The point is not don't buy 3COM's WinModems. The point don't buy ANYTHING from them - modems, hubs, NICS, whatever - unless they are willing to permit Linux support for their hardware.
Revolutionaries prevail through physical, political, or economic violence. The first two are impractical, but the latter is within our grasp. Now, I believe, is the time to strike at the corporate swine who would keep us and our upstart OS down. If Toshiba will not bow to Linux, withhold all money from them. Refuse to buy their laptops, their desktops, their consumer electronics. If Compaq, Dell, Gateway, or any of the others force you to pay the price of Redmond's OS, shun them. If 3COM or Hewlett Packard will not support our efforts to use their WinModems and WinPrinters, deny them any access to your hard-earned wages.
You mean the median person.;-) "Average" is not well-defined, in that it can denote the arithmetic mean, the median, the mode, the root-mean-square, the geometric mean, etc.
Given a Gaussian distribution (which is the case with IQ), the arithmetic mean, the median and the mode are identical and Mr. Dobbs statement is correct. (Just another pointless AC comment.) Just another pointless math geek comment.
"Folks, it's great technology, but pretty much useless to the average guy."
1. I agree with you wholeheartedly. 2. You can say the EXACT same thing about Linux. Go back 10 years and you can say the same thing about VGA. Go back 10 years more and you can say the same thing about microprocessors. 3. The point is NOT that it's useful to do but that it's kind of fun to learn, and it might be useful someday. Someday a "computer" will be a box that contains multiple independent computers (to use today's meaning of "computer").
Compaq's actions might be a violation of a contract, but as far as being against the law, I certainly hope not. I don't think you can legally force me to sell to you if I don't want to. If you want my car, am I legally required to sell it to you? If you want to buy 500,000 PCs, am I legally required to do so?
I did tech support for Win 95 for three years. I spoke with over 20,000 Windows users in this time. Most people who find it "good enough" don't use it often, don't push it very hard, and don't upgrade. It is acceptable if it crashes once a week or so. It needs to be rebooted daily. If it bombs in a big way, you need to reinstall the operating system; often, you need to format as well. All of this is accepted as a fact of life.
I feel that the biggest problem for Windows is that Microsoft encourages independent software vendors to replace system files willy-nilly, and to put application files in the operating system's directory. This makes any form of quality control impossible, even in theory.
Oh, and I use Win 95 for most things at home. It mostly works, I can show my wife how to use it, I can show my two and four year old how to use it. Ease-of-use is Linux's only real hurdle to OS dominance.
It might also be argued that Microsoft already knew what Microsoft had done. It's stupid to argue that the evidence is illegal because Microsoft didn't know that the govt had found out what Microsoft did. Unfortunately, that's the kind of thing that happens when you have a legal system instead of a justice system.
/. seems has nothing to talk about but chew again and again this MS stuff. No wonder Linus doesn't read it, you'd better go coding or something useful.
Linus doesn't have sex with me either, but that doesn't mean I should give that up.:-D
I read/. because it's fun. I get to read things that interest me, and see the opinions of other people on those subjects. Despite some opinions to the contrary, we can't all code all the time.
That would be the language where they say "don't tell me about my spelling and grammar errors." Someone who specifically asks that their mistakes not be pointed out fits into this category pretty well. Having said that, though, I must agree with the original sentiment; if all you can do is correct spelling or grammar, you don't have much to add to the group.
Yup. That's why my original statement was "given Intel's track record and Moore's law"
Of course, one might argue that Intel's track record is no predictor of future performance, but that's true of all empirical evidence, including Moore's law.
Yeah, but you've got to reduce the chip size by a factor of four to reduce your linear measurements by a factor of two. Theoretically, that cuts the time the signals spend moving around by a factor of two. But you've also got to worry about the latency within each transistor, so transistor density alone isn't the only factor.
Not quite correct. In the beginning, CPUs communicated directly with the RAM. When CPUs got faster, L1 cache was implemented. It was NOT on the CPU chip. It was on separate chips, elsewhere on the motherboard. With the 486, 8K of L1 cache was on the CPU chip. Many motherboards also added L2 cache. With the P-II, the L2 cache was taken off the motherboard and put on a separate board that also held the CPU. The Celeron has both L1 and L2 cache on the CPU chip. This is the situation that would appear to be the case with the Russian chip - both L1 and L2 cache on the CPU chip...
Err, the PPro is and was available with 512K and 1MB L2 caches, while the P-II has 512K, and the Xeon is availabe with multiple MBs of cache. Err, the PPro had ZERO L2 cache on the IC inside the pin package. If you open up the pin package you found one square of silicon for the CPU and another square of silicon for the cache. P-II has L2 cache in a separate pin package, though it's inside the cartride. Same is true for Xeon.
Meantime, some PA-RISC, SGI, and Alpha systems have more L2 than some of us have system RAM. So are those on the same chip as the processor, or a separate chip?
Pardon my ignorance, but what Intel chip has ever had more? The Pentium Pro had >256K L2 cache, but it was on a separate chip (though it was in the same package). The latest Celery^Hon has 128K. Are there non-Intel processors that have more than 256K L2 cache included on the chip?
This seems like a classic case of vaporware. They have no Western sponsors and are admittedly several years from production. It never ceases to amaze me how often people will fall for this trick: "Our CPU will be twice as good as Intel's best current offerings! Look for it in less than two years!" Of course, given Intel's track record and Moore's law, Intel will have something twice as good as their own current best in 18 months. Meanwhile, though, their competitor gets lots of positive press.
Anyway, the Pentium was actually declassified military technology that Intel obtained in the early 70s; they've been releasing it piecemeal ever since.
I guess that means we're going to have to come up with a new name for that type of puzzle game. Any suggestions?
"Tetrominoes" That's what any decent recreational mathematician would call the pieces, anyway.
IAKAL^H^H^HNAL, but I think it would be hard to get a patent on it because of the existence of prior art - read Martin Gardner's books, or his old columns in Scientific American (sorry for the lack of specific issues or books, but its been 5 years since I was on a recreational math kick). Puzzles of the sort of "Fit the tetrominoes into a given space" have been around for a while. I just don't know if the vague concept of "pieces dropping from the sky" is patentable. I suppose if they were specific enough (there are 20 rows, each one is 17 squares wide, pieces drop at the rate of 1.32 squares per second, increasing each level by.15 squares per second, to a maximum etc. etc.) it might be patentable, but it would be easy to modify their specific numbers and get around it.
Perhaps a better analogy might be that of trade unions. At one time there was a pressing need for them because workers were being ridden roughshod by their employers. Unions helped them by...well, you know the story. But today, the need isn't really there and unions are a vestige of a time gone by.
Yeah - you're absolutely right, the workers have nothing to fear from their bosses, so let's dismantle all the unions. And no one's invading us right now, so let's shut down the military - send them all home. And if your house isn't on fire, right this very minute, then we don't need a fire department. Think of all the money we waste preparing for potential problems, when we could be spending it on beer instead!
1. Write down "2+2=4" and ask it if it wants to be free.
2. Do you really believe the sentiment behind that quote and that it doesn't apply to personal information? Fine. I want your home address and directions to it from the nearest major city. I want a map of your house with an X where your computer is. I want to know if you own a gun or a dog over 50 pounds. Information can be used to threaten your property or your person. Losing control of personal information can be frightening.
You know, if there was an article about a Linux coder in Kosovo, or how the Asian economic crisis had weakened Microsoft tremendously, or why Quake was eliminating world hunger (they're feeding giblets to the starving:), or how many kangaroo skins it took to buy one Pentium II in the outback, I don't think I'd object. See, Jon is installing Linux. If Jon was doing flower arranging, I'd have to agree with you. But he's doing something nerdy - installing an alternative Linux. Your argument won't fly.
Slashdot Mirror
The point is not don't buy 3COM's WinModems. The point don't buy ANYTHING from them - modems, hubs, NICS, whatever - unless they are willing to permit Linux support for their hardware.
Revolutionaries prevail through physical, political, or economic violence. The first two are impractical, but the latter is within our grasp. Now, I believe, is the time to strike at the corporate swine who would keep us and our upstart OS down. If Toshiba will not bow to Linux, withhold all money from them. Refuse to buy their laptops, their desktops, their consumer electronics. If Compaq, Dell, Gateway, or any of the others force you to pay the price of Redmond's OS, shun them. If 3COM or Hewlett Packard will not support our efforts to use their WinModems and WinPrinters, deny them any access to your hard-earned wages.
Strike back, comrades!
(ha ha, only serious)
You mean the median person. ;-)
"Average" is not well-defined, in that it can denote the arithmetic mean, the median, the mode, the root-mean-square, the geometric mean, etc.
Given a Gaussian distribution (which is the case with IQ), the arithmetic mean, the median and the mode are identical and Mr. Dobbs statement is correct.
(Just another pointless AC comment.)
Just another pointless math geek comment.
"Folks, it's great technology, but pretty much useless to the average guy."
1. I agree with you wholeheartedly.
2. You can say the EXACT same thing about Linux. Go back 10 years and you can say the same thing about VGA. Go back 10 years more and you can say the same thing about microprocessors.
3. The point is NOT that it's useful to do but that it's kind of fun to learn, and it might be useful someday. Someday a "computer" will be a box that contains multiple independent computers (to use today's meaning of "computer").
Compaq's actions might be a violation of a contract, but as far as being against the law, I certainly hope not. I don't think you can legally force me to sell to you if I don't want to. If you want my car, am I legally required to sell it to you? If you want to buy 500,000 PCs, am I legally required to do so?
Yup. Perens and Stallman advocate a freedom of the elite. The mass of computer-using humanity can go hang, for all they care.
Idealists care too much about ideas and not much at all about people.
dont need wun. hukt on fonix werkt for me!
I did tech support for Win 95 for three years. I spoke with over 20,000 Windows users in this time. Most people who find it "good enough" don't use it often, don't push it very hard, and don't upgrade. It is acceptable if it crashes once a week or so. It needs to be rebooted daily. If it bombs in a big way, you need to reinstall the operating system; often, you need to format as well. All of this is accepted as a fact of life.
I feel that the biggest problem for Windows is that Microsoft encourages independent software vendors to replace system files willy-nilly, and to put application files in the operating system's directory. This makes any form of quality control impossible, even in theory.
Oh, and I use Win 95 for most things at home. It mostly works, I can show my wife how to use it, I can show my two and four year old how to use it. Ease-of-use is Linux's only real hurdle to OS dominance.
It might also be argued that Microsoft already knew what Microsoft had done. It's stupid to argue that the evidence is illegal because Microsoft didn't know that the govt had found out what Microsoft did. Unfortunately, that's the kind of thing that happens when you have a legal system instead of a justice system.
/. seems has nothing to talk about but chew again and again this MS stuff. No wonder Linus doesn't read it, you'd better go coding or something useful.
:-D
/. because it's fun. I get to read things that interest me, and see the opinions of other people on those subjects. Despite some opinions to the contrary, we can't all code all the time.
Linus doesn't have sex with me either, but that doesn't mean I should give that up.
I read
Umm...follow your own advice :) The bit about the deal being squashed was on NPR, not online.
And which language would that be?
That would be the language where they say "don't tell me about my spelling and grammar errors."
Someone who specifically asks that their mistakes not be pointed out fits into this category pretty well. Having said that, though, I must agree with the original sentiment; if all you can do is correct spelling or grammar, you don't have much to add to the group.
Yup. That's why my original statement was "given Intel's track record and Moore's law"
Of course, one might argue that Intel's track record is no predictor of future performance, but that's true of all empirical evidence, including Moore's law.
Yeah, but you've got to reduce the chip size by a factor of four to reduce your linear measurements by a factor of two. Theoretically, that cuts the time the signals spend moving around by a factor of two. But you've also got to worry about the latency within each transistor, so transistor density alone isn't the only factor.
Not quite correct. In the beginning, CPUs communicated directly with the RAM. When CPUs got faster, L1 cache was implemented. It was NOT on the CPU chip. It was on separate chips, elsewhere on the motherboard. With the 486, 8K of L1 cache was on the CPU chip. Many motherboards also added L2 cache. With the P-II, the L2 cache was taken off the motherboard and put on a separate board that also held the CPU. The Celeron has both L1 and L2 cache on the CPU chip. This is the situation that would appear to be the case with the Russian chip - both L1 and L2 cache on the CPU chip...
...or it could be just a typo.
Err, the PPro is and was available with 512K and 1MB L2 caches, while the P-II has 512K, and the Xeon is availabe with multiple MBs of cache.
Err, the PPro had ZERO L2 cache on the IC inside the pin package. If you open up the pin package you found one square of silicon for the CPU and another square of silicon for the cache. P-II has L2 cache in a separate pin package, though it's inside the cartride. Same is true for Xeon.
Meantime, some PA-RISC, SGI, and Alpha systems have more L2 than some of us have system RAM.
So are those on the same chip as the processor, or a separate chip?
My original question stands unanswered.
Pardon my ignorance, but what Intel chip has ever had more? The Pentium Pro had >256K L2 cache, but it was on a separate chip (though it was in the same package). The latest Celery^Hon has 128K. Are there non-Intel processors that have more than 256K L2 cache included on the chip?
This seems like a classic case of vaporware. They have no Western sponsors and are admittedly several years from production. It never ceases to amaze me how often people will fall for this trick: "Our CPU will be twice as good as Intel's best current offerings! Look for it in less than two years!" Of course, given Intel's track record and Moore's law, Intel will have something twice as good as their own current best in 18 months. Meanwhile, though, their competitor gets lots of positive press.
Anyway, the Pentium was actually declassified military technology that Intel obtained in the early 70s; they've been releasing it piecemeal ever since.
i before e except after c.
So how do you explain this sentence:
"Einstein reigns over ancient scientists."
I guess that means we're going to have to come up with a new name for that type of puzzle game.
.15 squares per second, to a maximum etc. etc.) it might be patentable, but it would be easy to modify their specific numbers and get around it.
Any suggestions?
"Tetrominoes"
That's what any decent recreational mathematician would call the pieces, anyway.
IAKAL^H^H^HNAL, but I think it would be hard to get a patent on it because of the existence of prior art - read Martin Gardner's books, or his old columns in Scientific American (sorry for the lack of specific issues or books, but its been 5 years since I was on a recreational math kick). Puzzles of the sort of "Fit the tetrominoes into a given space" have been around for a while. I just don't know if the vague concept of "pieces dropping from the sky" is patentable. I suppose if they were specific enough (there are 20 rows, each one is 17 squares wide, pieces drop at the rate of 1.32 squares per second, increasing each level by
Perhaps a better analogy might be that of trade unions. At one time there was a pressing need for them because workers were being ridden roughshod by their employers. Unions helped them by...well, you know the story. But today, the need isn't really there and unions are a vestige of a time gone by.
Yeah - you're absolutely right, the workers have nothing to fear from their bosses, so let's dismantle all the unions. And no one's invading us right now, so let's shut down the military - send them all home. And if your house isn't on fire, right this very minute, then we don't need a fire department. Think of all the money we waste preparing for potential problems, when we could be spending it on beer instead!
Typo, not a misspelling - I Am Not A Lawyer.
:)
Sorry for the trouble
Perhaps a URL - most corporations have, somewhere on their main web site, a URL to their terms of use, legal disclaimers, etc.
1. Write down "2+2=4" and ask it if it wants to be free.
2. Do you really believe the sentiment behind that quote and that it doesn't apply to personal information? Fine. I want your home address and directions to it from the nearest major city. I want a map of your house with an X where your computer is. I want to know if you own a gun or a dog over 50 pounds. Information can be used to threaten your property or your person. Losing control of personal information can be frightening.
You know, if there was an article about a Linux coder in Kosovo, or how the Asian economic crisis had weakened Microsoft tremendously, or why Quake was eliminating world hunger (they're feeding giblets to the starving :), or how many kangaroo skins it took to buy one Pentium II in the outback, I don't think I'd object. See, Jon is installing Linux. If Jon was doing flower arranging, I'd have to agree with you. But he's doing something nerdy - installing an alternative Linux. Your argument won't fly.