It's a funny one, since stereotypically, Americans complain about paying *any* sort of tax-like charge, yet people often want the BBC content too. This is having your cake and eat it:)
Of course, there's a smattering of BBC content on BBC world, but you don't get the whole BBC, and the lack of adverts for what the average American contributes to see BBC World.
It's a different culture- UK broadcast news is legally bound to be truthful and unbiased unlike Fox "news" etc, and the sorts of programmes commissioned are very different to commerical TV too. It's not all wonderful, there is some tedious populist nonsense like DIY shows, and rubbishy "Reality TV" too. However, stuff that would never see the light of day on Murdoch's TV turns up on the BBC, recently there's been a bit of a renaissance of original programming.
I don't know what answer is.. Some of the really amazing-looking BBC nature programmes are produced in association with the Discovery Channel (I think they mostly put up the folding green stuff for a chance to show it). This means that you guys will get/will have seen mind-blowing stuff like "Massive Nature". As to the more daring cutting-edge comedy, like "Monkey Dust", I fear that it'd not do very well in the US, much like Chris Morris' "Jam"; fall foul of the religious right "moral minority" world view. Maybe you'll get stuff like "The Smoking Room", which is exquisite and in the classic British theatrical tradition. Occasionally very dark, has a delightfully tight script.
I don't know what the answer is, Reagan shredded public service broadcasting in the US, made "liberal" a dirty word, and taught people that taxation was akin to Satan worship. This isn't really an environment in which the BBC could florish.
Moreover, you have to remember that the stuff which goes out on BBC TV is often only cleared for the BBC to show in certain places- and it wouldn't be allowed to show it in the US- US rights are often negotiated separately.
Anyway, whatever the eventual answer is (and I hope it's not the Americanisation of British media, reducing it all to the lowests common denominator via Sky), I hope you guys there get at least some of this stuff- call it payback for Bill Hicks:-)
(All the views above do not represent those of my employers, they're mine. If they upset you, that's the fault of me and thee, not the lovely people who pay me)
The BBC already streams a lot of radio programmes, but multicasting video is a very cost-effective option. You only need to put out a few streams even if you have thousands oif viewers. You could have 10,000 broadband viewers costing the bbc no more than a few hundred narrowband unicast radio listeners, in bandwidth terms. It's really quite clever, and lets better services be delivered more cheaply, as long as people get their multicast peering up:)
The point can be summed up for me personally with the phrase "generational bounce". It's not rocket science- every time I encode something it throws a little bit away.
Then I take the result and decode it elsewhere and re-encode it, and guess what, it throws some more away.
Once you've shuttled back and forth a few times with your audio, if you're using lossy compression, the signal sounds like (and this is a technical term) a big pile of arse.
It's all very well to point at anything and go "what's the point?" before thinking about it at all- this is why we love slashdot. I could just as well glare at a carpet tile and decry it with the same mantra- it will seem equally valid an observation to me since I haven't broken into a mental trot.
However, it's nice to see that your comment got modded up, who needs a decent SNR?:)
On the other hand, ogg sounds identical to the original lossless source at 64Kbps, even for audiofiles. That's a genuine improvement for a large nuber of people. Not only is ogg half the size of 128kb MP3s, but it sounds FAR better. I can't imagine anyone will be very interested in FLAC when Ogg is already so very great.
Leaving aside the fact that ogg itself doesn't sound like anything (it's a container, vorbis and FLAC are codecs:), if it "sounds identical" to you you're either encoding some very odd sources, are playing back on a builtin speaker on a PDA or need to get your ears checked:-)
Honestly, 64k sounds nothing like a full bandwidth signal, with moderately complex content. Vorbis is a lossy coder that makes some rather clever decisions about what to throw away, but even the Xiph team wouldn't dream of saying that it "sounds identical", even at 192k (sorry Monty, around -q 5, shame on me). There are enough fantastic things about this codec for the truth to be sufficient. Misleadingly positive hyperbole is as damamging as misleadingly negative flames, "just the facts, ma'am".
Might I suggest you get a slightly better audio setup (plug your computer into your hifi, failing anything else), and consider dropping a few currency units on a cheap audigy or something else that offers equivalent low-end bang for buck?
Maybe there's nothing wrong with your equipment or ears, some people need a bit of help to get the knack of listening critically. It's a blessing and a curse; I find it hard to use my NexII now since I can hear mp3 artifacts all over the place..
Anyway, with the greatest of respect, I think your argument is based on a manifestly specious premise. I'm sure it's not done through spite or because you're part of an evil conspiracy bent on world domination[*], just that you haven't really got your head around audio. Might be worth learning if you don't value your sanity too highly.
Sorry if this reads at all like a flame, it's not meant to be, and is posted with the best motives, no offense is intended.
and wrestle with the philosophical nature of your assertion:)
(Note: This stuff is in a preview state only, it's very rough and ready, and certainly not for the end user... if you're feeling brave, on the other hand, and like compiling heaps of source..)
It just struck me that not everyone is American, and I should plug a UK supplier I use, who have been great for supplying linux and BSD compatible kit..
You might like to check out GND (www.gnd.co.uk), who are involved in the London Linux User Group. Their only flaw is that they don't update their web site fast enough, so I'd be inclined to phone for prices, if you're interested..
Sure, they cost a little more than the average box shifter, but they use good quality parts, and have tonnes of linux and BSD clues.
They're only a little outfit, but their customer service is first class- like the time they stayed till 10 at night building me a new server, in a hurry. You can't pay for that sort of backup.
They're the sort of comapny which phones you to warn you that there's a major new upgrade for your mobo bios, they really go the extra mile to make your life easy.
Note, I am not on a cut, nor do I work for them, I just love their service, and their boxes.
Seems like Dell USA are 200% better than Dell Europe then. I've had nothing but latre, broken, incorrect hardware, and rude, ill-informed servie from them, with a minimum turnaround in weeks rather than hours.
At the risk of being branded a troll, who in their right mind would use mandrake on a *server*?
As an enthusiastic RatHed user, I would still suggest looking at debian, or slack, in minimal mode, for a server. They are, unlike mandrake, well tested, and adhere (more closely) to the KISS principle- "keep it simple, stupid", and WORK.
Mandrake really isn't particularly solid, it's the win98 of the linux world. If you want it on your own workstation, fair enough- assuming you tighten the default config enough so that it doesn't get owned and used to attack others:) The "ease of use" doesn't make it inherently less secure per se; it encourages mental lazyness; as ever, sysadmin is the weak link here.
However, sticking it on a server will risk a lot of other folks, too. Yes, I hear the malcontents muttering "distro wars"; not a bit of it. I'm not saying "use this distro, all others suck", more "don't use this one for this job, it's not suitable". Hell, use FreeBSD if you like, just think twice about putting mandrake on a *server*.
Some people applaud mandrake's ease of use; this is fine on a playbox at home, for learning. We all have to start somewhere, right? However, when you're providing a server, it's downright dangerous to be so ill-informed that you're unable to make it work without resorting to "click here to start". It gets even worse if you have it on the public internet- on an RBOC in the US, there are so many kiddies scanning netblocks that a default mandrake box will be rooted in 15 minutes. A clueful non-klicker would have shut stuff down, set up ipchains and logging etc, before plugging it all in. Someone who needs a gui to install the O/S may not even be aware of these issues.
Taking a few minutes to even read something basic like Lance Spitzner's nice little essay on armouring linux (http://www.enteract.com/~lspitz/linux.html) would help a lot of folks. He wrote it for an intelligent novice, and it will stop them being such an easy target. Automated gui-installers and automated hardening scripts are no replacement for a little care.
Ah well, I am sure I'll get flamed to hell.com and back by eye bulging teenage naked-woman-theme swapping mandrake-klickers, but this is what I found down the years. When I do use linux on a server, I'd be likely to choose a more robust flavour. Watch me get moderated down for this, but then, I'll have the last laugh when these servers are either smoking on the LAN, or owned on the net.
First of all, re: modems, who actually WANTS a modem with a large software component?
As to the rest, if manufacturers took your suggestion as read, it would mean losing sales even more surely as if they produced a shonky card which relies on layers of software to take the strain.
I personally don't want to be restriced to "retired" hardware, and be grubbing around for old orphaned hardware like a poor relative of the BillyClicker world, there's no earthly reason for it. As free OSsen gain more of a foothold, manufacturers will realise that a it's an increasing market, and one that doesn't just scrape by on recycled kit, third rate outdated stuff.
That sort of approach would put me at a very real competetive disadvantage to my Clicker colleagues, since they might be lacking in clues, but their alien technology would always be several steps ahead:-)
Like I want to stay using an sb16 with worse sound quality than a Psion PDA, while other people are using Wave8/24.. Like I want to be struggling along with lame-ass 3DFX crap to preview 3d scenes while other people are using a fully-supported GeForce 2 GTS... not fun, eh?
The question isn't really so much distro-centric as kernel-centric.
In order to use Nvidia's lame xfree 4.xx bvinary server on my box at home (which can't boot 2.2 due to insane pci cards which require 2.3/4's newer PCI code), I'd have to use a nasty third party hack, to kludge the driver to work with my kernel. for me, it's not a choice. We don't have a magic driver system/yet/ (i2o?:), so in the meantime, hardware manufacturers are losing sales when they fail to provide (at the very least) proper programming specs for their hardware.
Of course, companies like smartdisk and creative labs go one step further, writing opensource drives.
I'm wondering if the unnamed company is indeed creative, because they have released perfectly good basic emu10k1 drivers to control their cards. however, they don't tap much of the DSP power of this beastie. People who do this will probably still get more of the linux user dollar than either nvidia (see above), or people who don't offer support at all (hello, Event/Echo, you mongrels!:).
Speaking personally, I have a Geforce at home because I play games, but in my linux box at work, I have a G400, because of Matrox's willingness to document their product. I now have to consider linux whenever I buy any general-use hardware. The K7VT motherboard which I bought yesterday (Asus Athlon/Thunderbird mobo) sports a neat little "tested with linux" flash. This is half the story. People must also follow through will full support in each case, word gets around...
Umm, end of ramble.. what was the point that I was trying to make?
As horrible as quicktime is, you can play a lot of the less exotic variants (ie, not using evil closed monopoly codecs like Sorensen) with XAnim, as long as you grab all the decoding dlls that Mark P provides on the XAnim site (http://xanim.va.pubnix.com/home.html).
It's a pain to compile, but works well enough for me to use linux to watch the "Come on my selector" video from the squarepusher "big loada" EP, which is what mattered to me:-)
Beware, you need a fairly porky machine- I was using an 800mhz athlon with 256 megs of ram, a g400 etc, and was only playing about 1/4 screen. It's less than perfect, but it works.
BTW, if you do use xanim, the switch to allow resizing of the window is +Sr, drove me nuts looking for that, HTH.
http://www.mp3.com/tib - See how fast the b*stard burns.
Shame you posted this anonymously, it was an intestesting reply. I suppose that some poking around in the lists would reveal who you are though, if you submitted that stuff:)
Anyway, 4.0.1 looks like an improvement of sorts, maybe by 4.1 it will be safe to use. Looks like debian guys will be packaging it soon, this is always a good rough indicator for me, a lazy person's safety metric, if you will...
Anyway, thanks for one of the most clueful followups that I've had in a while.
Have a look at www.junkbusters.com - they have a nice GPLed proxy that you can put between you and your squid (or whatever) that offers regexed banner/ad blocking and privacy features like finely-grained control of cookies.
Not just wimps, but people who have to look after a few machines, and keep them consistent. People with clues.
Amazingly enough, you don't need to KLICK HERE or ORDER NOW for package management- you can roll your own packages too, prior to distribution over your network.
Of course you'd never do that, since you don't want to be seen as a wimp, like us weedy bastards who have to look after more than one box:-) *duck*
Beware, certainly XFree 4.0 was marked unsafe/forbidden, due to a great big root compromise. The XFree people didn't bother even getting back to the FreeBSD team, last time I checked- obviously getting the latest super duper framerates in UnQuakeTournament 17 was more important than basic security.
Doesn't both me, since the only FreeBSD box I have doesn't even have X installed (sadly, I am gonna have to retire it back into being a windows enduser machine soon, argh), but I think it's a little hard on those FBSDers who use it day in day out on the desktop.
I know that XFree 4 represents a major architectural revamp, and that a lot of stuff has been modularized, tightened, cleaned up and made saner. I know that maintaining XFree 3.xx was much more of a hacky nightmare. Credit where it's due to everyone involved in XFree 4 for all their hard work.
I do, however, suspect that XFree went from development to release long before it was ready. I won't make any wild speculations as to why (that's not very constructive). Personally, I've dropped back to 3, and will stay there until 4 is a little more... finished:)
I just hope that the linux 2.4 kernel doesn't make the same mistake. The 2.4-test2 that I'm running is great, but there's still a way to go there. Looking forward to linux 2.4 and Xfree 4 in perfect harmony, but ONLY when they are both ready...
Anyway, that's my two cents..
http://www.mp3.com/tib -think you're lame? I will trump you..
First off, you can have a read for yourself, at http://devlinux.com/projects/reiserfs/ - also, Underhand.net's very own Kurt has a nice page about converting your box to reiser, if you're interested, at http://kurt.andover.net/Reiser-filesystem-HOWTO.ht ml
Well, I use reiser on my x86 based squid at work, and it's pretty damned nippy. It saves quite a bit of space, gives me a 15% speedup on reads, and is journalling. Of course, with journalling, unlinking is a little slow, but that's less critical for me.
Of course, I don't like the three lines of ads on startup; I want to see important messages about the health of my box, not spam for mp3.com, SuSe and so forth. It didn't take long to knock that bit out, but it shouldn't have been needed. When linux becomes spamware is when I choose to untrash my FreeBSD boxes:)
It's a pretty nice fs, all in all. However, as much as I admire his work, I can't condone Hans R's rather hotheaded behaivior, esp towards Viro. The kernel guys have a lot of factors to juggle, and have to (in theory) make changes based on the biggest potential upside. Where there are disagreements, the maintainer makes the call, because he/she/it is the maintainer.
I think we can do without fireworks in the kernel list. This filesystem isn't really needed for endusers right now, it won't kill people if they have to patch it in.
I know that Hans and others have put loads of very hard work into the code, and I am sure we all applaud them for their efforts, and the quality of the results. However if it's not right for the direction of the kernel, and the vfs stuff etc, it's more than a little arrogant to expect the kernel supertanker to be turned on a dime, just for one FS.
I genuinely suspect that the problem is as much in Hans' approach as the code itself, and that if he were to cool down a little, there could be a way to mesh a lot of the excellent work he's done into the kernel proper. Of course, it would involve him losing a little face, but it's a question of priorities. If he swallowed his pride, maybe he'd be better off, and hell, the rest of us would too, since some of his work is absolutely first class.
Like I say, my work squid runs on his FS, it's not like I think it's utter carp- it runs like a dream..
It's not really appropriate to try and send the pugilistic villagers up the hill to Castle Viro to burn the place down quite yet; he, and the other kernel guys, are doing a sterling job- there's no reason to tear them to bits because of one brilliant but misguided loose cannon. (There's a mixed metaphor for you)
Oh, and this 2.4.0-test2 kernel is doing pretty well so far, too:-)
Just my two cents.. YMMV, etc.
Oh and my own spam for mp3.com, visit http://www.mp3.com/tib -it still sucks.
The net's favorite paranoid loon said that they "don't have any laws up there in Canada" (samples available upon request).
Maybe this is what billy is hoping?:)
However, given the amount that MS spends in lobbying the US govt to get all those nice new laws (DMCA anywaone) and big contracts, I wouldn't hold my breath.
My usual dealers are UK based (I'm reesident in the UK), and I was going by what they told me. However, I will be investigating this when I am a little less tired... Before the pound drops too much against the dollar, mebbe.
Thanks for the link- I prefer to build my own boxes, not only from a price POV, but because I love to know what's going into them, much like rolling your own linux kernel...:)
Due to abuse by skript kiddies like Hipcrime, things like cancel requests tend not to be honoured, unless coming from an authoritative src, and suitably authenticated.
I think we all realised that USENET had become a lost cause when people started referring to it as "dejanews" and threatening to "report you to netscape" when you posted accurate summaries of their spamming activities.
My heart doesn't bleed for compaq. In short, fsck them!
In background, I am an alpha user, hell, I even have an old alphaserver as a playbox at home. Recently, I came into a position where I could bear to upgrade some servers, and was thinking of some little rackmount freenix powered boxes- maybe some SMP alphas.
I called my usual alpha dealer (it's been a while since I have had to talk alphas), to get prices for a mobo+cpu+ atx rackmount case, and was told that compaq had decreed an end to ATX form factor systems.
Instead, you have to get a proprietary form factor case and mobo. This puts the entry price for a bare mobo/case/cpu package at 1600+ukp, for a machine with a lot less power than a 900ukp althon box!
In the past, you could build a nice powerful system with your own parts, and not pay the awful penalty of having to put up with hugely inflated prices chaged by compaq for that awful plastic proprietary stuff they peddle (can you say "lock in"? I knew you could).
It was something of a different ball game when it was Digital kit.. my old alphaserver is built like a fscking tank, and I can see where the money went. However, when I look at my compaq floor standing raid towers, all I see is overpriced, tacky and plastic.
It's a real shame that Compaq hoovered up DEC in the first place (ex-VAX/VMS users tend to get a little overly emotional at this point:). It's rather like Albert Einstein having to work for Laurel and Hardy, to my mind. Yes, I know that L+H had a much bigger target market, but Uncle Albert commanded the respect, and had a certain dignity:)
Anyway, by taking a massive step backwards, and making the Alpha suffer proprietary form factors once more, compaq has priced itself out of yet another market, by charging surreal amounts for products of dubious value.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a funny one, since stereotypically, Americans complain about paying *any* sort of tax-like charge, yet people often want the BBC content too. This is having your cake and eat it :)
:-)
Of course, there's a smattering of BBC content on BBC world, but you don't get the whole BBC, and the lack of adverts for what the average American contributes to see BBC World.
It's a different culture- UK broadcast news is legally bound to be truthful and unbiased unlike Fox "news" etc, and the sorts of programmes commissioned are very different to commerical TV too. It's not all wonderful, there is some tedious populist nonsense like DIY shows, and rubbishy "Reality TV" too. However, stuff that would never see the light of day on Murdoch's TV turns up on the BBC, recently there's been a bit of a renaissance of original programming.
I don't know what answer is.. Some of the really amazing-looking BBC nature programmes are produced in association with the Discovery Channel (I think they mostly put up the folding green stuff for a chance to show it). This means that you guys will get/will have seen mind-blowing stuff like "Massive Nature". As to the more daring cutting-edge comedy, like "Monkey Dust", I fear that it'd not do very well in the US, much like Chris Morris' "Jam"; fall foul of the religious right "moral minority" world view. Maybe you'll get stuff like "The Smoking Room", which is exquisite and in the classic British theatrical tradition. Occasionally very dark, has a delightfully tight script.
I don't know what the answer is, Reagan shredded public service broadcasting in the US, made "liberal" a dirty word, and taught people that taxation was akin to Satan worship. This isn't really an environment in which the BBC could florish.
Moreover, you have to remember that the stuff which goes out on BBC TV is often only cleared for the BBC to show in certain places- and it wouldn't be allowed to show it in the US- US rights are often negotiated separately.
Anyway, whatever the eventual answer is (and I hope it's not the Americanisation of British media, reducing it all to the lowests common denominator via Sky), I hope you guys there get at least some of this stuff- call it payback for Bill Hicks
(All the views above do not represent those of my employers, they're mine. If they upset you, that's the fault of me and thee, not the lovely people who pay me)
Dude, you misunderstand multicast.
:)
The BBC already streams a lot of radio programmes, but multicasting video is a very cost-effective option. You only need to put out a few streams even if you have thousands oif viewers. You could have 10,000 broadband viewers costing the bbc no more than a few hundred narrowband unicast radio listeners, in bandwidth terms. It's really quite clever, and lets better services be delivered more cheaply, as long as people get their multicast peering up
Then I take the result and decode it elsewhere and re-encode it, and guess what, it throws some more away.
Once you've shuttled back and forth a few times with your audio, if you're using lossy compression, the signal sounds like (and this is a technical term) a big pile of arse.
It's all very well to point at anything and go "what's the point?" before thinking about it at all- this is why we love slashdot. I could just as well glare at a carpet tile and decry it with the same mantra- it will seem equally valid an observation to me since I haven't broken into a mental trot.
However, it's nice to see that your comment got modded up, who needs a decent SNR?
On the other hand, ogg sounds identical to the original lossless source at 64Kbps, even for audiofiles. That's a genuine improvement for a large nuber of people. Not only is ogg half the size of 128kb MP3s, but it sounds FAR better. I can't imagine anyone will be very interested in FLAC when Ogg is already so very great.
Leaving aside the fact that ogg itself doesn't sound like anything (it's a container, vorbis and FLAC are codecs
Honestly, 64k sounds nothing like a full bandwidth signal, with moderately complex content. Vorbis is a lossy coder that makes some rather clever decisions about what to throw away, but even the Xiph team wouldn't dream of saying that it "sounds identical", even at 192k (sorry Monty, around -q 5, shame on me). There are enough fantastic things about this codec for the truth to be sufficient. Misleadingly positive hyperbole is as damamging as misleadingly negative flames, "just the facts, ma'am".
Might I suggest you get a slightly better audio setup (plug your computer into your hifi, failing anything else), and consider dropping a few currency units on a cheap audigy or something else that offers equivalent low-end bang for buck?
Maybe there's nothing wrong with your equipment or ears, some people need a bit of help to get the knack of listening critically. It's a blessing and a curse; I find it hard to use my NexII now since I can hear mp3 artifacts all over the place..
Anyway, with the greatest of respect, I think your argument is based on a manifestly specious premise. I'm sure it's not done through spite or because you're part of an evil conspiracy bent on world domination[*], just that you haven't really got your head around audio. Might be worth learning if you don't value your sanity too highly.
Sorry if this reads at all like a flame, it's not meant to be, and is posted with the best motives, no offense is intended.
[*] I'd have seen you at the meetings
The xiph download directory
and wrestle with the philosophical nature of your assertion
(Note: This stuff is in a preview state only, it's very rough and ready, and certainly not for the end user... if you're feeling brave, on the other hand, and like compiling heaps of source..)
*sigh*
http://www.linuxemporium.co.uk/ should be able to help, but give him a few days to catch up :)
You might like to check out GND (www.gnd.co.uk), who are involved in the London Linux User Group. Their only flaw is that they don't update their web site fast enough, so I'd be inclined to phone for prices, if you're interested..
Sure, they cost a little more than the average box shifter, but they use good quality parts, and have tonnes of linux and BSD clues.
They're only a little outfit, but their customer service is first class- like the time they stayed till 10 at night building me a new server, in a hurry. You can't pay for that sort of backup.
They're the sort of comapny which phones you to warn you that there's a major new upgrade for your mobo bios, they really go the extra mile to make your life easy.
Note, I am not on a cut, nor do I work for them, I just love their service, and their boxes.
-A-
Waa! No fair!
Hope you have lots of spare time.
Put it this way, act in haste, repent at your leisure.
As an enthusiastic RatHed user, I would still suggest looking at debian, or slack, in minimal mode, for a server. They are, unlike mandrake, well tested, and adhere (more closely) to the KISS principle- "keep it simple, stupid", and WORK.
Mandrake really isn't particularly solid, it's the win98 of the linux world. If you want it on your own workstation, fair enough- assuming you tighten the default config enough so that it doesn't get owned and used to attack others
However, sticking it on a server will risk a lot of other folks, too. Yes, I hear the malcontents muttering "distro wars"; not a bit of it. I'm not saying "use this distro, all others suck", more "don't use this one for this job, it's not suitable". Hell, use FreeBSD if you like, just think twice about putting mandrake on a *server*.
Some people applaud mandrake's ease of use; this is fine on a playbox at home, for learning. We all have to start somewhere, right? However, when you're providing a server, it's downright dangerous to be so ill-informed that you're unable to make it work without resorting to "click here to start". It gets even worse if you have it on the public internet- on an RBOC in the US, there are so many kiddies scanning netblocks that a default mandrake box will be rooted in 15 minutes. A clueful non-klicker would have shut stuff down, set up ipchains and logging etc, before plugging it all in. Someone who needs a gui to install the O/S may not even be aware of these issues.
Taking a few minutes to even read something basic like Lance Spitzner's nice little essay on armouring linux (http://www.enteract.com/~lspitz/linux.html) would help a lot of folks. He wrote it for an intelligent novice, and it will stop them being such an easy target. Automated gui-installers and automated hardening scripts are no replacement for a little care.
Ah well, I am sure I'll get flamed to hell.com and back by eye bulging teenage naked-woman-theme swapping mandrake-klickers, but this is what I found down the years. When I do use linux on a server, I'd be likely to choose a more robust flavour. Watch me get moderated down for this, but then, I'll have the last laugh when these servers are either smoking on the LAN, or owned on the net.
Sad but true.
-A-
As to the rest, if manufacturers took your suggestion as read, it would mean losing sales even more surely as if they produced a shonky card which relies on layers of software to take the strain.
I personally don't want to be restriced to "retired" hardware, and be grubbing around for old orphaned hardware like a poor relative of the BillyClicker world, there's no earthly reason for it. As free OSsen gain more of a foothold, manufacturers will realise that a it's an increasing market, and one that doesn't just scrape by on recycled kit, third rate outdated stuff.
That sort of approach would put me at a very real competetive disadvantage to my Clicker colleagues, since they might be lacking in clues, but their alien technology would always be several steps ahead
Like I want to stay using an sb16 with worse sound quality than a Psion PDA, while other people are using Wave8/24.. Like I want to be struggling along with lame-ass 3DFX crap to preview 3d scenes while other people are using a fully-supported GeForce 2 GTS... not fun, eh?
In order to use Nvidia's lame xfree 4.xx bvinary server on my box at home (which can't boot 2.2 due to insane pci cards which require 2.3/4's newer PCI code), I'd have to use a nasty third party hack, to kludge the driver to work with my kernel. for me, it's not a choice.
We don't have a magic driver system
Of course, companies like smartdisk and creative labs go one step further, writing opensource drives.
I'm wondering if the unnamed company is indeed creative, because they have released perfectly good basic emu10k1 drivers to control their cards. however, they don't tap much of the DSP power of this beastie.
People who do this will probably still get more of the linux user dollar than either nvidia (see above), or people who don't offer support at all (hello, Event/Echo, you mongrels!
Speaking personally, I have a Geforce at home because I play games, but in my linux box at work, I have a G400, because of Matrox's willingness to document their product. I now have to consider linux whenever I buy any general-use hardware.
The K7VT motherboard which I bought yesterday (Asus Athlon/Thunderbird mobo) sports a neat little "tested with linux" flash. This is half the story. People must also follow through will full support in each case, word gets around...
Umm, end of ramble.. what was the point that I was trying to make?
It's a pain to compile, but works well enough for me to use linux to watch the "Come on my selector" video from the squarepusher "big loada" EP, which is what mattered to me
Beware, you need a fairly porky machine- I was using an 800mhz athlon with 256 megs of ram, a g400 etc, and was only playing about 1/4 screen. It's less than perfect, but it works.
BTW, if you do use xanim, the switch to allow resizing of the window is +Sr, drove me nuts looking for that, HTH.
http://www.mp3.com/tib - See how fast the b*stard burns.
Anyway, 4.0.1 looks like an improvement of sorts, maybe by 4.1 it will be safe to use. Looks like debian guys will be packaging it soon, this is always a good rough indicator for me, a lazy person's safety metric, if you will...
Anyway, thanks for one of the most clueful followups that I've had in a while.
http://www.mp3.com/tib - lamer than a lungfish
I use it here, works like a dream.
http://www.mp3.com/tib - be lamer than lame
Amazingly enough, you don't need to KLICK HERE or ORDER NOW for package management- you can roll your own packages too, prior to distribution over your network.
Of course you'd never do that, since you don't want to be seen as a wimp, like us weedy bastards who have to look after more than one box
http://www.mp3.com/tib - lame and lamer!
Doesn't both me, since the only FreeBSD box I have doesn't even have X installed (sadly, I am gonna have to retire it back into being a windows enduser machine soon, argh), but I think it's a little hard on those FBSDers who use it day in day out on the desktop.
I know that XFree 4 represents a major architectural revamp, and that a lot of stuff has been modularized, tightened, cleaned up and made saner. I know that maintaining XFree 3.xx was much more of a hacky nightmare. Credit where it's due to everyone involved in XFree 4 for all their hard work.
I do, however, suspect that XFree went from development to release long before it was ready. I won't make any wild speculations as to why (that's not very constructive). Personally, I've dropped back to 3, and will stay there until 4 is a little more... finished
I just hope that the linux 2.4 kernel doesn't make the same mistake. The 2.4-test2 that I'm running is great, but there's still a way to go there. Looking forward to linux 2.4 and Xfree 4 in perfect harmony, but ONLY when they are both ready...
Anyway, that's my two cents..
http://www.mp3.com/tib -think you're lame? I will trump you..
http://devlinux.com/projects/reiserfs/ - also,
Underhand.net's very own Kurt has a nice page
about converting your box to reiser, if you're interested,
at http://kurt.andover.net/Reiser-filesystem-HOWTO.h
Well, I use reiser on my x86 based squid at work,
and it's pretty damned nippy. It saves quite a bit
of space, gives me a 15% speedup on reads, and is
journalling. Of course, with journalling, unlinking is a little slow, but that's less
critical for me.
Of course, I don't like the three lines of ads on startup; I want to see
important messages about the health of my box, not spam for mp3.com, SuSe
and so forth. It didn't take long to knock that bit out, but it shouldn't
have been needed. When linux becomes spamware is when I choose to untrash
my FreeBSD boxes
It's a pretty nice fs, all in all. However, as much as I admire his work,
I can't condone Hans R's rather hotheaded behaivior, esp towards Viro.
The kernel guys have a lot of factors to juggle, and have to (in theory)
make changes based on the biggest potential upside. Where there are
disagreements, the maintainer makes the call, because he/she/it is the
maintainer.
I think we can do without fireworks in the kernel list. This filesystem
isn't really needed for endusers right now, it won't kill people if they
have to patch it in.
I know that Hans and others have put loads of very hard work into the code,
and I am sure we all applaud them for their efforts, and the quality of the
results. However if it's not right for the direction of the kernel, and
the vfs stuff etc, it's more than a little arrogant to expect the kernel
supertanker to be turned on a dime, just for one FS.
I genuinely suspect that the problem is as much in Hans' approach as the
code itself, and that if he were to cool down a little, there could be a way
to mesh a lot of the excellent work he's done into the kernel proper. Of
course, it would involve him losing a little face, but it's a question of
priorities. If he swallowed his pride, maybe he'd be better off, and hell,
the rest of us would too, since some of his work is absolutely first class.
Like I say, my work squid runs on his FS, it's not like I think it's utter carp- it runs like a dream..
It's not really appropriate to try and send the pugilistic villagers up the
hill to Castle Viro to burn the place down quite yet; he, and the other
kernel guys, are doing a sterling job- there's no reason to tear them to
bits because of one brilliant but misguided loose cannon. (There's a mixed metaphor for you)
Oh, and this 2.4.0-test2 kernel is doing pretty well so far, too
Just my two cents.. YMMV, etc.
Oh and my own spam for mp3.com, visit http://www.mp3.com/tib -it still sucks.
(Sorry about the cruddy formatting, bad hair day)
Use the evil Napster to find a copy of "Blame Canada" from the South Park movie, just in case...
Maybe this is what billy is hoping?
However, given the amount that MS spends in lobbying the US govt to get all those nice new laws (DMCA anywaone) and big contracts, I wouldn't hold my breath.
Just my 0.00001 cents..
-a-
My usual dealers are UK based (I'm reesident in the UK), and I was going by what they told me. However, I will be investigating this when I am a little less tired... Before the pound drops too much against the dollar, mebbe.
Thanks for the link- I prefer to build my own boxes, not only from a price POV, but because I love to know what's going into them, much like rolling your own linux kernel...
A)Because the drool from the drummer's mouth is
hanging straight down
Q) What do you call someone who hangs around with musicians?
A) A drummer
Q) What's the difference between a drummer and a drum machine?
A) You only need to punch the information into a drum machine ONCE.
(And it seems that they are less prone to hypocritcal narcissism *sigh* I suppose fans get the heroes that they deserve)
"And so the head splatters..."
I think we all realised that USENET had become a lost cause when people started referring to it as "dejanews" and threatening to "report you to netscape" when you posted accurate summaries of their spamming activities.
Explain that one away, Mr Darwin.
-a-
In background, I am an alpha user, hell, I even have an old alphaserver as a playbox at home. Recently, I came into a position where I could bear to upgrade some servers, and was thinking of some little rackmount freenix powered boxes- maybe some SMP alphas.
I called my usual alpha dealer (it's been a while since I have had to talk alphas), to get prices for a mobo+cpu+ atx rackmount case, and was told that compaq had decreed an end to ATX form factor systems.
Instead, you have to get a proprietary form factor case and mobo. This puts the entry price for a bare mobo/case/cpu package at 1600+ukp, for a machine with a lot less power than a 900ukp althon box!
In the past, you could build a nice powerful system with your own parts, and not pay the awful penalty of having to put up with hugely inflated prices chaged by compaq for that awful plastic proprietary stuff they peddle (can you say "lock in"? I knew you could).
It was something of a different ball game when it was Digital kit.. my old alphaserver is built like a fscking tank, and I can see where the money went. However, when I look at my compaq floor standing raid towers, all I see is overpriced, tacky and plastic.
It's a real shame that Compaq hoovered up DEC in the first place (ex-VAX/VMS users tend to get a little overly emotional at this point :). It's rather like Albert Einstein having to work for Laurel and Hardy, to my mind. Yes, I know that L+H had a much bigger target market, but Uncle Albert commanded the respect, and had a certain dignity :)
Anyway, by taking a massive step backwards, and making the Alpha suffer proprietary form factors once more, compaq has priced itself out of yet another market, by charging surreal amounts for products of dubious value.
My heart doesn't bleed for them, I hope they rot.
-A-