Interestingly enough, by copy-and-pasting the whole text of this story from Dr. Dobbs to Slashdot, you have unwittingly done one of the more common "hacks" that Udi Manber describes as being dangerous. Information stealing is easy to do, and sometimes doesn't even feel like it's a crime.
Congratulations for illustrating his points so directly.
Ok, you're probably not a weenie, but what was more "joyful":
1. the first time you used any Unix?
2. the first time you switched to Linux?
3. the first time you used OS X?
I'm not the original poster, but here's a related comment: possibly my most joyful moment in using OS X was when I switched from an Aqua application (running locally, obviously) to an X-Windows application (running remotely on a Solaris/SPARC box) without even noticing it. That's a spicy meatball.
And, honestly, the experience of using UNIX for the very first time could never be described as joyful. Interesting? Yes. Powerful? Yes. But joyful? C'mon now....
As for a top-five list, personally I think leaving out the GUI is, well, pretty stupid. Face it: a GUI is one of the most important facets of how usable a computer is. That said, here's my crack at it:
Installation. It takes 10 minutes from "Insert CD" to "Play MP3's streaming from the Internet". I've got RedHat down to about 25 - 35 minutes, but it's a chore.
Development. My professional job is developing software for Solaris/SPARC, and the Carbon/Cocoa API's take out a lot of the hassle. Plus, you get a full-featured IDE (ProjectBuilder) and scores of professional-grade development tools for free. Yes, they're based on the GNU compiler suite, but the stuff you get on top of that (packaging & UI-building tools in particular) are excellent.
Laptop fanciness. I do my development (both for work and personal stuff) everywhere and anywhere that I can (network connection provided, that is). For 3 years I ran Linux on a laptop with varying levels of satisfaction. Getting it to do somewhat simple things (sleeping when I closed the lid, etc etc) was a challenge. Sometimes I enjoyed the challenge, but sometimes I just wanted the damn thing to work. Oh yeah, and the batteries last 5 hours per charge.
Main-Stream programs. All hate-mongering aside, MS Office is useful (and necessary for some people). Adobe Acrobat (not just the reader) is great. I like being able to run Palm Desktop when I need complicated appointments, and 'cal' from the command line when I'm just looking for a date.OmniGraffle is quite possibly the best diagramming program to date. Using OS X (with its MacOS history of having strong graphical programs), I can produce documentation that blows the door off of anything I could create with StarOffice/KDE Office/Gimp. I'm not discounting the usefulness of these open-sourced (and very competent) apps -- the OS X ones are simply better. Yes, more expensive, but it's worth the cost to me.
Top-end hardware support. Bluetooth, firewire, CD-RW, DVD, etc etc. It's all built in to a point that you don't even think about using it. You can burn a CD by drag-and-drop from the desktop for crissake.
Those five things said, the UI is really the best accomplishment of OS X. My mother uses a Unix-based OS and doesn't even know (or care). She just likes the shiny buttons and the way the programs never crash each other.
Wow... looks like I'd better get off of the soap box before it breaks from all my gushing.... Basically, in my mind, OS X is an phenomenal accomplishment. It makes my life easier, and it re-taught me to appreciate the beauty of Unix again.
I'm not going to suggest which source code tool to use, or how to organize your projects. But here's the short version of a few general suggestions that might help:
Do the planning. This is the most difficult stage because (as was mathematically proven last year... where is that link?) it is impossible to estimate the complexity of a computer project. So, your plan should be reasonably flexible, but still stick to a concrete form. Oh, and don't call it a schedule! Most managers don't have the self-control (or technical expertise) necessary to grasp the fact that computer project "schedules" are at best a shot in the dark.
Set written-in-stone dates to re-evaluate the validity of your plan. It isn't an admission of failure if, half-way through the project, you realize your original plans were ass-backwards:) If it were easy, everyone would do it.
Whatever source control package you use, try to avoid the "One Parent Tree, 200 children" syndrome. Any project will have reasonably logical groupings of tasks. Each sub-group of developers working on those tasks should first consolidate their changes into their own sub-tree, and then consolidate with the main tree. 3 or 4 levels of parent-child trees can help break down the pain of file merging.
Most development groups have some type of a code review process before the code goes back to a shared source tree. Improving on that, I've had some success at requiring two code reviews: one for code correctness, and one for its impact on the build process. These two reviews should never be done by the same person (or group).
That's the a few points that I've found to be helpful in my professional work. Your mileage may vary.
One of the thing that is impressive about applications that are written natively for OS X is the installation procedure: it usually involves a complex procedure called "copying". All hyperbole aside, it is that easy.
For instance, I installed MS Office on my laptop a while ago (still waiting on Sun & Apple to resolve their differences & build StarOffice for the Mac). The entire procedure was:
1. Insert Office CD 2. Drag-And-Drop a folder onto my hard drive 3. Start using it.
Installing applications from the Internet is even easier. I'm a happy registered user of OmniGraffle, a diagramming and graphical tool that makes other programs like it feel worthless. The installation process for that is:
1. Download the file, which unpacks as a disk image & it automatically mounted. 2. Drag & Drop the application. 3. Start using it.
Another nifty feature is that, to the high-level graphical interface, an application appears as a Bundle, and therefore it looks like a single executable file. To the regular user, this is a far more intuitive presentation of what an "Application" is. However, if you whip up a terminal & go poking around a bundle, you'll see that it's really a collection of every file the application needs to work.
Mark my words, the Winblows platform will be emulating this behavior within their usual UI 5 year lag.
... the phrase TANSTAAFL. Puzzled? Try the Acronym Finder or The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Mr. Heinlein.
It wouldn't shock me if Mandrake as well as a few other distros don't make it through the current economic crunch. There are companies out there with rock-solid business plans that can't make money right now... is it any surprise that a company with limited IP can't make ends meet?
Did you even read the story? Or did you just impulsively press the 'Reply' button with a hope to see your name in lights? Sorry to be blunt, but please make a little effort before you post.
Here, I'll make one for you:
Tell me, HOW can a big-iron selling company, solely based on UNIX services, with a core business of selling solely hardware plus services on that hardware, get damaged when MS includes a browser in their OS?
The suit is less about the choice (or lack thereof) of a browser, and more about MS attempting to use their current monopoly in the desktop computer market to get a monopoly in other markets (Server OS's, Web Service Applications, et. al.). Ever heard of.NET? Hmm??
Furthermore, HOW can MS hurt Sun by not including java into their browser, while Sun declared a settled lawsuit last year a 'victory' when that lawsuit was actually stating that MS should not create NEW versions of the JVM (so, on windows people could only use 1.1 applets, pretty crap) and should leave Java after 7 years ?
Pretty crappy is right. Sun declared that lawsuit a victory because it stopped MS from writing illegal extensions of the Java language that would only run on Windows platforms. If MS had been allowed to do that, they would have used their desktop monopoly to effectively break one of Java's best features: platform independence. Microsoft plainly violated their Java licensing agreement, and Sun had to take them to court to prove that.
I won't even mention the native solaris thread code in the Sun JVM, so it cheats as much as the MS jvm did.
Um, yeah. Every modern VM uses native threading code... that isn't considered cheating. Have a look at IBM's VM -- its threading performance is even better than Sun's, yet I guarantee you won't see a Sun -vs- IBM suit over that. As I mentioned previously, that law suit was over MS's breach of the Java license.
For a decent summary of the suit, have a look at CNET's News.com coverage. The FAQ there covers the basics.
... is in the Detect Displays button on the Displays System Preferences pane. Previously, to get my laptop to recognize an external display, you'd have to put it to sleep & wake it back up. This wasn't a big deal, since OS X can go to sleep & wake back up in about 4 seconds total. But, it's nice to have a button to detect other monitor(s) on the fly.
And on a random external-monitor point, it blows people away when you're doing an Powerpoint presentation, then you pull up a pretty translucent terminal for a Unix-y CLI demo, then you start up an X-served app, all from a little Mac laptop. It amazes me that so many *nix folk still don't appreciate the phenomenal job Apple has done w/ OS X.
. . . 64 max CPUs together ( E15k will have more ), or 8 CPUs.
The E15k already has more: up to 106 processors. And you're right, the supposition that SPARC is dead simply because of the current financial state of Sun is pretty silly.
Even more silly to me is the fact that people are still equating Mhz to the overall value of a chip. And before people start whining, I'm not talking about the "Megahertz Myth", either. Currently, per-chip computing power is dirt cheap. It seems to me that factors like scalability, power consumption, and (as you mentioned) error checking are quickly becoming more important in general-task CPU's.
Aw, this is just cute. Some guy (hmm... did I get the gender right?) whose head is apparently buried in some deeply interesting CS project happens to poke into/. at around the right time to bash Apple for helping to spur the graphical advancements of the past 15 years.
I use vi as my main editor. I have two flavors of Unix running in my home. The vast majority of my work is for a large Unix company whose name starts with 'S' and ends with 'n'. I am (for lack of a more graceful term) a Unix guy. I love this shit.
But I fail to see the usefulness in berating the idea of a graphical interface. The fact is, graphics are the only way the masses are going to be able to use computers is through an intuitive interface that *does not* involve man pages. You can bitch and moan as much as you want, but the majority of people out there just want to push pretty, jewel-colored buttons.
So, flaunt your old-school colors all you want -- it doesn't change the reality that there are mounds of people who think that MS Office is the best thing since VCR's.
Buy an Apple laptop. Yeah, they're more expensive... but guess what? You get what you pay for. Now, install XonX, the XFree86 X server on top of MacOS X. Now, install
OroborOSX, a snazzy Windows Manager that looks good next to the MacOS Aqua interface. XEmacs for OSX is
available for free download as well. Now run Xemacs to your hearts content.
--Mid
Reality: Love it or Hate it....
on
Slashdot Updates
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I had some fleeting thoughts about posting a flame-inducing rant here about the unsustainable nature of "free" stuff (news outlets, software, ketchup, take your pick), the inherent greed of human nature, and other related topics. I'm a capitalist... so shoot me.
But instead I'd like to just point out that Slashdot is an amazing accomplishment, and everyone who keeps it running deserves to get paid for it. The only people that will bitch about the (potential) subscription cost are the same ones whose posts I never read anyway.
$ java -version
java version "1.3.0"
Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build 1.3
Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 1.3.0, mixed mode)
So, a reasonably up-to-date version of Java ships with the OS. I'm guessing they'll send out updates with Java's minor releases, but not the micro releases.
The good news is, it's just BSD. So, if you want to upgrade it yourself, you can with a little work. I've yet to find a java app that doesn't run OK on it. I'm currently in the process of downloading Sun's Forte for Java IDE (shipping for Solaris), just to see if I can get that running;)
OK, so it's a laptop with a built-in monitor riser. Is that really revolutionary? Ooh! Wait! I forgot... the keyboard detaches too!
I picked up an Apple Powerbook Ti when they first came out, and it has become both my portable & my desktop. Sure, when I sit down to do some serious work at a desk I have to go through all the horror of plugging in 4 wires every time (power, second monitor, USB, network), but somehow I can manage that within 20 seconds.
To me, the best thing about the Ti (and all Apple powerbooks for the last few years) is the built-in virtual desktop support (i.e. the second monitor doesn't have to be a mirror of the laptop's screen, it can be an extension), and the sheer computing power they have. Poor Compaq will be stuck using some power-hungry Intel chip in there that has to throw millions of transistors (and the related extra wattage) at a chip to make it run fast. Those aren't very good concepts for a portable....
Hmm... this turned out to be more of an evangalical post that I originally thought it would.... Oh well. Compaq may have some pretty pictures and a few decent ideas, but I've got a working consumer model right here....
I'll agree with the first reply here -- SpeakEasy has been a reasonably good DSL ISP. Not that they're perfect, but as far as Telecom companies go, they're OK.
I did have problems getting my connection set up initially; Covad kept complaining about all sorts of things. The one thing SpeakEasy did that I really appreciated is that they were in constant contact with me during the installation process... like 3 emails a week for a month telling me what was going on. Getting DSL in general is a painful process (welcome to the Bleeding Edge!), but they certainly do all they can to help.
... wasn't made by the engineering team, but by their marketing department. They managed to convince the world that the following foolishness was actually the truth:
CPU clock speed == CPU speed
And, judging simply by the title of the article, they are now attempting to convince the journalists of the world that:
CPU clock speed == Workstation Power
Hmm... I wonder if there's a better CPU for workstations and servers out there.... Moreover, I wonder if anyone whose chip design knowledge goes beyond the buzzwords has given any awards for the best Workstation/Server CPU architecture. Are we ever going to get back to reality in terms of computer processing power? Or, have the marketing people succeeded in snuffing out another truth?
This sorta reminds me of Neal Stephenson's 'Diamond Age', where humanity had perfected nano-tech. One of the more interesting applications was the ability to construct microscopic, vaccuum-filled 'things' to fly around & do all sorts of interesting stuff (law enforcement being one of the primary uses).
Yeah yeah, balsa wood isn't nano-tech, I know. But the first horse-drawn carriage didn't look much like a Ferrari F1 racecar, either.
--Mid
Re:Sun does not respect nor fully support Linux
on
Sun Launches JXTA
·
· Score: 2
There is this crazy concept in computer programming called Major releases and Minor releases. A Major release is when you change a Major thing (like the # of processors you can support), whereas a Minor release is when you change a minor thing.
I can't explain it better than that without doing much research. That said, can you concretely tell me that you've seen a 2.4 kernel running on more than 4 processors? No fair lying when you're posting as an AC....
--Mid
Re:Sun does not respect nor fully support Linux
on
Sun Launches JXTA
·
· Score: 2
Overall, I'd say you're right -- I did go a bit off the deep end in the comparison scheme of things, but I guess I was just making sure I made my point;) One thing that I disagree with:
There's really no point in buying a sun box if your job doesn't saturate a freenix running on a quad Xeon.
One very real possibility is if you believe that your job could grow past the ability of a quad Xeon processor. If that's the case, then from the Enterprise computing perspective you're better off starting with (and sticking to) the Solaris/Sparc architecture.
But I'm not selling any Sun hardware here -- my original post was probably too harsh. Eventually (probably over the next few years) Linux will make significant progress in the Enterprise environment... then Sun will have a unique decision to make....
--Mid
Re:Sun does not respect nor fully support Linux
on
Sun Launches JXTA
·
· Score: 3
Not to pick a fight, but how is this relevent to the JXTA announcement? It sounds like you're moaning just to hear your own voice.
But since you changed the topic, make sure you understand what that Sun employee is talking about -- an "Enterprise-Class" machine is an extremely scaleable SMP box, that can support a huge amount of memory, and has I/O bandwidth out the wazzoo (technical term, of course).
The theoretical limit in the 2.0 Linux kernel (from what I remember) is 16 processors, although I've never seen anyone get more than 4 running at once. Contrast that with a Solaris/Sparc box which, currently, you can buy a 64-way box, and by year's end you'll be able to buy a 128-way box. Oh yeah, and the theoretical limit is over 1024 processors.
As far as I/O bandwidth goes, you're not really going to get all that much out of an x86 box with a single PCI bus. Since IBM is now on the Linux bandwagon, we might start seeing them build high I/O boxen sometime soon (hopefully running on PowerPC, a chip which can scale in MP terms almost as well as the Sparc III). But, that's still in the future.
Finally, you should get some kind of an award for your insinuation that Linux was responsible for Sun's sales to drop 73 percent.... I mean, I love Linux as well, but that's stretching things quite a bit!
.... That makes Jabber the "best candidate for becoming the de facto standard" of the instant-messaging industry, Kobielus said, in much
the same way Linux has been to the Unix operating system...."
Now, I'm a full convert on the usefulness of Linux. I've got it running on two different platforms in my house right now. But, calling it an industry standard is probably taking that a bit too far.
It may become a defacto standard one day, but in my opinion we're still quite a way off (and Linux has a lot of growing up to do) before we reach that point.
Yeah, it must really blow to have $27 billion in USD on hand, and a 90% strangle-hold on the consumer OS market.
Not that I like Microsoft, but this is an extremely minor hiccup to them. The amount of $$$ and market-share they made by pre-installing the OS will more than compensate for this.
As another response pointed out, AT&T doesn't own the last mile, the Baby Bells do. But, ignoring that, do you really think AT&T wants to keep the rates for their services down? Are you insane?
Think back, way back, to 10 years ago. What did a long distance call cost? I couldn't call from Florida to South Carolina for less than.30 a minute. Now I can do it for.07. That, my friend, is the wonder of competition forcing AT&T to lower their prices, and (gasp!) innovate cheaper ways of doing business. It wouldn't have happened if the government hadn't taken steps to encourage competition in the long-distance arena.
So, if we lose competition in broadband networking, do you really think that's a good thing? OK, your access rates wouldn't go up, but they wouldn't go down at all either. AT&T would charge whatever they wanted, and have no incentive to cut costs at all. Hopefully, having learned their lesson, the government won't permit that to happen.
--Mid
Re:Affect hardware sales?
on
OS X on x86?
·
· Score: 1
Apple has
a real problem with their CPUs that other server RISC based CPUs do not have - they are about two times too slow to keep up
with the AMDs and Intels of the world.
Look, Ma! Another reasonably intelligent person has fallen under the Intel Marketing Machine's spell. Get a grip... MHz != Computer Speed. Someone find a good computer architecture textbook & look it up.
... the cheaper computer beats the
better architecture every time. A lesson learned the hard way by IBM in the 80s, Apple in the 90s, and now mainframe
Unices are learning it
Right... That's why companies like Sun and IBM (there are those pesky RISC chips again!) have been posting 20 - 30% quarterly revenue gains consistently for the past 3 years. The flaw in your reasoning is that the better architecture does provide real functional advantages: stability, scalability, I/O throughput, etc. You just don't seem to know where to look.
One of the true challenges facing the Internet is the issue of Intellectual Property. I understand that law isn't your specialty, but as someone who feels like "... an inside the beltway figure", how do you see IP issues (legal and otherwise) affecting the growth and evolution of the Internet?
--Mid
Another silly Slashdotter didn't read the article
on
New Machines From Sun
·
· Score: 2
You may want to dig a little deeper before you start throwing dirt around. A few comments & corrections:
... No video...
And why, pray tell, would you want to waste space on a video board in something that is meant to be crammed into a single rack with 10 other thin servers like it? This isn't a desktop system -- it's supposed to be something you throw a rack & forget about where it is physically.
... buy lot's more uberexpensive Sun RAM...
From the article: "... it employs standard PC components, including PC memory and IDE disk drives...." I assume that means it takes standard RAM.
... single NIC...
Close -- it has a single network card. But, that built-in card is dual ported, each port having 10/100 capability.
Slashdot Mirror
Interestingly enough, by copy-and-pasting the whole text of this story from Dr. Dobbs to Slashdot, you have unwittingly done one of the more common "hacks" that Udi Manber describes as being dangerous. Information stealing is easy to do, and sometimes doesn't even feel like it's a crime.
Congratulations for illustrating his points so directly.
--Mid
1. the first time you used any Unix?
2. the first time you switched to Linux?
3. the first time you used OS X?
I'm not the original poster, but here's a related comment: possibly my most joyful moment in using OS X was when I switched from an Aqua application (running locally, obviously) to an X-Windows application (running remotely on a Solaris/SPARC box) without even noticing it. That's a spicy meatball.
And, honestly, the experience of using UNIX for the very first time could never be described as joyful. Interesting? Yes. Powerful? Yes. But joyful? C'mon now....
As for a top-five list, personally I think leaving out the GUI is, well, pretty stupid. Face it: a GUI is one of the most important facets of how usable a computer is. That said, here's my crack at it:
- Installation. It takes 10 minutes from "Insert CD" to "Play MP3's streaming from the Internet". I've got RedHat down to about 25 - 35 minutes, but it's a chore.
- Development. My professional job is developing software for Solaris/SPARC, and the Carbon/Cocoa API's take out a lot of the hassle. Plus, you get a full-featured IDE (ProjectBuilder) and scores of professional-grade development tools for free. Yes, they're based on the GNU compiler suite, but the stuff you get on top of that (packaging & UI-building tools in particular) are excellent.
- Laptop fanciness. I do my development (both for work and personal stuff) everywhere and anywhere that I can (network connection provided, that is). For 3 years I ran Linux on a laptop with varying levels of satisfaction. Getting it to do somewhat simple things (sleeping when I closed the lid, etc etc) was a challenge. Sometimes I enjoyed the challenge, but sometimes I just wanted the damn thing to work. Oh yeah, and the batteries last 5 hours per charge.
- Main-Stream programs. All hate-mongering aside, MS Office is useful (and necessary for some people). Adobe Acrobat (not just the reader) is great. I like being able to run Palm Desktop when I need complicated appointments, and 'cal' from the command line when I'm just looking for a date.OmniGraffle is quite possibly the best diagramming program to date. Using OS X (with its MacOS history of having strong graphical programs), I can produce documentation that blows the door off of anything I could create with StarOffice/KDE Office/Gimp. I'm not discounting the usefulness of these open-sourced (and very competent) apps -- the OS X ones are simply better. Yes, more expensive, but it's worth the cost to me.
- Top-end hardware support. Bluetooth, firewire, CD-RW, DVD, etc etc. It's all built in to a point that you don't even think about using it. You can burn a CD by drag-and-drop from the desktop for crissake.
Those five things said, the UI is really the best accomplishment of OS X. My mother uses a Unix-based OS and doesn't even know (or care). She just likes the shiny buttons and the way the programs never crash each other.Wow... looks like I'd better get off of the soap box before it breaks from all my gushing.... Basically, in my mind, OS X is an phenomenal accomplishment. It makes my life easier, and it re-taught me to appreciate the beauty of Unix again.
--Mid
That's the a few points that I've found to be helpful in my professional work. Your mileage may vary.
Good luck,
--Mid
One of the thing that is impressive about applications that are written natively for OS X is the installation procedure: it usually involves a complex procedure called "copying". All hyperbole aside, it is that easy.
For instance, I installed MS Office on my laptop a while ago (still waiting on Sun & Apple to resolve their differences & build StarOffice for the Mac). The entire procedure was:
1. Insert Office CD
2. Drag-And-Drop a folder onto my hard drive
3. Start using it.
Installing applications from the Internet is even easier. I'm a happy registered user of OmniGraffle, a diagramming and graphical tool that makes other programs like it feel worthless. The installation process for that is:
1. Download the file, which unpacks as a disk image & it automatically mounted.
2. Drag & Drop the application.
3. Start using it.
Another nifty feature is that, to the high-level graphical interface, an application appears as a Bundle, and therefore it looks like a single executable file. To the regular user, this is a far more intuitive presentation of what an "Application" is. However, if you whip up a terminal & go poking around a bundle, you'll see that it's really a collection of every file the application needs to work.
Mark my words, the Winblows platform will be emulating this behavior within their usual UI 5 year lag.
--Mid
... the phrase TANSTAAFL. Puzzled? Try the Acronym Finder or The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Mr. Heinlein.
It wouldn't shock me if Mandrake as well as a few other distros don't make it through the current economic crunch. There are companies out there with rock-solid business plans that can't make money right now... is it any surprise that a company with limited IP can't make ends meet?
Sorry to be so anti-warm-and-fuzzy,
--Mid
Here, I'll make one for you:
The suit is less about the choice (or lack thereof) of a browser, and more about MS attempting to use their current monopoly in the desktop computer market to get a monopoly in other markets (Server OS's, Web Service Applications, et. al.). Ever heard of .NET? Hmm??
Pretty crappy is right. Sun declared that lawsuit a victory because it stopped MS from writing illegal extensions of the Java language that would only run on Windows platforms. If MS had been allowed to do that, they would have used their desktop monopoly to effectively break one of Java's best features: platform independence. Microsoft plainly violated their Java licensing agreement, and Sun had to take them to court to prove that.
Um, yeah. Every modern VM uses native threading code... that isn't considered cheating. Have a look at IBM's VM -- its threading performance is even better than Sun's, yet I guarantee you won't see a Sun -vs- IBM suit over that. As I mentioned previously, that law suit was over MS's breach of the Java license.
For a decent summary of the suit, have a look at CNET's News.com coverage. The FAQ there covers the basics.
--Mid
... is in the Detect Displays button on the Displays System Preferences pane. Previously, to get my laptop to recognize an external display, you'd have to put it to sleep & wake it back up. This wasn't a big deal, since OS X can go to sleep & wake back up in about 4 seconds total. But, it's nice to have a button to detect other monitor(s) on the fly.
And on a random external-monitor point, it blows people away when you're doing an Powerpoint presentation, then you pull up a pretty translucent terminal for a Unix-y CLI demo, then you start up an X-served app, all from a little Mac laptop. It amazes me that so many *nix folk still don't appreciate the phenomenal job Apple has done w/ OS X.
--Mid
. . . 64 max CPUs together ( E15k will have more ), or 8 CPUs.
The E15k already has more: up to 106 processors. And you're right, the supposition that SPARC is dead simply because of the current financial state of Sun is pretty silly.
Even more silly to me is the fact that people are still equating Mhz to the overall value of a chip. And before people start whining, I'm not talking about the "Megahertz Myth", either. Currently, per-chip computing power is dirt cheap. It seems to me that factors like scalability, power consumption, and (as you mentioned) error checking are quickly becoming more important in general-task CPU's.
--Mid
Aw, this is just cute. Some guy (hmm... did I get the gender right?) whose head is apparently buried in some deeply interesting CS project happens to poke into /. at around the right time to bash Apple for helping to spur the graphical advancements of the past 15 years.
I use vi as my main editor. I have two flavors of Unix running in my home. The vast majority of my work is for a large Unix company whose name starts with 'S' and ends with 'n'. I am (for lack of a more graceful term) a Unix guy. I love this shit.
But I fail to see the usefulness in berating the idea of a graphical interface. The fact is, graphics are the only way the masses are going to be able to use computers is through an intuitive interface that *does not* involve man pages. You can bitch and moan as much as you want, but the majority of people out there just want to push pretty, jewel-colored buttons.
So, flaunt your old-school colors all you want -- it doesn't change the reality that there are mounds of people who think that MS Office is the best thing since VCR's.
--Mid
--Mid
But instead I'd like to just point out that Slashdot is an amazing accomplishment, and everyone who keeps it running deserves to get paid for it. The only people that will bitch about the (potential) subscription cost are the same ones whose posts I never read anyway.
--Mid
$ java -version
java version "1.3.0"
Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build 1.3
Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 1.3.0, mixed mode)
So, a reasonably up-to-date version of Java ships with the OS. I'm guessing they'll send out updates with Java's minor releases, but not the micro releases.
The good news is, it's just BSD. So, if you want to upgrade it yourself, you can with a little work. I've yet to find a java app that doesn't run OK on it. I'm currently in the process of downloading Sun's Forte for Java IDE (shipping for Solaris), just to see if I can get that running ;)
--Mid
OK, so it's a laptop with a built-in monitor riser. Is that really revolutionary? Ooh! Wait! I forgot... the keyboard detaches too!
I picked up an Apple Powerbook Ti when they first came out, and it has become both my portable & my desktop. Sure, when I sit down to do some serious work at a desk I have to go through all the horror of plugging in 4 wires every time (power, second monitor, USB, network), but somehow I can manage that within 20 seconds.
To me, the best thing about the Ti (and all Apple powerbooks for the last few years) is the built-in virtual desktop support (i.e. the second monitor doesn't have to be a mirror of the laptop's screen, it can be an extension), and the sheer computing power they have. Poor Compaq will be stuck using some power-hungry Intel chip in there that has to throw millions of transistors (and the related extra wattage) at a chip to make it run fast. Those aren't very good concepts for a portable....
Hmm... this turned out to be more of an evangalical post that I originally thought it would.... Oh well. Compaq may have some pretty pictures and a few decent ideas, but I've got a working consumer model right here....
-- Mid
I'll agree with the first reply here -- SpeakEasy has been a reasonably good DSL ISP. Not that they're perfect, but as far as Telecom companies go, they're OK.
I did have problems getting my connection set up initially; Covad kept complaining about all sorts of things. The one thing SpeakEasy did that I really appreciated is that they were in constant contact with me during the installation process... like 3 emails a week for a month telling me what was going on. Getting DSL in general is a painful process (welcome to the Bleeding Edge!), but they certainly do all they can to help.
--Mid
... wasn't made by the engineering team, but by their marketing department. They managed to convince the world that the following foolishness was actually the truth:
CPU clock speed == CPU speed
And, judging simply by the title of the article, they are now attempting to convince the journalists of the world that:
CPU clock speed == Workstation Power
Hmm... I wonder if there's a better CPU for workstations and servers out there.... Moreover, I wonder if anyone whose chip design knowledge goes beyond the buzzwords has given any awards for the best Workstation/Server CPU architecture. Are we ever going to get back to reality in terms of computer processing power? Or, have the marketing people succeeded in snuffing out another truth?
--Mid
Yeah yeah, balsa wood isn't nano-tech, I know. But the first horse-drawn carriage didn't look much like a Ferrari F1 racecar, either.
--Mid
There is this crazy concept in computer programming called Major releases and Minor releases. A Major release is when you change a Major thing (like the # of processors you can support), whereas a Minor release is when you change a minor thing.
I can't explain it better than that without doing much research. That said, can you concretely tell me that you've seen a 2.4 kernel running on more than 4 processors? No fair lying when you're posting as an AC....
--Mid
There's really no point in buying a sun box if your job doesn't saturate a freenix running on a quad Xeon.
One very real possibility is if you believe that your job could grow past the ability of a quad Xeon processor. If that's the case, then from the Enterprise computing perspective you're better off starting with (and sticking to) the Solaris/Sparc architecture.
But I'm not selling any Sun hardware here -- my original post was probably too harsh. Eventually (probably over the next few years) Linux will make significant progress in the Enterprise environment... then Sun will have a unique decision to make....
--Mid
Not to pick a fight, but how is this relevent to the JXTA announcement? It sounds like you're moaning just to hear your own voice.
But since you changed the topic, make sure you understand what that Sun employee is talking about -- an "Enterprise-Class" machine is an extremely scaleable SMP box, that can support a huge amount of memory, and has I/O bandwidth out the wazzoo (technical term, of course).
The theoretical limit in the 2.0 Linux kernel (from what I remember) is 16 processors, although I've never seen anyone get more than 4 running at once. Contrast that with a Solaris/Sparc box which, currently, you can buy a 64-way box, and by year's end you'll be able to buy a 128-way box. Oh yeah, and the theoretical limit is over 1024 processors.
As far as I/O bandwidth goes, you're not really going to get all that much out of an x86 box with a single PCI bus. Since IBM is now on the Linux bandwagon, we might start seeing them build high I/O boxen sometime soon (hopefully running on PowerPC, a chip which can scale in MP terms almost as well as the Sparc III). But, that's still in the future.
Finally, you should get some kind of an award for your insinuation that Linux was responsible for Sun's sales to drop 73 percent.... I mean, I love Linux as well, but that's stretching things quite a bit!
My $0.02,
--Mid
Now, I'm a full convert on the usefulness of Linux. I've got it running on two different platforms in my house right now. But, calling it an industry standard is probably taking that a bit too far.
It may become a defacto standard one day, but in my opinion we're still quite a way off (and Linux has a lot of growing up to do) before we reach that point.
{{donning fire-retardant clothing}}
--Mid
Yeah, it must really blow to have $27 billion in USD on hand, and a 90% strangle-hold on the consumer OS market.
Not that I like Microsoft, but this is an extremely minor hiccup to them. The amount of $$$ and market-share they made by pre-installing the OS will more than compensate for this.
--Mid
As another response pointed out, AT&T doesn't own the last mile, the Baby Bells do. But, ignoring that, do you really think AT&T wants to keep the rates for their services down? Are you insane?
.30 a minute. Now I can do it for .07. That, my friend, is the wonder of competition forcing AT&T to lower their prices, and (gasp!) innovate cheaper ways of doing business. It wouldn't have happened if the government hadn't taken steps to encourage competition in the long-distance arena.
Think back, way back, to 10 years ago. What did a long distance call cost? I couldn't call from Florida to South Carolina for less than
So, if we lose competition in broadband networking, do you really think that's a good thing? OK, your access rates wouldn't go up, but they wouldn't go down at all either. AT&T would charge whatever they wanted, and have no incentive to cut costs at all. Hopefully, having learned their lesson, the government won't permit that to happen.
--Mid
Look, Ma! Another reasonably intelligent person has fallen under the Intel Marketing Machine's spell. Get a grip... MHz != Computer Speed. Someone find a good computer architecture textbook & look it up.
Right... That's why companies like Sun and IBM (there are those pesky RISC chips again!) have been posting 20 - 30% quarterly revenue gains consistently for the past 3 years. The flaw in your reasoning is that the better architecture does provide real functional advantages: stability, scalability, I/O throughput, etc. You just don't seem to know where to look.
--Mid
One of the true challenges facing the Internet is the issue of Intellectual Property. I understand that law isn't your specialty, but as someone who feels like "... an inside the beltway figure", how do you see IP issues (legal and otherwise) affecting the growth and evolution of the Internet?
--Mid
And why, pray tell, would you want to waste space on a video board in something that is meant to be crammed into a single rack with 10 other thin servers like it? This isn't a desktop system -- it's supposed to be something you throw a rack & forget about where it is physically.
From the article: "... it employs standard PC components, including PC memory and IDE disk drives...." I assume that means it takes standard RAM.
Close -- it has a single network card. But, that built-in card is dual ported, each port having 10/100 capability.
--Mid