Transmeta's processors don't suck because they are implemented with some really cool technology with potential that we have barely begun to explore.
Well, they do suck, but they also have cool technology. However, this magical "potential" has been totally explored. I would prepare yourself for Transmeta to always suck as a replacement for Intel or AMD. It's possible that they might find a niche market if they can get the price low enough.
Emulation of instructions will NEVER compete with dedicated hardware for instructions. Mark my words -- they will always suck when it comes to performance.
I don't have a good answer, but one thing that occurs to me is the lack of a fixed endpoint.
That's also a failure of management. All projects should have a requirements spec that describes exactly what the system is supposed to do.
I think the fundamental problem is that people don't want to spend money on all the "non-coding" documentation. Good documentation can take half the time of a project. It seems so much more "efficient" just to put a hoard of programmers on the project and crank out code, but it ends up costing a lot more.
Cryptonomicon would have been a great book if it was about the half the length it is. It was touch getting through many parts of it ("Captain Crunch" comes to mind -- that was actually painful to read). The ending was pretty damn disappointing, too... it was like Stephenson got tired of writing the damn thing and just wanted it to end.
That said, the book was worth reading, but prepare yourself for a looooooong boring journey between the good parts.
Indeed. I still have my 1980s vintage 41C calculator that I saved up for in High School. The thing is freakin' indestructible with the greatest keys ever made. And yes, I have my PPC module.:)
Hmmm. Come to think of it, believe it or not, I am still using my trusty HP-41C that I bought in high school in 1980. Thing works perfectly. The buttons are masterworks of engineering. Absolutely perfect touch and feel and then have lost nothing in 21 years of use (although, to be fair, I don't use it every day).
The only thing that is slightly bad is that the on/off switch sometimes takes a few presses to get it to work. I'm sure some key contact cleaner would fix it, but it's not been annoying enough to have to try it.
HP has gotten more of my money since then -- I own a 16C "Computer Scientist" that I bought sometime in the 80s -- but I feel no huge urge to replace either one. They'll probably outlive me.
people have differences of opinion. I personally disagree with the politics of quite a few well known hackers, but it doesn't keep me from using their software.
Whether I disagree or not with his opinion is not the point (I happen to agree). It's using the source code and his position as a forum based on that contrived crap that he pulled out.
He can advocate anything he wants; I have no problem with it. But he should be a little more professional about where he does it.
So if he started listing the names and addresses of abortion doctors who he believes should be killed in the Linux changelog, that's hunky dory with you? We should just be grateful to him?
He can do what he wants, and I don't pay attention to his politics. That doesn't mean he isn't an idiot, or that he doesn't damage the cause that he claims to care about. Putting crap like that in the changelog just validates all the stereotypes about open source software -- that it's created by unprofessional freaks.
Personally, I consider the change log as part of the code.
Was it irrelevant (i.e., was he refusing to put in an OOM-killer because of pro-life views)? No, it was an extrapolation of how the law is currently written and was directly related to the topic at hand (security).
Yes, it was irrelevent. He contrived an absurd scenerio just so he could make a political statement. Put it this way -- why did he do it? Because he was in legitimate danger? No, he did it because he wanted to publicize his political views. A change log is NOT for publicizing your views, no matter what they are.
Bullshit. He did the equivalent of saying, "Because of my belief that all people should not be allowed to own handguns, I am withholding this information from the changelog because it might upset Eric Raymond and he will come to kill me."
His scenerio was just as absurd and ridiculous. Just because he contrived a way to put politics in the changelog doesn't mean it's OK.
Once again I ask: What if he contrived a way to put politics in the changelog that you DIDN'T agree with? Would it still be OK?
So if I have a personal agenda that all people should be Christians, and I decide to use my position as a kernel maintainer to espouse my views, you have no problem with that? You would have no problem with my putting my opinion in the kernel source code?
There is a proper time and a proper place for these things.
Although this is a troll, I STRONGLY support this post. His political views have no place in a development tree. To all of those who think it's OK because they happen to agree with him on the views, how about if kernel maintainers started putting in comments about their pro-life stance, their pro-Christian religious views, or their pro-gun views (at least ESR his views on the latter separate most of the time).
I don't know about anyone else, but I've lost a considerable amount of respect since he started his DMCA ravings. Anyone is entitled to an opinion, but anyone is NOT entitled to abuse their position to foist opinions where they are not needed and/or not wanted.
I kind of vaguely remember some modular stereo systems a long time ago that were slot-based, trying to do something like that. IIRC, the problem was that the added complexity increased cost and the box size (need to leave room for slots) didn't give enough advantages over just making separate components in a stack. After all, what are you paying extra for? A power supply and a case? I somehow doubt a fully modular system would be that much more expensive than some frankenstein modular system, not to mention that you would probably only be able to get modules from that manufacturer.
On the plus side, you would probably get some added integration by allowing one processor to control multiple components, but I'm not sure that would worth the extra hassle.
Given the lock-in capability and the desire to sell you more modules, I wouldn't be surprised if some companies have experimented with systems like that, but it probably proved impractical.
To be honest, I think your "single server" approach is more like the Microsoft approach. One monolithic system with lots of objects tightly integrated. The object/integrated nature gives a lot of benefits (object embedding, for example), but you tend to lose a lot of flexibility. I think a modular system like you describe would suffer a lot of the same problems.
Is that what you really want -- an integrated all-in-one unit? On the surface, it sounds like a good thing: put everything in one box, and be done with it. But totally integrated stereo systems have not been as successful as component systems for the basic reason that people generally like to be able to upgrade a particular component without throwing everything away.
What happens when 2 layer DVD comes out and you want to upgrade your DVD player for $200? Do you really want to have to buy another $1500 unit that includes a whole new integrated MP3 jukebox, TiVo, tuner, amplifier, tape deck and X-Box video game? I exaggerate, but you can see the advantages to having each box do something well (kind of like the Unix philosophy:) ).
Something I've been wondering. How is the interactive part of a DVD programmed? Is there some sort of specialized Flash-style DVD language? Is there a spec for it somewhere? How is it encoded? How would you do something for your own custom DVDs?
<GeekBashingJoke>Because some of us live in homes with TWO rooms, where we want to use our computer in our office AND let someone else (like this thing known as a "wife") listen to music. Not everyone lives with our mom and just has to worry about his own room.</GeekBashingJoke>
In any case, you would want it for the same reason you might have a "dedicated" CD player on your stereo stack. Sometimes you want your computer to be your computer, and stereo equipment to be stereo equipment on the rack.
Oh, and FUDing Linux with "Nobody uses it" and calling people who dare to look at real life statistics crack addicts, *IS* Linux-bashing.
I'm still waiting for you to look at "real life" statistics, and not ones that skew them toward your beliefs. Hey, if you can show a real world study that shows Linux on the desktop with any sort of marketshare > 1%, I'll admit I was wrong. So far, you haven't shown jack, except a lot of wrong assumptions (Google "most popular site"???).
Just out of curiosity, are you willing to admit that Linux on the desktop is just not there, or do you "just know" that it's better than what the numbers show?
That's typical. If you don't know any arguments any more, just attack the messenger. Somebody who does not bash Linux must be on crack, right?
I am not "bashing" Linux. In fact, I use it every day (for development, not for "desktop stuff"). However, "The Reality Master is dedicated to viewing the world objectively; without emotionalism, wishful thinking, cynicism or silly prejudices. The pursuit of simple Truth."
And I didn't run out of arguments, I told you why your statistics where bad.
Oh, and please not that these statistics are installed base, not marketshare. Actual desktop-marketshare is certainly higher than 1.12%.
Once again, you used a Linux-friendly site that will skew your numbers. Probably 95% of Linux users (99%?) use Google, because they are knowledgeable about search engines. On the other hand, the general population uses a variety of other search engines, including AOL's and MSN's search engines (only the two top portals). Possibly in your favor is the fact that Yahoo uses Google, but the page says "google.com" statistics, and I have a feeling that Yahoo stats are probably not included since they have a separate deal. Yahoo might even use their own hardware.
Anyway, that most likely drops us back in the low fractional percent statistics.
Come on man, lay off the crack. What proportion of everyone are developers? 1% -- maybe? Remember we are counting AOLers, businessman, secretaries, accountants, marketing drones, home users, everyone. It might be less than 1%. Do the math, and you're not getting from 7% on a Linux-heavy site to 1-2% of the general population.
I was wondering that too, but according to the press release, "The Sunnyvale, Calif., company said the name VA Software better identifies the company's primary business of developing its SourceForge collaborative software development platform."
So they are apparently hanging their hat on selling SourceForge software. What I find interesting is that apparently the "enterprise edition" of the SourceForge software is closed source and proprietary (correct me if I'm wrong...). Does that mean they have clued in that OSS is not a winning business model?
Then don't worry about convincing me, post the reference for all the people who might be misled by my "trolling". Come on, I'm sure there are many people who are confused by all my rhetoric.
Think about it -- there might be game developers reading who might buy into my lies. Nothing like facts to bring the sunlight of truth into the dark void of deceit spread by people like me.
Go on -- jump out of the phone booth with that huge S on your chest and strike me down with your righteous information! Punish the disbeliever who doubts that Linux exceeds even 1% of the desktop market! Gather the forces of your links to the studies to strike a blow for Truth, Justice and the Free Software Way! Humble me with the power of your references, and the fury of your truth writ in burnished rows of letters!
Ignoring the most enthusiastic 10% of
computer world makes sense?
10%????? You are WAY dreaming. Not even the Mac is 10% of the market. You would be lucky if Linux users were 0.1% of the market, and the percentage of those that ONLY have Linux available (versus dual boot) is probably even lower (0.01%?).
Slashdot Mirror
Transmeta's processors don't suck because they are implemented with some really cool technology with potential that we have barely begun to explore.
Well, they do suck, but they also have cool technology. However, this magical "potential" has been totally explored. I would prepare yourself for Transmeta to always suck as a replacement for Intel or AMD. It's possible that they might find a niche market if they can get the price low enough.
Emulation of instructions will NEVER compete with dedicated hardware for instructions. Mark my words -- they will always suck when it comes to performance.
I don't have a good answer, but one thing that occurs to me is the lack of a fixed endpoint.
That's also a failure of management. All projects should have a requirements spec that describes exactly what the system is supposed to do.
I think the fundamental problem is that people don't want to spend money on all the "non-coding" documentation. Good documentation can take half the time of a project. It seems so much more "efficient" just to put a hoard of programmers on the project and crank out code, but it ends up costing a lot more.
Hmmm. Makes you wonder if the impact may have caused 40 days and 40 nights of rain...
Cryptonomicon would have been a great book if it was about the half the length it is. It was touch getting through many parts of it ("Captain Crunch" comes to mind -- that was actually painful to read). The ending was pretty damn disappointing, too... it was like Stephenson got tired of writing the damn thing and just wanted it to end.
That said, the book was worth reading, but prepare yourself for a looooooong boring journey between the good parts.
Indeed. I still have my 1980s vintage 41C calculator that I saved up for in High School. The thing is freakin' indestructible with the greatest keys ever made. And yes, I have my PPC module. :)
Hmmm. Come to think of it, believe it or not, I am still using my trusty HP-41C that I bought in high school in 1980. Thing works perfectly. The buttons are masterworks of engineering. Absolutely perfect touch and feel and then have lost nothing in 21 years of use (although, to be fair, I don't use it every day).
The only thing that is slightly bad is that the on/off switch sometimes takes a few presses to get it to work. I'm sure some key contact cleaner would fix it, but it's not been annoying enough to have to try it.
HP has gotten more of my money since then -- I own a 16C "Computer Scientist" that I bought sometime in the 80s -- but I feel no huge urge to replace either one. They'll probably outlive me.
people have differences of opinion. I personally disagree with the politics of quite a few well known hackers, but it doesn't keep me from using their software.
Whether I disagree or not with his opinion is not the point (I happen to agree). It's using the source code and his position as a forum based on that contrived crap that he pulled out.
He can advocate anything he wants; I have no problem with it. But he should be a little more professional about where he does it.
So if he started listing the names and addresses of abortion doctors who he believes should be killed in the Linux changelog, that's hunky dory with you? We should just be grateful to him?
He can do what he wants, and I don't pay attention to his politics. That doesn't mean he isn't an idiot, or that he doesn't damage the cause that he claims to care about. Putting crap like that in the changelog just validates all the stereotypes about open source software -- that it's created by unprofessional freaks.
In the *changelog*. Not the code.
Personally, I consider the change log as part of the code.
Was it irrelevant (i.e., was he refusing to put in an OOM-killer because of pro-life views)? No, it was an extrapolation of how the law is currently written and was directly related to the topic at hand (security).
Yes, it was irrelevent. He contrived an absurd scenerio just so he could make a political statement. Put it this way -- why did he do it? Because he was in legitimate danger? No, he did it because he wanted to publicize his political views. A change log is NOT for publicizing your views, no matter what they are.
Bullshit. He did the equivalent of saying, "Because of my belief that all people should not be allowed to own handguns, I am withholding this information from the changelog because it might upset Eric Raymond and he will come to kill me."
His scenerio was just as absurd and ridiculous. Just because he contrived a way to put politics in the changelog doesn't mean it's OK.
Once again I ask: What if he contrived a way to put politics in the changelog that you DIDN'T agree with? Would it still be OK?
So if I have a personal agenda that all people should be Christians, and I decide to use my position as a kernel maintainer to espouse my views, you have no problem with that? You would have no problem with my putting my opinion in the kernel source code?
There is a proper time and a proper place for these things.
Although this is a troll, I STRONGLY support this post. His political views have no place in a development tree. To all of those who think it's OK because they happen to agree with him on the views, how about if kernel maintainers started putting in comments about their pro-life stance, their pro-Christian religious views, or their pro-gun views (at least ESR his views on the latter separate most of the time).
I don't know about anyone else, but I've lost a considerable amount of respect since he started his DMCA ravings. Anyone is entitled to an opinion, but anyone is NOT entitled to abuse their position to foist opinions where they are not needed and/or not wanted.
I kind of vaguely remember some modular stereo systems a long time ago that were slot-based, trying to do something like that. IIRC, the problem was that the added complexity increased cost and the box size (need to leave room for slots) didn't give enough advantages over just making separate components in a stack. After all, what are you paying extra for? A power supply and a case? I somehow doubt a fully modular system would be that much more expensive than some frankenstein modular system, not to mention that you would probably only be able to get modules from that manufacturer.
On the plus side, you would probably get some added integration by allowing one processor to control multiple components, but I'm not sure that would worth the extra hassle.
Given the lock-in capability and the desire to sell you more modules, I wouldn't be surprised if some companies have experimented with systems like that, but it probably proved impractical.
To be honest, I think your "single server" approach is more like the Microsoft approach. One monolithic system with lots of objects tightly integrated. The object/integrated nature gives a lot of benefits (object embedding, for example), but you tend to lose a lot of flexibility. I think a modular system like you describe would suffer a lot of the same problems.
Is that what you really want -- an integrated all-in-one unit? On the surface, it sounds like a good thing: put everything in one box, and be done with it. But totally integrated stereo systems have not been as successful as component systems for the basic reason that people generally like to be able to upgrade a particular component without throwing everything away.
What happens when 2 layer DVD comes out and you want to upgrade your DVD player for $200? Do you really want to have to buy another $1500 unit that includes a whole new integrated MP3 jukebox, TiVo, tuner, amplifier, tape deck and X-Box video game? I exaggerate, but you can see the advantages to having each box do something well (kind of like the Unix philosophy :) ).
Gandhi is overrated. Something tells me that passive resistance would not have worked well for the Jews with Hitler...
Just because he got lucky with India doesn't mean it's a viable philosophy in all (or even very many) cases.
Something I've been wondering. How is the interactive part of a DVD programmed? Is there some sort of specialized Flash-style DVD language? Is there a spec for it somewhere? How is it encoded? How would you do something for your own custom DVDs?
And since it plays MP3s, it's assumed that you own a PC, yes?
No. You'll note that it doesn't specifically mention PCs, and it includes a CD-RW drive. It looks like it can rip and burn CDs by itself.
<GeekBashingJoke>Because some of us live in homes with TWO rooms, where we want to use our computer in our office AND let someone else (like this thing known as a "wife") listen to music. Not everyone lives with our mom and just has to worry about his own room.</GeekBashingJoke>
In any case, you would want it for the same reason you might have a "dedicated" CD player on your stereo stack. Sometimes you want your computer to be your computer, and stereo equipment to be stereo equipment on the rack.
Google is the most popular search engine, that's a fact.
That's a belief, that you didn't even bother to check. Check this out, and then read this.
probably even the most popular site, it's THE BEST STATISTIC YOU CAN GET.
What part of your ass are you pulling all this from? Most popular site?? Best statistic you can get???
Instead, why don't you review this guy's post.
Oh, and FUDing Linux with "Nobody uses it" and calling people who dare to look at real life statistics crack addicts, *IS* Linux-bashing.
I'm still waiting for you to look at "real life" statistics, and not ones that skew them toward your beliefs. Hey, if you can show a real world study that shows Linux on the desktop with any sort of marketshare > 1%, I'll admit I was wrong. So far, you haven't shown jack, except a lot of wrong assumptions (Google "most popular site"???).
Just out of curiosity, are you willing to admit that Linux on the desktop is just not there, or do you "just know" that it's better than what the numbers show?
That's typical. If you don't know any arguments any more, just attack the messenger. Somebody who does not bash Linux must be on crack, right?
I am not "bashing" Linux. In fact, I use it every day (for development, not for "desktop stuff"). However, "The Reality Master is dedicated to viewing the world objectively; without emotionalism, wishful thinking, cynicism or silly prejudices. The pursuit of simple Truth."
And I didn't run out of arguments, I told you why your statistics where bad.
Oh, and please not that these statistics are installed base, not marketshare. Actual desktop-marketshare is certainly higher than 1.12%.
Once again, you used a Linux-friendly site that will skew your numbers. Probably 95% of Linux users (99%?) use Google, because they are knowledgeable about search engines. On the other hand, the general population uses a variety of other search engines, including AOL's and MSN's search engines (only the two top portals). Possibly in your favor is the fact that Yahoo uses Google, but the page says "google.com" statistics, and I have a feeling that Yahoo stats are probably not included since they have a separate deal. Yahoo might even use their own hardware.
Anyway, that most likely drops us back in the low fractional percent statistics.
Come on man, lay off the crack. What proportion of everyone are developers? 1% -- maybe? Remember we are counting AOLers, businessman, secretaries, accountants, marketing drones, home users, everyone. It might be less than 1%. Do the math, and you're not getting from 7% on a Linux-heavy site to 1-2% of the general population.
I was wondering that too, but according to the press release, "The Sunnyvale, Calif., company said the name VA Software better identifies the company's primary business of developing its SourceForge collaborative software development platform."
So they are apparently hanging their hat on selling SourceForge software. What I find interesting is that apparently the "enterprise edition" of the SourceForge software is closed source and proprietary (correct me if I'm wrong...). Does that mean they have clued in that OSS is not a winning business model?
Then don't worry about convincing me, post the reference for all the people who might be misled by my "trolling". Come on, I'm sure there are many people who are confused by all my rhetoric.
Think about it -- there might be game developers reading who might buy into my lies. Nothing like facts to bring the sunlight of truth into the dark void of deceit spread by people like me.
Go on -- jump out of the phone booth with that huge S on your chest and strike me down with your righteous information! Punish the disbeliever who doubts that Linux exceeds even 1% of the desktop market! Gather the forces of your links to the studies to strike a blow for Truth, Justice and the Free Software Way! Humble me with the power of your references, and the fury of your truth writ in burnished rows of letters!
I await the lesson to be adminstered.
What a bunch of crap. Show me the reference that shows 8% of desktops are running Linux as their primary operating system.
Ignoring the most enthusiastic 10% of computer world makes sense?
10%????? You are WAY dreaming. Not even the Mac is 10% of the market. You would be lucky if Linux users were 0.1% of the market, and the percentage of those that ONLY have Linux available (versus dual boot) is probably even lower (0.01%?).