I'm not so sure this is the case had they compared against 2.4 rather than 2.2. But, the goal was to compare against production kernels, so it was a fair test I guess.
Even though you're probably trolling, I'll play along.
Unlike Microsoft, Linux never claims to innovate.
And no, adding some lame extensions to a web browser does NOT count as innovation, especially when Netscape submitted similar extensions to standards bodies before they added them.
Mozilla's success and.NET's "innovativeness"/success are grey areas, so you shouldn't use either of these in argument - because they are not factual..NET is vaporware, and Mozilla isn't finished.
This kind of thing really annoys me. This was featured on the main ZDnet page for awhile. There were a lot of "talkbacks" flaming the article for its flawed content.
Altavista, who gets its "tech" news from ZDnet, also posted the article on its frontpage.
First of all, this all came from a single Tucows article which had very little evidence other than the one ancedotal incident with Mandrake. The ZDnet article also mentions Red Hat, but with no links to back up their accusations.
Second, and most obviously as others no doubt realize, Linux is free and the danger of this for Linux reviews is MANY times less than commercial software.
But the thing that bugs me most, is the amount of hits Tucows and ZDnet will get from posting this. As I wrote in their talkbacks, a more interesting (and feasible) conspiracy theory is mainstream media sites posting FUD to anger specific groups to get more hits.
Pascal was definitely the language of choice of the BBS days. There were over 20 Turbo Pascal doorkits, with maybe a handful of C ones (and they weren't pretty).
BTW, a little bit of history - WWIV was eventually a C project I believe, as only early versions were in Pascal.
I've written a lot of BBS software in TP 7.0, including a doorkit, several doors and utilities, and about 75% of my own BBS software.
2. Units. I really hate that you can't spread a class definition across units. It's also very easy to end up with circular inclusion, which Delphi doesn't allow.
You may already know this, but to avoid the circuluar units you just add the unit you need in the 'Implementation' uses clause rather than the uses clause under 'Interface'. Units can freely re-use each other if they are referenced in the Implementation section only.
The Mambo-X just started shipping recently. A lot of unlucky people had these on pre-order since last year. The Mambo-X review was the more interesting part of the article, as it was compared to the MPTrip
Borland intends to give away its command line compiler (dcc) for free distribution. It won't be open source, but you WILL be able to compile Delphi apps in Linux without buying it.
What is the target purpose of TUX? From the benchmarks, it appears to be for very high traffic sites. I ask because I'm curious if that is its specific purpose, or does it serve well in other areas as well (i.e, Apache flexibility)?
This is important because it will also help indicate what Red Hat's stance will likely be in either replacing Apache with TUX or just including it in their Professional distributions.
err.. that's not something exactly in critical demand right now. making linux easier to use for newbies is ok i suppose, but why would newbies be coding with CVS?
I really don't know why they would post an article like that right now. It's just begging for an outrage and criticism.
I admit, no benchmark is perfect, but when you're blatantly touting that BeOS smokes Windows and Linux, you need to give more information. Am I correct in that the implementation they tested with isn't even available yet? The driver details were sketchy for Linux (did they even use agpgart?!), and of course there's the possibility of quality-loss that someone else pointed out.
The bottom line is that they shouldn't be posting stuff like this without others being able to verify their results. I suspect in the end, this will be shredded to pieces and they'll regret ever posting it.
Of course, it's possible that these benchmarks are 100% valid and BeOS is really great (I hope this is the case), but it really probably isn't considering the maturity of the video drivers on Be.
Slashdot Mirror
> The *BSD's perform better under heavy I/O.
I'm not so sure this is the case had they compared against 2.4 rather than 2.2. But, the goal was to compare against production kernels, so it was a fair test I guess.
2.4 does scale WAY WAY better than 2.2, though.
Even though you're probably trolling, I'll play along.
.NET's "innovativeness"/success are grey areas, so you shouldn't use either of these in argument - because they are not factual. .NET is vaporware, and Mozilla isn't finished.
Unlike Microsoft, Linux never claims to innovate.
And no, adding some lame extensions to a web browser does NOT count as innovation, especially when Netscape submitted similar extensions to standards bodies before they added them.
Mozilla's success and
http://dri.sourceforge.net
Matrox DRI support requires 2.3 (or 2.4) development kernels.
This kind of thing really annoys me. This was featured on the main ZDnet page for awhile. There were a lot of "talkbacks" flaming the article for its flawed content.
Altavista, who gets its "tech" news from ZDnet, also posted the article on its frontpage.
First of all, this all came from a single Tucows article which had very little evidence other than the one ancedotal incident with Mandrake. The ZDnet article also mentions Red Hat, but with no links to back up their accusations.
Second, and most obviously as others no doubt realize, Linux is free and the danger of this for Linux reviews is MANY times less than commercial software.
But the thing that bugs me most, is the amount of hits Tucows and ZDnet will get from posting this. As I wrote in their talkbacks, a more interesting (and feasible) conspiracy theory is mainstream media sites posting FUD to anger specific groups to get more hits.
Pascal was definitely the language of choice of the BBS days. There were over 20 Turbo Pascal doorkits, with maybe a handful of C ones (and they weren't pretty).
BTW, a little bit of history - WWIV was eventually a C project I believe, as only early versions were in Pascal.
I've written a lot of BBS software in TP 7.0, including a doorkit, several doors and utilities, and about 75% of my own BBS software.
2. Units. I really hate that you can't spread a class definition across units. It's also very easy to end up with circular inclusion, which Delphi doesn't allow.
You may already know this, but to avoid the circuluar units you just add the unit you need in the 'Implementation' uses clause rather than the uses clause under 'Interface'. Units can freely re-use each other if they are referenced in the Implementation section only.
The Mambo-X just started shipping recently. A lot of unlucky people had these on pre-order since last year. The Mambo-X review was the more interesting part of the article, as it was compared to the MPTrip
I don't see anything there about places to buy it. A lot of these so-called MP3/CD players have web sites but cannot be purchased.
Do you have a link to a place that's *SHIPPING* these?
This is the tentative plan.
(I'm not official, of course - I just read the Borland community newsgroups)
This isn't really a problem.
Borland intends to give away its command line compiler (dcc) for free distribution. It won't be open source, but you WILL be able to compile Delphi apps in Linux without buying it.
What is the target purpose of TUX? From the benchmarks, it appears to be for very high traffic sites. I ask because I'm curious if that is its specific purpose, or does it serve well in other areas as well (i.e, Apache flexibility)?
This is important because it will also help indicate what Red Hat's stance will likely be in either replacing Apache with TUX or just including it in their Professional distributions.
At first I thought to myself "hasn't this guy heard of AMD?", but then you mention it at the end of your post.
so um, what gives? Just because some of us dislike Intel doesn't mean we have to love Cyrix.
Williamette technical information has been available and commented on for a long time now.
The whole significance of this 'press release' today was the announcement of its name: Pentium 4.
I don't see a problem with everyone commenting on the new name/logo.
hmm.. nice troll i guess.
or are you serious?
Thanks, that's MUCH better.
hah.. you so funny
err.. that's not something exactly in critical demand right now. making linux easier to use for newbies is ok i suppose, but why would newbies be coding with CVS?
It is shameful that they would borrow like this and not at least give a nod to where the ideas came from.
Miguel has made it VERY CLEAR several times that they borrowed ideas from COM when it made sense.
Seriously, what are you talking about?
From the Sourceforge Software map:
Environment
X11 Applications
Gnome (239 projects)
KDE (100 projects)
hmm, actually I think they _did_ use the word "smokes" in the article, which they should probably change so people don't get the wrong idea.
I really don't know why they would post an article like that right now. It's just begging for an outrage and criticism.
I admit, no benchmark is perfect, but when you're blatantly touting that BeOS smokes Windows and Linux, you need to give more information. Am I correct in that the implementation they tested with isn't even available yet? The driver details were sketchy for Linux (did they even use agpgart?!), and of course there's the possibility of quality-loss that someone else pointed out.
The bottom line is that they shouldn't be posting stuff like this without others being able to verify their results. I suspect in the end, this will be shredded to pieces and they'll regret ever posting it.
Of course, it's possible that these benchmarks are 100% valid and BeOS is really great (I hope this is the case), but it really probably isn't considering the maturity of the video drivers on Be.
hahahah... great troll.
this really puts things into perspective.
They used XF86 3.3.6
The Duron's FPU is just as powerful as the Athlon, since it's a derivative.
The screenshot is from the _free_ Matrix trailer, not the full movie.