption as it is).
Cooling may be needed to decrease the bacteria supply, not cool the DNA in particular. More bacteria would destroy your "chip".
You're unto something about that "denaturing" process, however. How would we keep DNA-based electronics from being torn apart by bacteria?
Why would we try to do logic gates with DNA when we're already completing work on molecular computing? It's crystal based so it assembles on its own, works on the atomic level (electrons moving from orbit to orbit register as bit changes), and doesn't have that nasty ethics aftertaste.