Logic dictates that any computer made by IBM, no matterfor what market segment, must be big and blue. After all, they didn't get the name "Big Blue" for nothing, right?
Making their computers small and in any number of different colors risks further undermining the "Big Blue" monicker, already in serious doubt since the introduction of the PC, a relatively small, black and beige (IIRC, but certainly not blue) computer.
There is exactly one benefit in killing off the "Big Blue" name: its similarity to "Big Brother" may have scared off IBM's potential smaller clients.
However, I think the risks to IBM's reputation far outweigh this nearly insignificant benefit. It therefore beehoves IBM to abandon this short-sighted strategy and focus on making what made it famous: big blue computers.
Only problem is you have to have 20 English Pounds lying around somewhere, and being a lousy American, I ain't got any. Apparently some of the standards are avilable in.pdf form, but not this one:(
Erhm... I disagree with just about everything you said here.
How can Solaris suck on x86 hardware if 90-some% of the code is the same?
Have you ever tried Solaris on _comparable_ SPARC and x86 hardware?
The real problem is that x86 hardware sucks.
Oh, BTW, I have seen CDE crash once. But I still prefer it BY FAR to KDE. I can;t stand that one bit. The only good thing is that it comes with games.
And finally, just because it compiles on Linux and Solaris doesn't mean it runs the same on both of them. The best example is WINE.
The only things I agree with is that SOlaris is more scalable than Linux (though I thought it was 64-way) and that Solaris rocks on UltraSparc... but maybe if my x86 box had 2GB RAM, it would work as well too.
Even if Solaris were totally free (speech as well as beer) it still would not supplant Linux.
The reason? Has *BSD died because of Linux? Nope. Despite all the hype behind Linux, there are people out there that still use NetBSD, OpenBSD, and FreeBSD.
Each UNIX has a different niche to fill. If Solaris were made free, that still wouldn't change the fact that it runs best on huge servers (I wonder how well it would work on those rumored 8-processor Athalon systems?). The people who use Linux would still use Linux, and the same thing for the other BSDs. Solaris might steal some market share from the NT crowd, but I don't see too much change there either.
Solaris is geared for serious uses (business, scientific computing) where the cost of the software is nothing compared to the cost of the hardware you need to make it run effectively. Therefore, by default it's not going to be much use for the average Joe. That's where Linux comes in.
In fact, I think Solaris being made free would be more dangerous for the BSDs than for Linux. Both can be used pretty effectively as web servers.
So what if they wrote it with NetObjects Fusion for Windows?
The site runs on Linux.
Remember, they have to have machines with all those OSes on them so that they can make sure their product compiles and runs on all of them. The web page author just happens to have a Windows machine.
As long as it doesn't crash my browser or system, I could care less what they wrote it with.
True that. I thought they were saying that in MacOS, as in Linux, you open the special files and then read and write data to that file. But after looking at it again, it sounds more like/dev contains all the binary drivers that run your hardware.
I don't know why they're trying to compare the two, as things are completely different.
Finally, I can see people complaining that "there's no/dev/Deskjet 792! how do I print?" and "wtf? ls/dev/fd0 doesn't give me the files on the diskette? linux sux!" I think there should be some kind of statement warning people that actually treating the files in/dev as normal files to be accessed by the user is NOT RECOMMENDED!
The title should be something like "The Linux _Kernel_ Device Driver Tutorial (Guide?)".
That, of course, is what it actually covers. In other words, if you're searching for the latest OpenGL drivers for 3DLabs video cards, you'll be sorely disappointed. Ditto if you want to find the ALSA homepage.
If it ain't in the kernel, it ain't going to be in their search engine either.
But if I had bothered, I would have learned it on the 6502 in the Commodore 64.
I even got the Programmer's Guide from Toys R Us.
Only thing is, I never got C64Mon or any other assembly language monitor:-(
And then last summer, I looked through the Programmer's Guide and realized they didn't tell you how to use floating-point arithmetic. So fractal programs with reasonable speed are out the window;-|
It seems that it should absolutely _crawl_ on Linux because there is no hardware graphics support on the high end (excepting that Evans & Sutherland card that Precision Insight has GLX running on).
If you have a Matrox G400 and the accelerated GLX stuff, it might be a little better. I would think, however, that you would need Reality-class hardware for this to really be useful.
Of course the answer is to try it, but I'm too lazy to figure out how to lxrun it...;-)
Methinks Her Majesty's Royal WebMaster, if he or she had needed to switch at all, should have chosen OpenBSD instead of Red Hat.
I believe that for something like this, security should override all other concerns. That, and the price is approximately the same. Also, Red Hat is known not to be the world's most secure Linux distribution.
I just hope the Royal Webmaster knows how to find and close the security holes that might exist...
Here at Marquette, we have to learn how to use 3 or 4 different OSes.
The main engingeering labs run Windows NT clients and server. We used to have NT on Motorola PowerPC workstations, but switched them to Pentium II systems before last year. The curriculum also swiched over from teaching programming in C to teaching programming in Java.. wonder if that had anything to do with it?!?!?!
Meanwhile, the main Math/Computer Science server is some kind of 2-Processor UltraSparc. "Normally" you would access those through Javastations which have been converted to Linux X-terminals. The main laboratory, and most of the other computer labs around, has both Windows 95 and Macintosh computers available. Overall there seem to be more Windows than Macintosh systems around.
The server that handles all our Web and e-mail services is an Alpha system running Digital Unix. It used to run Linux -- dunno why that was changed. Strangely, they used the FreeBSD "daemon" mascot to advertise the fact.
Finally, the old way to access e-mail was through Pine on a VAX machine. The VAX is still up, but it has only two uses: running Minitab (a statistical analysis program) and hosting students' personal web pages. In some places in the libraries you can still access it through old VT220 terminals.
Seems you're right:-( Even OpenVMS, i guess, won't be Digital OpenVMS anymore. Compaq OpenVMS just doesn't sound right.
In fact, Compaq doesn't sound right for anything that used to be put out by Digital. I would have thought that they would at least keep the name, if only for marketing reasons.
Why compete with themselves? According to the article, they already are planning to sell Monterey on their IA-64 systems. They probably figure that selling both TRU64 and Monterey for IA-64 would be redundant and a big waste of their money.
I think I see what they're trying to do:
Alpha-based systems: Digital branding (running OpenVMS or Tru64)
All others: Compaq branding (running Monterey or W2K)
although that might be a little too obvious to be correct.
Not really. Unix was designed from the beginning to be cross-platform. MacOS was not. Not that Apple would want to port it to the "enemy" platform anyway...
Nevertheless, there were plans to bring Rhapsody to X86... wonder what happened to those plans? Actually, if you can rewrite the assembly code in Darwin, you'd have the next best thing.
I can see this as not much more than a PR move. About the only benefit that I can see to this is that now anyone can find bugs in the chip and suggest to Sun how to fix them. And, as has already been mentioned, this is one of Sun's older processors, so any bugs have long since been found and fixed.
Oh, but there _must_ be, if current quantum theory is correct.
Each force has an associated particle that carries it. Too bad I can only remeber that photons carry electomagnetic, and gravitons are _supposed_ to carry gravity.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess some people can't tell satire when they read it...
Logic dictates that any computer made by IBM, no matterfor what market segment, must be big and blue. After all, they didn't get the name "Big Blue" for nothing, right?
Making their computers small and in any number of different colors risks further undermining the "Big Blue" monicker, already in serious doubt since the introduction of the PC, a relatively small, black and beige (IIRC, but certainly not blue) computer.
There is exactly one benefit in killing off the "Big Blue" name: its similarity to "Big Brother" may have scared off IBM's potential smaller clients.
However, I think the risks to IBM's reputation far outweigh this nearly insignificant benefit. It therefore beehoves IBM to abandon this short-sighted strategy and focus on making what made it famous: big blue computers.
Try this site:
.pdf form, but not this one :(
British Standards Online
and search for Standard Number 6008.
Only problem is you have to have 20 English Pounds lying around somewhere, and being a lousy American, I ain't got any. Apparently some of the standards are avilable in
Erhm... I disagree with just about everything you said here.
How can Solaris suck on x86 hardware if 90-some% of the code is the same?
Have you ever tried Solaris on _comparable_ SPARC and x86 hardware?
The real problem is that x86 hardware sucks.
Oh, BTW, I have seen CDE crash once. But I still prefer it BY FAR to KDE. I can;t stand that one bit. The only good thing is that it comes with games.
And finally, just because it compiles on Linux and Solaris doesn't mean it runs the same on both of them. The best example is WINE.
The only things I agree with is that SOlaris is more scalable than Linux (though I thought it was 64-way) and that Solaris rocks on UltraSparc... but maybe if my x86 box had 2GB RAM, it would work as well too.
Even if Solaris were totally free (speech as well as beer) it still would not supplant Linux.
The reason? Has *BSD died because of Linux? Nope. Despite all the hype behind Linux, there are people out there that still use NetBSD, OpenBSD, and FreeBSD.
Each UNIX has a different niche to fill. If Solaris were made free, that still wouldn't change the fact that it runs best on huge servers (I wonder how well it would work on those rumored 8-processor Athalon systems?). The people who use Linux would still use Linux, and the same thing for the other BSDs. Solaris might steal some market share from the NT crowd, but I don't see too much change there either.
Solaris is geared for serious uses (business, scientific computing) where the cost of the software is nothing compared to the cost of the hardware you need to make it run effectively. Therefore, by default it's not going to be much use for the average Joe. That's where Linux comes in.
In fact, I think Solaris being made free would be more dangerous for the BSDs than for Linux. Both can be used pretty effectively as web servers.
And ksh doesn't count as a shell?
So what if they wrote it with NetObjects Fusion for Windows?
The site runs on Linux.
Remember, they have to have machines with all those OSes on them so that they can make sure their product compiles and runs on all of them. The web page author just happens to have a Windows machine.
As long as it doesn't crash my browser or system, I could care less what they wrote it with.
WRONG.
.03 inches square.
The pixels will be exactly
If you're running anything but x86 (on the vendor-supplied OS), go over ther and download it.
If you're running any free OS, or any OS on x86, don't bother, cause it ain't there.
Probably ox -> oxen
Therefore box -> boxen
True that. I thought they were saying that in MacOS, as in Linux, you open the special files and then read and write data to that file. But after looking at it again, it sounds more like /dev contains all the binary drivers that run your hardware.
/dev/Deskjet 792! how do I print?" and "wtf? ls /dev/fd0 doesn't give me the files on the diskette? linux sux!" I think there should be some kind of statement warning people that actually treating the files in /dev as normal files to be accessed by the user is NOT RECOMMENDED!
I don't know why they're trying to compare the two, as things are completely different.
Finally, I can see people complaining that "there's no
The title should be something like "The Linux _Kernel_ Device Driver Tutorial (Guide?)".
That, of course, is what it actually covers. In other words, if you're searching for the latest OpenGL drivers for 3DLabs video cards, you'll be sorely disappointed. Ditto if you want to find the ALSA homepage.
If it ain't in the kernel, it ain't going to be in their search engine either.
But if I had bothered, I would have learned it on the 6502 in the Commodore 64.
:-(
;-|
I even got the Programmer's Guide from Toys R Us.
Only thing is, I never got C64Mon or any other assembly language monitor
And then last summer, I looked through the Programmer's Guide and realized they didn't tell you how to use floating-point arithmetic. So fractal programs with reasonable speed are out the window
I have used SPIM but not for anthing worthwile.
Funny, I thought it was a program, not a SDK.
My bad.
It seems that it should absolutely _crawl_ on Linux because there is no hardware graphics support on the high end (excepting that Evans & Sutherland card that Precision Insight has GLX running on).
;-)
If you have a Matrox G400 and the accelerated GLX stuff, it might be a little better. I would think, however, that you would need Reality-class hardware for this to really be useful.
Of course the answer is to try it, but I'm too lazy to figure out how to lxrun it...
Methinks Her Majesty's Royal WebMaster, if he or she had needed to switch at all, should have chosen OpenBSD instead of Red Hat.
I believe that for something like this, security should override all other concerns. That, and the price is approximately the same. Also, Red Hat is known not to be the world's most secure Linux distribution.
I just hope the Royal Webmaster knows how to find and close the security holes that might exist...
Here at Marquette, we have to learn how to use 3 or 4 different OSes.
;-)
The main engingeering labs run Windows NT clients and server. We used to have NT on Motorola PowerPC workstations, but switched them to Pentium II systems before last year. The curriculum also swiched over from teaching programming in C to teaching programming in Java.. wonder if that had anything to do with it?!?!?!
Meanwhile, the main Math/Computer Science server is some kind of 2-Processor UltraSparc. "Normally" you would access those through Javastations which have been converted to Linux X-terminals. The main laboratory, and most of the other computer labs around, has both Windows 95 and Macintosh computers available. Overall there seem to be more Windows than Macintosh systems around.
The server that handles all our Web and e-mail services is an Alpha system running Digital Unix. It used to run Linux -- dunno why that was changed. Strangely, they used the FreeBSD "daemon" mascot to advertise the fact.
Finally, the old way to access e-mail was through Pine on a VAX machine. The VAX is still up, but it has only two uses: running Minitab (a statistical analysis program) and hosting students' personal web pages. In some places in the libraries you can still access it through old VT220 terminals.
Confused? I thought so.
Seems you're right :-(
Even OpenVMS, i guess, won't be Digital OpenVMS anymore. Compaq OpenVMS just doesn't sound right.
In fact, Compaq doesn't sound right for anything that used to be put out by Digital. I would have thought that they would at least keep the name, if only for marketing reasons.
We'll miss you, Digital.
Why compete with themselves? According to the article, they already are planning to sell Monterey on their IA-64 systems. They probably figure that selling both TRU64 and Monterey for IA-64 would be redundant and a big waste of their money.
I think I see what they're trying to do:
Alpha-based systems: Digital branding (running OpenVMS or Tru64)
All others: Compaq branding (running Monterey or W2K)
although that might be a little too obvious to be correct.
Not really. Unix was designed from the beginning to be cross-platform. MacOS was not. Not that Apple would want to port it to the "enemy" platform anyway...
Nevertheless, there were plans to bring Rhapsody to X86... wonder what happened to those plans? Actually, if you can rewrite the assembly code in Darwin, you'd have the next best thing.
Sorry, but even their keyboards aren't worth what they cost. I don't like that ergonomic thing.
I wish IBM's keyboards still used mechanichal switches. Now THAT was a sign of quality!
Well, it _was_ there...
%^&@!#!@#%&^!@%#&
www.base3.org
;-)
So Microsoft would have to add 3...
I can see this as not much more than a PR move. About the only benefit that I can see to this is that now anyone can find bugs in the chip and suggest to Sun how to fix them. And, as has already been mentioned, this is one of Sun's older processors, so any bugs have long since been found and fixed.
Oh, but there _must_ be, if current quantum theory is correct.
Each force has an associated particle that carries it. Too bad I can only remeber that photons carry electomagnetic, and gravitons are _supposed_ to carry gravity.
Of course, the theory could be wrong...