So, unless you live in some sort of a situation that provides power as part of your rent or such and don't really care about overall societal power consumption, you might want to carefully consider your printer server configuration.
Or are living in a relatively cold area. All the 'wasted' energy goes into heating the home.
From the description, the 'VX30' codec looks like Theora, and the Java player sounds like cortado. They even say they're using Vorbis as the audio codec, which wouldn't surprise me.
I think you'd see a surprising result, and if the vectorization code is good enough, you should even see a small boost over the hand-tuned assembly
GCC 4.0 doesn't have autovectorisation enabled because there aren't yet any heuristics to tell it when the vectorised code will be faster than the normal code.
whats wrong with taking apples code, doing a diff, and spending a few hours or so, for a few days, comparing notes on a new tree?
Because:
1: It would take much longer than a couple of days. 2: It's completely unnecessary work which could be spent fixing bugs or implementing new features that would stop people going 'OMG THE KHTML TEAM SUKK APPLE HAD TO IMPLEMENT THAT ON THEIR OWN'
Maybe you should take some wisdom from your own sig.
Dont you think Apple has already done enough for KHTML?
What have they done for KHTML exactly?
At this rate, Safari will end up with a completely different engine from KHTML. How will n million installations of a distantly related browser help KHTML?
Actually I expect shit like this to get modded up when something's posted under the Apple section.
1: Didn't read the article 2: Completely missed the point
This is just a developer in their poersonal blog saying 'Man, this is a pain in the arse. If Apple did things this way it would make things so much easier for both of us in the long run..'
They are doing more than the license forces them to.
Yeah, they're putting the all the source - get this - in a tarball. And then they're putting that tarball on their fucking website. Oh man, and they also post a message on the khtml mailing list. Christ, giving all this work away for free must be killing them.
Thank you Steve Jobs, you've gone really above and beyond the requirements of the license there because you're just a genuinely cool bloke.
If the original developer wants to see how they did x y and z, then he can diff the code.
You don't know what you're talking about. That wouldn't help at all.
Nowhere does the GPL require you maintain and distribute CVS logs so everyone can see what changes have been made. Nor does it require you detail what has been changed from the original source.
You also didn't read the article. If you did, you'd know that he says "They do the very, very minimum required by LGPL. And you know what? That's their right."
Blind zealotry, as illustrated in myopic statements like that, are not helping promote your position in any way.
Funny that you should call these ideas myopic, because they are anything but myopic.
To assume that companies like Microsoft, Sun, Adobe, Oracle, SAP (all "closed-source") are not producing ANY good solutions is retarded.
It's not that they're not producing solutions that seem good now, because they are, however by relying on them you're effectively bending over and inviting the vendor to come and take you at some point in the future when they decide to drop support for your product / not produce product for your platform / completely change the pricing scheme, knowing that many of their customers have ten years worth of data sunk in your product's formats or that you've built large infrastructures around the product.
Who's myopic now?
This sort of inane "spread the love, give away your work for free, and make the world a better place" is so unrealistic it is laughable. What color is the sky in your world?
Purple. But that's because I'm watching the sun set.
"spread the love, give away your work for free, and make the world a better place" is a huge deliberate misinterpretation of the idea of Free software. You're blurring the lines between the act of creating the software and distributing the software. With commercial software people hand over their cash for the latter, from Free software people hand over their cash for the former.
Free software is not called Free software because everyone gets something for nothing. It's just a different business model from the current artificial scarcity ('ransomware') model. Which is invalid in the long run because software is not scarce.
If you want to think of it in terms of the free market:
The Free software business model means someone gets employed to create code that a company or individual needs. It's just that once it's created they don't ransom it away*. Lots of money can also be made by supporting/improving this software.
The same results would be achieved, of course, because of supply and demand. Software needs to be created, so it would be. However, the whole system of software production would be far more efficient because of the amount of code reuse that could be done.
Would this lead to lower employment in IT fields? Possibly. But why would that be a bad thing? Should a society strive to be as inefficient as possible just to create employment? In a similar vein, an argument in favour of using windows everywhere would be that it would massively increase employment in support roles. Does that make it a good idea?
* Which is what happens now, most of the time the software creator deciding to put wacky license & usage restrictions on their software that often leaves users high & dry.
I believe that sourcecode should be at the control of whoever created it or paid them to create it, its their investment so why should a random person have the ability to fork it on a whim, unless the codes owners agree to that in the first place by CHOOSING to embrace such a move and opensourcing their code by freewill.
This is a strawman. Nobody's saying people should be forced to license their work as Free software. The onus is on the average consumer to be wise enough not to rely on proprietary software.
This 'all software should be Free' thing people kick around is not the concept of someone like the government mandating that all software be Free, but having a market where anyone who doesn't release their source gets laughed at and their product not even considered by the decision makers.
Relying on ANY software is stupid, by that logic, since if the author decides to screw me around, not fix a bug, or just generally bugger off and move on to a new project, I'm JUST as screwed as if it were MS who did it.
Then hire a programmer who can fix it - get this - to fix it.
The Java debate is not about "fighting for what's right" at all. It's about whether in ten years time you'll still be able to run the huge amount of code you've written.
...as well as announcing a yet-to-be-revealed 'revolution' in digital media.'On April 26, we are changing the rules of the Internet again, and digital music will never be the same.'
Here's why: What's the most important thing on your desktop? It's the data. If someone gets access to your libraries or whatever, who cares? Your data is the most precious thing on your computer. And whether you log in as root or log in as user, you have access to that data, technically anyone who's compromising your account has access to your data as well.
I'll tell you all something. All these windows desktop users getting their machines cracked & infected aren't because of elite hackers wanting to gain access to the highly important secretive letters to grandma on peoples hard drives. They want to use your computer as a platform to do their nasty things for them.
Slashdot Mirror
The Sun reps said that we are one of their few customers running 64-bit Linux because it isn't stable enough.
The vendor amd64 distros aren't great yet, which I guess you're using, however very good results are being had with debian (alioth) and gentoo amd64.
This doesn't mean amd64 linux is 'unstable'.
So, unless you live in some sort of a situation that provides power as part of your rent or such and don't really care about overall societal power consumption, you might want to carefully consider your printer server configuration.
Or are living in a relatively cold area. All the 'wasted' energy goes into heating the home.
Hmm. Don't think this is cortado.
From the description, the 'VX30' codec looks like Theora, and the Java player sounds like cortado. They even say they're using Vorbis as the audio codec, which wouldn't surprise me.
The gcc folks aren't asking for $300 for it.
They're not trying to force customers to switch to it.
And they're being honest about its capabilities.
I think you'd see a surprising result, and if the vectorization code is good enough, you should even see a small boost over the hand-tuned assembly
GCC 4.0 doesn't have autovectorisation enabled because there aren't yet any heuristics to tell it when the vectorised code will be faster than the normal code.
I now ask you...are you programmers or what??
You make it clear that you most certainly are not.
whats wrong with taking apples code, doing a diff, and spending a few hours or so, for a few days, comparing notes on a new tree?
Because:
1: It would take much longer than a couple of days.
2: It's completely unnecessary work which could be spent fixing bugs or implementing new features that would stop people going 'OMG THE KHTML TEAM SUKK APPLE HAD TO IMPLEMENT THAT ON THEIR OWN'
Maybe you should take some wisdom from your own sig.
So the KHTML guys have never heard of diff?
Thou has not written much more than hello_world.c.
Dont you think Apple has already done enough for KHTML?
What have they done for KHTML exactly?
At this rate, Safari will end up with a completely different engine from KHTML. How will n million installations of a distantly related browser help KHTML?
Actually I expect shit like this to get modded up when something's posted under the Apple section.
1: Didn't read the article
2: Completely missed the point
This is just a developer in their poersonal blog saying 'Man, this is a pain in the arse. If Apple did things this way it would make things so much easier for both of us in the long run..'
They are doing more than the license forces them to.
Yeah, they're putting the all the source - get this - in a tarball. And then they're putting that tarball on their fucking website. Oh man, and they also post a message on the khtml mailing list. Christ, giving all this work away for free must be killing them.
Thank you Steve Jobs, you've gone really above and beyond the requirements of the license there because you're just a genuinely cool bloke.
If the original developer wants to see how they did x y and z, then he can diff the code.
You don't know what you're talking about. That wouldn't help at all.
Nowhere does the GPL require you maintain and distribute CVS logs so everyone can see what changes have been made. Nor does it require you detail what has been changed from the original source.
You also didn't read the article. If you did, you'd know that he says "They do the very, very minimum required by LGPL. And you know what? That's their right."
then I got tired of waiting and .... well, my .sig says it all really.
You found a new fashion label?
Blind zealotry, as illustrated in myopic statements like that, are not helping promote your position in any way.
Funny that you should call these ideas myopic, because they are anything but myopic.
To assume that companies like Microsoft, Sun, Adobe, Oracle, SAP (all "closed-source") are not producing ANY good solutions is retarded.
It's not that they're not producing solutions that seem good now, because they are, however by relying on them you're effectively bending over and inviting the vendor to come and take you at some point in the future when they decide to drop support for your product / not produce product for your platform / completely change the pricing scheme, knowing that many of their customers have ten years worth of data sunk in your product's formats or that you've built large infrastructures around the product.
Who's myopic now?
This sort of inane "spread the love, give away your work for free, and make the world a better place" is so unrealistic it is laughable. What color is the sky in your world?
Purple. But that's because I'm watching the sun set.
"spread the love, give away your work for free, and make the world a better place" is a huge deliberate misinterpretation of the idea of Free software. You're blurring the lines between the act of creating the software and distributing the software. With commercial software people hand over their cash for the latter, from Free software people hand over their cash for the former.
You're an idiot.
Free software is not called Free software because everyone gets something for nothing. It's just a different business model from the current artificial scarcity ('ransomware') model. Which is invalid in the long run because software is not scarce.
If you want to think of it in terms of the free market:
The Free software business model means someone gets employed to create code that a company or individual needs. It's just that once it's created they don't ransom it away*. Lots of money can also be made by supporting/improving this software.
The same results would be achieved, of course, because of supply and demand. Software needs to be created, so it would be. However, the whole system of software production would be far more efficient because of the amount of code reuse that could be done.
Would this lead to lower employment in IT fields? Possibly. But why would that be a bad thing? Should a society strive to be as inefficient as possible just to create employment? In a similar vein, an argument in favour of using windows everywhere would be that it would massively increase employment in support roles. Does that make it a good idea?
* Which is what happens now, most of the time the software creator deciding to put wacky license & usage restrictions on their software that often leaves users high & dry.
I believe that sourcecode should be at the control of whoever created it or paid them to create it, its their investment so why should a random person have the ability to fork it on a whim, unless the codes owners agree to that in the first place by CHOOSING to embrace such a move and opensourcing their code by freewill.
This is a strawman. Nobody's saying people should be forced to license their work as Free software. The onus is on the average consumer to be wise enough not to rely on proprietary software.
This 'all software should be Free' thing people kick around is not the concept of someone like the government mandating that all software be Free, but having a market where anyone who doesn't release their source gets laughed at and their product not even considered by the decision makers.
Will this ever happen? Don't know.
Relying on ANY software is stupid, by that logic, since if the author decides to screw me around, not fix a bug, or just generally bugger off and move on to a new project, I'm JUST as screwed as if it were MS who did it.
Then hire a programmer who can fix it - get this - to fix it.
The Java debate is not about "fighting for what's right" at all. It's about whether in ten years time you'll still be able to run the huge amount of code you've written.
...as well as announcing a yet-to-be-revealed 'revolution' in digital media.'On April 26, we are changing the rules of the Internet again, and digital music will never be the same.'
Will it finish buffering?
The 'effects' are just examples to demonstrate the underlying architecture.
You're stuck in the early 90's.
You know. The time when, for instance, if you were writing a game you had to write support into it for each brand of soundcard you wanted to work.
Before anyone is allowed to use the word 'bloat', they should have to understand the word 'abstraction'.
Here's why: What's the most important thing on your desktop? It's the data. If someone gets access to your libraries or whatever, who cares? Your data is the most precious thing on your computer. And whether you log in as root or log in as user, you have access to that data, technically anyone who's compromising your account has access to your data as well.
I'll tell you all something. All these windows desktop users getting their machines cracked & infected aren't because of elite hackers wanting to gain access to the highly important secretive letters to grandma on peoples hard drives. They want to use your computer as a platform to do their nasty things for them.
Is this not the same source that was released a year or so ago?
There are no 3d drivers being released here. Only interesting thing is the xvmc support for the via chips.