The author's remark about -O2 for Celeron's probably hints at the smaller cache of Celeron's.
Space/speed tradeoffs can work to the disadvantage if the cache is small/bad. (because e.g. a loop isn't entirely cached)
However I doubt this goes for newer P4 based Celerons, since Celeron had their cache upped too through the years. So at least for code, they are probably still better off with -O3 I think. (which inlines small functions and does loop unrolling)
Under FreeBSD this conditional including packages is usually named USE=1 or NO=1 for simple cases, or adding a separate -no port. (e.g. in no Gnome/KDE/X11 cases)
You can add these to your/etc/make.conf
I've used Gentoo and FreeBSD. While I Gentoo was nice, I stuck with FreeBSD, however this is more because of the quality of the release engineering done on the packages than the tools to install them.
It wasn't meant as a FSF/GNU criticism, but there is a difference with the "independant" way.
You need some form of adaptation needed, (e.g. coding standards) and I can also imagine competing with a GNU project that partially overlaps can make things different.
In our case, our code base was in TurboPascal/Delphi. I don't know if the codebase adheres to the GNU standards though.
How we did it (fpc, a pascal compiler) - First the app was published on our site only, and gained momentum and peer review. This stage took several years. - for the distributions where ordinary users can submit packages (*BSD ports and Debian) somebody will do a port in time. You could do that yourself of course and speed up the process. - After a time the commercial ones pick it up if it is really good. You can lobby for that too, but maintainers might also contact you if you have critical mass. I found SUSE always the most responsive. RedHat is the only major that doesn't include it, and has been promising it for the next major version since 6.x times.
About SUSE there is a nice anecdote. I mailed our contact that a new version was out, and got a reply back that the final ISO had already been made. Two days later I got a mail back that they had to update a critical bug, and also updated our package to the newer version (which was a fixes only release btw)
The second way is to try to submit your packages to the FSF, so not just GPL it, but really get in bed with the FSF FSF stuff more readily gets into distro's than third party projects. Of course again, they will only be really interested if your work is phenomenal.
While I don't really get the Etymology line, (if I understand it right, it's germanic in origin, but it came to Middle English via "Old French" (and is that French or Frankish?))
it seems that I'm wrong, and it is Germanic in origin.
The other two "in dubio's" seem to be latinisms though:
Real \Re"al\, a. [LL. realis, fr. L. res, rei, a thing: cf. F.
r['e]el. Cf. {Rebus}.]
1. Actually being or existing; not fictitious or imaginary;
as, a description of real life.
Grammar \Gram"mar\, n. [OE. gramere, OF. gramaire, F. grammaire
Prob. fr. L. gramatica Gr ?, fem. of ? skilled in grammar,
fr. ? letter. See {Gramme}, {Graphic}, and cf. {Grammatical},
{Gramarye}.]
1. The science which treats of the principles of language;
the study of forms of speech, and their relations to one
another; the art concerned with the right use aud
application of the rules of a language, in speaking or
writing.
English borrowed a _lot_ of words from the French (and latin) It's easy to spot them if you also know English either German or Dutch, or both. Reading old-English texts also helps.
Every word that differs from the Germanic mean (e.g. as I now very unscientifically do by comparing with Dutch and German) is probably based on some french or latin borrow word.
As an example there are a lot more hidden in your post above: "accurately", "language" (lingua), "force", "natural", "experience", "school", "arriving", "correct"
And I'm in dubio about "real", "grammar", and (!) "mail" (Dutch and German use "post" for Mail)
(but it is hard to say which are french, and which are latin borrow words)
However to get back on topic, its better to put a break on borrow words. Local pronounciation will probably make the words differ from English anyway, so there is no point in it really.
> you must allow for reverse-engineering in your license
This is not section 6.
> you must allow linking against other versions of the library
This is one of the options (the b option) you have to choose _1_ of. You can choose another (and usually one will?)
However when reading, I saw this clause direct after the 6 options: (LGPL license, GNU site)
For an executable, the required form of the "work that uses the Library" must include any data and utility programs needed for reproducing the executable from it.
Which seems rather far reaching to me. It sounds to me that if I supply an.exe with a LGPL library in it, I have to supply buildtools (if not included with OS), other libraries in object code format, resourcefiles etc.
Anyway. A lot of posters which whine about the fragmented BSD seem to forget that _any_ *nix OS fork will pick developpers from Linux too. While there used to be a large gap between FreeBSD and Linux, this has been closed in the last few years. FreeBSD got more user (-hardware) friendly, Linux moved, and partially even topped FreeBSD in the advanced server range.
This might draw Linux developpers even in larger absolute numbers than from e.g. FreeBSD.
And while the Linux developper numbers might be large, the real useful people are scarce, and every loss is, uhh...., a loss, while the new BSD won't be able to gain enough momentum to keep up in release engineering and hardware support.
The era that *nix clones can enter the general purpose market is simply over, at least at this moment.
I'm mainly a BSD user (still like Slackware, my first Linux encounter of the first kind), but from a user perspective the various BSDs are more coherent than the avg Linux distro.
A different kernel is often irrelevant if you come above a certain level. A level below which an average user won't go anyway.
Harsh words, but I think it is the truth for most of the cases.
The problem is that those thirty-ish people are apparently doing jobs that can be done by (young) people without experience in the organisation and more advanced skills.
IOW they have been sitting on their ass during the comfy IT hype times, without moving on to more crucial positions, didn't work on their skillset, got no regular diploma's in fundamental skills, but only did some work related fashionable trainingcourses that are totally unwanted and under appreciated.
Choosing a job isn't a selection based on salary and secundary job conditions alone. Growth oppurtunities are also a major factor.
During the boom, a lot of people this didn't apply to them, but now reality has rushed in, now that the tide is turning, and they are starting to feel the heat.
And they are relatively lucky still. The amount of hobbyist really young people that drop out of school and try to find a job is low, both because the IT sector is getting less hobbyist, and due to the same ecomomic circumstances.
Thnx. For when is a release of the current branch scheduled? (just for a rough idea)
I currently maintain the BSD ports of a 3rd party compiler, and OpenBSD eats more time than NetBSD and FreeBSD combined due to its relative old toolchains.
Everybody seems to want to pull this into the extreme, by mentioning police, feds etc.
I think a more normal, and more common cause would be simple protection for thieves:
- They have to work quickly in general.
- They are relatively low tech
- They are after the hardware, not the data. (why search the house for a $400 appliance for which they probably don't even get $100
So simple separating the visible part to of your computers from the storage/data as far as thieves are concerned.
Target: normal, ordinary people with important records: dentist, doctors, some journalists, politicians (including local, often worth a lot of money to real-estate entrepeneurs) etc.
Those IE numbers are nonsense, since that is only the shallow top. There are at least tens of megabytes hidden in the OS. (afaik MSIE4 is closer to 40 MB 5 and 6 will be bigger)
Try to install such beast on a Windows 95, or a 98lite(.net), and measure the size of the windows and program files directories before and after.
>If it was the major flaw the slashbots would want you to think it is, you wouldnt have heard about it first on slashdot. (Did you hear about Code Red, Nimda, Slammer, etc on slashdot first?)
Bad comparison. Microsoft has to be public about security holes, but not about performance problems, specially if they are startup related (iow not important for standard server usage)
Gases were not created equal:-) Combustion heat per mole differs between gasses, and that governs how much you have to up the pressure. Also the pressure at which it liquifies is important. (and hydrogen as lightest element doesn't do that easily)
I'm talking about hundred+ bar here, not 10.
(my father worked at an chlorine electrolysis plant, and I've seen pictures of the site when hydrogen cylinders blew up. Luckily it was on a deserted railroad. Major damage. Was 150 bars, 15 centimer, 10 meter thick steel mantle was never found again)
Probably hydrogen at 100+ bars is banned from even coming near populated area's in most countries
Also, what do you have in your car? Every wondered why that is butane, not methane? Exactly, butane even liquifies at moderately high pressure.
Look up the ratio combustion heat of one volume (liquid!) methanol, and the same volume hydrogen, even at a extreme (housholdwise) pressure of 100 bar.
Methanol stuff is still technologically behind, but I think that is the only choice for consumer use. For large scale plants, hydrogen will probably be an option.
This is already a passed station. Due to the problems with hydrogen (explosive, gaseous, high pressures), hydrogen is not ideal as a energy carrier.
The article is not invalid though, most of the story also goes for methanol, which is only slightly behind in technology (fuel cells, synthesis from photo cells etc) on hydrogen.
Slashdot Mirror
-O3 are space/speed tradeoff's.
The author's remark about -O2 for Celeron's probably hints at the smaller cache of Celeron's.
Space/speed tradeoffs can work to the disadvantage if the cache is small/bad. (because e.g. a loop isn't entirely cached)
However I doubt this goes for newer P4 based Celerons, since Celeron had their cache upped too through the years. So at least for code, they are
probably still better off with -O3 I think.
(which inlines small functions and does loop unrolling)
Under FreeBSD this conditional including packages is usually named USE=1 or NO=1 for simple cases, or adding a separate -no port. (e.g. in no Gnome/KDE/X11 cases)
You can add these to your
I've used Gentoo and FreeBSD. While I Gentoo was nice, I stuck with FreeBSD, however this is more because of the quality of the release engineering done on the packages than the tools to install them.
The average case:
:-)
A half sleeping government worker will enter the password that is written on the back of the keyboard
It wasn't meant as a FSF/GNU criticism, but there is a difference with the "independant" way.
You need some form of adaptation needed, (e.g. coding standards) and I can also imagine competing with a GNU project that partially overlaps can make things different.
In our case, our code base was in TurboPascal/Delphi. I don't know if the codebase adheres to the GNU standards though.
Two ways:
How we did it (fpc, a pascal compiler)
- First the app was published on our site only, and gained momentum and peer review. This stage took several years.
- for the distributions where ordinary users can submit packages (*BSD ports and Debian) somebody
will do a port in time. You could do that yourself of course and speed up the process.
- After a time the commercial ones pick it up if it is really good. You can lobby for that too, but maintainers might also contact you if you have critical mass.
I found SUSE always the most responsive. RedHat is the only major that doesn't include it, and has been promising it for the next major version since 6.x times.
About SUSE there is a nice anecdote. I mailed our contact that a new version was out, and got a reply back that the final ISO had already been made. Two days later I got a mail back that they had to update a critical bug, and also updated our package to the newer version (which was a fixes only release btw)
The second way is to try to submit your packages to the FSF, so not just GPL it, but really get in bed with the FSF
FSF stuff more readily gets into distro's than third party projects. Of course again, they will only be really interested if your work is phenomenal.
While I don't really get the Etymology line,
(if I understand it right, it's germanic in origin,
but it came to Middle English via "Old French" (and is that French or Frankish?))
it seems that I'm wrong, and it is Germanic in origin.
The other two "in dubio's" seem to be latinisms though:
Real \Re"al\, a. [LL. realis, fr. L. res, rei, a thing: cf. F.
r['e]el. Cf. {Rebus}.]
1. Actually being or existing; not fictitious or imaginary;
as, a description of real life.
Grammar \Gram"mar\, n. [OE. gramere, OF. gramaire, F. grammaire
Prob. fr. L. gramatica Gr ?, fem. of ? skilled in grammar,
fr. ? letter. See {Gramme}, {Graphic}, and cf. {Grammatical},
{Gramarye}.]
1. The science which treats of the principles of language;
the study of forms of speech, and their relations to one
another; the art concerned with the right use aud
application of the rules of a language, in speaking or
writing.
English borrowed a _lot_ of words from the French (and latin)
It's easy to spot them if you also know English either German or Dutch, or both.
Reading old-English texts also helps.
Every word that differs from the Germanic mean (e.g. as I now very unscientifically do by comparing with Dutch and German) is probably based on some french or latin borrow word.
As an example there are a lot more hidden in your post above: "accurately", "language" (lingua), "force", "natural", "experience", "school", "arriving", "correct"
And I'm in dubio about "real", "grammar", and (!) "mail" (Dutch and German use "post" for Mail)
(but it is hard to say which are french, and which
are latin borrow words)
However to get back on topic, its better to put a break on borrow words. Local pronounciation will probably make the words differ from English anyway, so there is no point in it really.
> you must allow for reverse-engineering in your license
.exe with a LGPL library in it, I have to supply buildtools (if not included with OS), other libraries in object code format, resourcefiles etc.
This is not section 6.
> you must allow linking against other versions of the library
This is one of the options (the b option) you have to choose _1_ of. You can choose another (and usually one will?)
However when reading, I saw this clause direct after the 6 options: (LGPL license, GNU site)
For an executable, the required form of the "work that uses the Library" must include any data and utility programs needed for reproducing the executable from it.
Which seems rather far reaching to me. It sounds to me that if I supply an
I don't see the viral problem with that phrase, or any of the 'a'..'e' clauses. (only one of which I have to satisfy.
If I link LGPL library X, I have to provide library X source code, period. But no viral effect on my own code linked to it.
I can be wrong (am I missing something, of is none of the quoted parts actually identifying _what_ part exactly is viral?
(should have used "preview"
Anyway. A lot of posters which whine about the fragmented BSD seem to forget that _any_ *nix OS fork will pick developpers from Linux too. While
there used to be a large gap between FreeBSD and Linux, this has been closed in the last few years. FreeBSD got more user (-hardware) friendly, Linux moved, and partially even topped FreeBSD in the advanced server range.
This might draw Linux developpers even in larger absolute numbers than from e.g. FreeBSD.
And while the Linux developper numbers might be large, the real useful people are scarce, and every loss is, uhh...., a loss, while the new BSD
won't be able to gain enough momentum to keep
up in release engineering and hardware support.
The era that *nix clones can enter the general purpose market is simply over, at least at this
moment.
Why not one *NIX them?
I'm mainly a BSD user (still like Slackware, my first Linux encounter of the first kind), but from a user perspective the various BSDs are more coherent than the avg Linux distro.
A different kernel is often irrelevant if you come above a certain level. A level below which an average user won't go anyway.
I'm a FreeBSD user, but not by religion. I use Linux on certain systems where some distro fits better.
However during daily usage FreeBSD simply turned to be superior to the big few Linux distro's as far as release engineering goes.
Matt branches, but let's take reasons and goals to be unimportant for now.
How is he going to sustain _any_ release engineering the quality FreeBSD (and the major Linux distro's) has/have?
A lot of things like
- A commercial free based spin off
- form company for services etc, or total solution provider
- consultant
- books
I'm in a open source project, and nearly tried them all. While true that they are possible, they only tend to work for very high profile projects.
Moreover, you'll need several manyears worth of polishing to even qualify.
Harsh words, but I think it is the truth for most
of the cases.
The problem is that those thirty-ish people are apparently doing jobs that
can be done by (young) people without experience in the organisation and more advanced skills.
IOW they have been sitting on their ass during the comfy IT hype times, without moving on to more
crucial positions, didn't work on their skillset,
got no regular diploma's in fundamental skills, but only did some work related fashionable trainingcourses that are totally unwanted and under appreciated.
Choosing a job isn't a selection based on salary and secundary job conditions alone. Growth oppurtunities are also a major factor.
During the boom, a lot of people this didn't apply
to them, but now reality has rushed in, now that the tide is turning, and they are starting to feel the heat.
And they are relatively lucky still. The amount of
hobbyist really young people that drop out of school and try to find a job is low, both because the IT sector is getting less hobbyist, and due to the same ecomomic circumstances.
True, see also
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/comm
That's what I've been hearing every release now since 3.1.
From FreeBSD experience I'd expect current to go gold only as 4.0 ??!?!
Thnx. For when is a release of the current branch
scheduled? (just for a rough idea)
I currently maintain the BSD ports of a 3rd party compiler, and OpenBSD eats more time than NetBSD and FreeBSD combined due to its relative old toolchains.
Had some problems with development tools on OpenBSD because of the ancient bintils.
Firebird is a RDBMS.
:-)
..) :-)
I assume the browser is built on top of it
Anybody seems to be building everything on top of RDBMSes lately.
(Mozilla a browser on top of a RDBMS,
Microsoft an filesystem on top
Everybody seems to want to pull this into the
extreme, by mentioning police, feds etc.
I think a more normal, and more common cause would be simple protection for thieves:
- They have to work quickly in general.
- They are relatively low tech
- They are after the hardware, not the data. (why search the house for a $400 appliance for which they probably don't even get $100
So simple separating the visible part to of your
computers from the storage/data as far as thieves are concerned.
Target: normal, ordinary people with important records: dentist, doctors, some journalists, politicians (including local, often worth a lot of money to real-estate entrepeneurs) etc.
Those IE numbers are nonsense, since that is only the shallow top. There are at least tens of megabytes hidden in the OS. (afaik MSIE4 is closer to 40 MB 5 and 6 will be bigger)
Try to install such beast on a Windows 95, or a 98lite(.net), and measure the size of the windows and program files directories before and after.
>If it was the major flaw the slashbots would want you to think it is, you wouldnt have heard about it first on slashdot. (Did you hear about Code Red, Nimda, Slammer, etc on slashdot first?)
Bad comparison. Microsoft has to be public about security holes, but not about performance problems,
specially if they are startup related (iow not important for standard server usage)
Seems more related to the VM (not postpone allocating/wiring mem till it is actualyl used) rather than real slow memory allocations.
Otherwise small blocks would have been affected, not large ones.
Since most machines nowadays are relatively stacked with memory, I'm not surprised if this was relatively rare
Gases were not created equal
Combustion heat per mole differs between gasses, and that governs how much you have to up the pressure. Also the pressure at which it liquifies
is important. (and hydrogen as lightest element
doesn't do that easily)
I'm talking about hundred+ bar here, not 10.
(my father worked at an chlorine electrolysis plant, and I've seen pictures of the site when
hydrogen cylinders blew up. Luckily it was on a deserted railroad. Major damage. Was 150 bars, 15
centimer, 10 meter thick steel mantle was never found again)
Probably hydrogen at 100+ bars is banned from even coming near populated area's in most countries
Also, what do you have in your car? Every wondered why that is butane, not methane? Exactly, butane
even liquifies at moderately high pressure.
Look up the ratio combustion heat of one volume (liquid!) methanol, and the same volume hydrogen,
even at a extreme (housholdwise) pressure of 100 bar.
Methanol stuff is still technologically behind, but I think that is the only choice for consumer use.
For large scale plants, hydrogen will probably be an option.
This is already a passed station. Due to the problems with hydrogen (explosive, gaseous, high pressures), hydrogen is not ideal as a energy carrier.
The article is not invalid though, most of the story also goes for methanol, which is only slightly behind in technology (fuel cells, synthesis from photo cells etc) on hydrogen.