This is not a core dump of a running application, but rather, a core dump of the entire running system. If a kernel failure occurs, this patch will dump the contents of system to memory to disk, allowing you to analyize system state from just before when the crash occured.
This would be very useful, for example, when debugging a device driver. It is not something the end-user, or even system administrator, is likely to use. It is for the kernel developer.
Other OSes (Sun Solaris, SGI IRIX, Novell Netware, to name a few) have had this capability, but Linux has not. Linux has traditionally dumped a summary of the kernel state to the screen, but that is (1) tedious to copy down by hand (which you have to, since the system is dead), and (2) not as complete as an entire system image is.
What happens when the LKCDA crashes during a system crash? Who recovers from that??
Nobody. A crash dumper is going to be a minimal, always-resident program designed to simply copy physical memory to disk. If that can't be done, the system is either fried at the hardware level, or is so far corrupted that a core dump wouldn't mean much anyway.
The actual multimedia (audio/video/etc) data is encrypted with a single key, unique to that title, called the "title key". You need the title key to watch the movie. Each movie gets a different title key.
The title publisher puts many copies of the title key on the disc. Each copy is encrypted with a different manufacturer key (and not with the title key, so you don't need the title key to decrypt it).
Each DVD player manufacturer is given one of those manufacturer keys. They then build their DVD player with the capability to decrypt their copy of the title key, allowing you to play the movie.
The crack was assited when some company forgot to encrypt their copy of the title key -- they storied their copy of the title key in unencrypted form. This let the DeCSS people unlock a disc without knowing how CSS worked, which made the reverse engineering of CSS easier.
Since then, the DeCSS people have cracked more then one hundred additional manufacturer keys. Apparently, the CSS manufacturer keys are very easy to break.
It is worth pointing out that the DeCSS people would have cracked CSS eventually, even without help. The screw-up by that company just made things quicker.
The DVD people are now suing anyone they can get in their sights in an attempt to close the barn doors after the horse has wandered off. Typical knee-jerk corporate reaction.
That is my understanding of all this. I could be wrong.
A friend of mine was looking to buy a computer, and so we headed into a local electronics retailer to check out the offerings. They had a counter lined with Packard Smell PCs. My friend walked up to the first one to take a look. I was starting to warn him off when a salesdroid spotted us and zipped right over. He is getting ready to begin his pitch, and puts his hand on top of the monitor in a "This baby..." gesture. The speakers promptly fell off the sides of the monitor. Watching the salesweasle melt was rather fun.
No, Netscape Communicator is not based on Mosaic all "hacked to hell."
I find your usage of quotes very interesting, as I sure as hell didn't say that. I said Navigator is based on Mosiac hacked beyond recoginition. And it is. Perhaps you're not aware of the fact that the original name for Netscape Communications was Mosaic Communications. Pull up www.mcom.com sometime and see what happens.
Internet Explorer *is* based on Mosaic.
I'm well aware of IE's origins. I don't know why you think that excludes Netscape from doing the same thing.
I've said for years that there are only two things that really matter in this industry: Marketing and installed base.
Computer technology is so complex, and is so often hidden in a black box that you cannot open, that marketing propaganda is far more powerful then it is in most industries. Do car commercials really convince anyone that Brand X is better then Brand Y? Nope. But "Intel Inside" has left a lasting impression on the average PC buyer. I know people who work in retail. When they go to sell a PC, everyone goes for the cheaper model with the faster clock rate, right up until they hear that it doesn't have Intel inside. Then they say, "I don't want any of this AM-whatever stuff, give me the Intel Inside thingy."
Marketing works in this industry. Quality and volume of marketing is a direct function of money put into it. And guess who has the most cash? That's right, Intel.
Moving on to installed base, AKA existing market share. Basically, the more market you have, the more market you gain. Part of it is network effects, part of it is economy of scale. Because Intel owns so much of the CPU market, they continue to own so much of the CPU market. AMD is doing their damndest to chip away at that wall, but it is rather like the sea breaking upon the shore -- it takes a loooong time to gain any ground.
Oh, to be fair, there are other factors. Intel has very deep pockets, so they can afford more research, higher pay for better workers, and the old fashioned "throw dollars at it until the problem is solved" approach. And, unlike a popular software monopoly I know and hate, Intel's stuff actually works pretty well in many cases.
But "sundling" is right. AMD has bet the farm on Athlon. The other x86-clones have already fallen to the irresistible march of Chipzilla. If Athlon fails, so will AMD's CPU offerings. That leaves a single player to control the future of the most popular computer architecture in use.
Be afraid. Be very afraid. Chipzilla is far from dead.
Re:One more thing about FreeBSD
on
Which BSD?
·
· Score: 2
As much as I hate to say it, I've found IE 4.x/5 under NT and 98 to be more stable and functional than any version of netscape on any OS.
It is a Netscape problem, not an OS problem. Netscape Navigator is essentially NCSA Mosiac hacked up beyond recognition. That is why the Mozilla folks have decided to do a complete rewrite.
However, for me, Netscape still runs better then IE. Because I use Linux, and slightly unstable but running always beats won't run at all. Tell Microsoft to support Linux and *BSD with their browser.
Funny, Mr. Adams says his artistic talent is pretty limited in several of his books. But I guess you know him better then he knows himself, since you're such an authority on cartooning.
...and has a sense of pacing.
Where do you get this? Frankly, Dilbert's been a lot slower then UF lately, IMNSFHO.
Verily, its unfunniness stabs at me from the depths of hell. Or possibly canada.
So you're not just an asshole, you're a prejudiced asshole. Wonderful combination.
FYI: The names of countries are CAPITALIZED.
Another post claimed that User Friendly was not painfully unfunny. I disagree.
Heads up, folks. Clue stick coming down! **WHAM!!** Hey, if you don't like the strip, then don't fucking read it! Ain't nobody forcing you to. Humor is highly subjective. Different people like different things. Personally, I find User Friendly funny as hell. Not quite as funny as you, but hey, you're not a popular comic strip.
I wasn't going to reply to this guy's flamebait, but then I realized I haven't had a good flame in a while. It invigorates the spirit, it does.
However, the rest of us, who have actually been paying attention to the events of the world, have reason to be nervous.
Maybe you do, and maybe you don't. I am not trying to prove that one way or the other. Personally, some of the things the government does do worry me, and I am concerned about them.
But EMSEC isn't one of them. EMSEC is about as much a violation of your rights as strong crypto is. Note: Not restrictions on strong crypto, but the possestion of it. If EMSEC is a threat to my privacy, then so is strong crypto. See my point?
And those of us who have seen the Justice Department kill innocent victims and children at Waco and Ruby Ridge have real reason to be upset.
Right. The entire DOJ decided, "Hey, let's go kill some innocent people. And children! Make sure you go after the children first! They make the best targets!"
Have you ever been in a firefight? Things are not quite so cut-and-dry as you seem to think. When you start getting shot at, you shoot back at any available target. Otherwise, you'll have a bullet in the brain quicker then you can say "Constituional liberties".
The fact of the matter is, the people at Waco were holed up in a compound, in violation of multiple laws, and shooting at people. The police fired back. What do you expect?
I think it is a shame that some of the people in that compound who were just caught up in the whole thing got hurt, but shit happens. You seem to think the police went out of their way to hurt these people. Did it ever occur to you that it was an accident?
<FLAME SETTING=MILD> To put it bluntly: Get a grip. </FLAME>
EMSEC (Emissions Security, the name for the security practices the TEMPEST program evolved into) is common practice in the world of Information Assurance today. It mainly consists of buying shielded everythings from certified vendors. IBM is one of them. With simple protections, EMSEC is no problem. Such practices are universal in the military world (even if compliance is not). In the civilian world, as usual, it almost always is not worth the effort.
"Getting all my secrets department"? Uh-huh. More paranoid ravings from the YRO folks. The more YRO I read, the less it sounds like a legitimate concern and the more it sounds like the delusions of people who have been watching too many "X-Files" episodes. Here's a hint: TV isn't real.
The only thing guaranteed to generate more flamage then choice of OS or editor is religion.
The clue here is that people disagree fundamentally on the issue at hand, and no amount of discussion will reach an answer. Furthermore, tempers invariably wear thin and get lost.
Rather like the subject of the movie War Games, it is a strange game. The only way to win is not to play.
Something to consider before you add fuel to the fire.
Since TOAD is written in Delphi, and Borland, according to most rumors, is working on a Delphi port to Linux,
Borland has since said that their Linux RAD tool is not Delphi, not C++Builder, but a new product, with a new class library. Thus, it will not be source compatible with Delphi or C++Builder. Or so Borland says.
This may be a more important decision than most people would guess.
Embedded systems are more then just a market segment. If information technology continues to advance itself and permeate our lives as it has so far, embedded systems will become the only market.
Consider the popular sci-fi future, where computers and IT are ubiquitous. Comptuers are everywhere. In your phone. In your car. In your fridge, your desk, your chair, your wallet, maybe even your body. Can it get any more embedded then that? Is IT likely to stop before it reaches this point, or one like it?
I don't think so. I think the logical progression is for IT to become omnipresent, like the written word is today. Computers will be everywhere -- embedded in our lives.
The software that drives those embedded systems could well determine the future of our civilization as we know it.
It has been demonstrated many times that Open Source Software does well on projects of this scale and impact, and that the benifits in terms of freedom, security, and trust are often overwhelming. While corporate might is not something to be ignored, OSS has both practical and political advantages that only a fool would ignore. It may be that the almighty buck cannot fight OSS well enough to win.
If that is the case, then it follows that if WinCE is closed source, it will fail. If it is open, it stands a chance (a chance -- no more, no less) of being a core part of the future of the information age.
If all systems are embedded, and MS is not a part of that, then MS will quickly die, very like so many big mainframe vendors did when micros took over.
This decision could be more then simple politics. It could be bigger then the industry. It could well impact the universal communication medium of the forseeable future.
Is this an extreme case, a maximzation of possible influence? Yes, it is. I am taking this to extremes to demonstrate a point. This may be no more then a small pop in a sea of noise. However, it has the potential to be a shot heard 'round the world.
In the past, Intel has always been able to dismiss their competition as inferior. Oh, sure, there were times companies like AMD or Cyrix had a slightly faster chip, or better price-performance on the low end, but they were always brief and/or insignificant. Undercutting prices is a common enough thing on the low end; AMD/etc simply has to reduce costs below the giant Intel.
Athlon was different. Athlon challenged Intel on Intel's home turf, and won. It was the fastest high-end x86 CPU around, and is going to stay that way for at least several months, if not longer. Intel had a serious threat for the first time. AMD may still be small compared to the behemoth Intel, but David was smaller then Goliath as well.
The fact was one thing, but as we know, the spin can be another. Intel could have found some sort of flaw in Athlon, or fired up the FUD guns. In most cases, you can argue some point or other as an advantage over your competitiors. Even Windows, to use the favorite/. example, does a few things better then Linux.
But Intel did not do that. Intel could not find a way to counter Athlon in the trenches. Intel looked for ammo, and found none. For the first time, Intel looked at the competition, and found itself unable to immediately compete!
Now Intel is scrabling to catch up, to try and build a counter-weapon to use against Athlon. The fact that they feel the need to "kill" Athlon is very telling. It is one thing to know you have a threat. It is quite another to classify it as the threat.
By accepting AMD's challenge, by admitting that the Athlon is strong enough that they need to target an entire product series at it as a "Athlon killer", Intel admits that they have lost a battle. That AMD has stole ground away from them. That Intel is wounded enough for it to hurt.
It may be only in pride, or in market perception, that Intel feels pain. Their sales are still large enough that AMD is no immediate financial threat.
But suddenly, the small fry that they paid little mind to before, has woken up and bit them hard. Hard enough for Intel to step back, shake itself, and wonder what to do about this new threat.
I imagine the British felt a similar feeling when their American colonies fought to break lose -- and started to win.
It will be very interesting to watch this war as it unfolds.
Re:excellent, if flawed...
on
Snow Crash
·
· Score: 2
A *major* chunk of the story occurs in cyberspace...and *another* major chunk is mythological...and somehow, Our Reviewer seems to have glossed all of that over.
It is a review, not a summary or synopsis. There is a difference. A summary tells you what you will be reading. A review tells you why (or why not) you should read it.
I would just like to point out that I originally saw these two articles linked from LinuxToday. I submitted them to Slashdot because they actually are not really Linux-specific at all, and are of interest to the general geek population. But I wanted to give LT their fair credit for good linkage.
They use the same fiber for all 40 or 80 channels. The light used is basically 80 different wavelengths...and crosstalk can occur between the wavelengths.
In conventional copper datacomm, interference between cables is crosstalk, while interference within cables is jabber. I suspect the original poster was not used to fibre, where a single cable can carry multiple channels. I've made the same mistake myself.
(this is an example of very bad moderating btw...)
No. It is an example of someone having an opinion that you do not agree with. There is a difference.
Moderation does not exist to ensure that only people who agree with you get read. It exists to promote interesting and insightful posts while filtering flamebait, offtopic, and other pointless posts.
In short: Freedom of speech. Not correctness of speech.
Slashdot Mirror
This is not a core dump of a running application, but rather, a core dump of the entire running system. If a kernel failure occurs, this patch will dump the contents of system to memory to disk, allowing you to analyize system state from just before when the crash occured.
This would be very useful, for example, when debugging a device driver. It is not something the end-user, or even system administrator, is likely to use. It is for the kernel developer.
Other OSes (Sun Solaris, SGI IRIX, Novell Netware, to name a few) have had this capability, but Linux has not. Linux has traditionally dumped a summary of the kernel state to the screen, but that is (1) tedious to copy down by hand (which you have to, since the system is dead), and (2) not as complete as an entire system image is.
What happens when the LKCDA crashes during a system crash? Who recovers from that??
Nobody. A crash dumper is going to be a minimal, always-resident program designed to simply copy physical memory to disk. If that can't be done, the system is either fried at the hardware level, or is so far corrupted that a core dump wouldn't mean much anyway.
moviebone has a good take on this whole thing. Read the article here:
http://www.moviebone.com/arti cles/1999/11/crypto.html
As I understand it, it works like this:
The actual multimedia (audio/video/etc) data is encrypted with a single key, unique to that title, called the "title key". You need the title key to watch the movie. Each movie gets a different title key.
The title publisher puts many copies of the title key on the disc. Each copy is encrypted with a different manufacturer key (and not with the title key, so you don't need the title key to decrypt it).
Each DVD player manufacturer is given one of those manufacturer keys. They then build their DVD player with the capability to decrypt their copy of the title key, allowing you to play the movie.
The crack was assited when some company forgot to encrypt their copy of the title key -- they storied their copy of the title key in unencrypted form. This let the DeCSS people unlock a disc without knowing how CSS worked, which made the reverse engineering of CSS easier.
Since then, the DeCSS people have cracked more then one hundred additional manufacturer keys. Apparently, the CSS manufacturer keys are very easy to break.
It is worth pointing out that the DeCSS people would have cracked CSS eventually, even without help. The screw-up by that company just made things quicker.
The DVD people are now suing anyone they can get in their sights in an attempt to close the barn doors after the horse has wandered off. Typical knee-jerk corporate reaction.
That is my understanding of all this. I could be wrong.
A friend of mine was looking to buy a computer, and so we headed into a local electronics retailer to check out the offerings. They had a counter lined with Packard Smell PCs. My friend walked up to the first one to take a look. I was starting to warn him off when a salesdroid spotted us and zipped right over. He is getting ready to begin his pitch, and puts his hand on top of the monitor in a "This baby..." gesture. The speakers promptly fell off the sides of the monitor. Watching the salesweasle melt was rather fun.
Even if you could copy them, and post them, who would want to, do you realize how much bandwith it would take up to upload an 'entire' movie?
Can you imagine downloading an MP3 at 300 baud?
Can you imagine storing an MP3 on 5.25-inch floppy diskettes?
The technology will improve. It is only a matter of time.
No, Netscape Communicator is not based on Mosaic all "hacked to hell."
I find your usage of quotes very interesting, as I sure as hell didn't say that. I said Navigator is based on Mosiac hacked beyond recoginition. And it is. Perhaps you're not aware of the fact that the original name for Netscape Communications was Mosaic Communications. Pull up www.mcom.com sometime and see what happens.
Internet Explorer *is* based on Mosaic.
I'm well aware of IE's origins. I don't know why you think that excludes Netscape from doing the same thing.
Cool handle, BTW.
I've said for years that there are only two things that really matter in this industry: Marketing and installed base.
Computer technology is so complex, and is so often hidden in a black box that you cannot open, that marketing propaganda is far more powerful then it is in most industries. Do car commercials really convince anyone that Brand X is better then Brand Y? Nope. But "Intel Inside" has left a lasting impression on the average PC buyer. I know people who work in retail. When they go to sell a PC, everyone goes for the cheaper model with the faster clock rate, right up until they hear that it doesn't have Intel inside. Then they say, "I don't want any of this AM-whatever stuff, give me the Intel Inside thingy."
Marketing works in this industry. Quality and volume of marketing is a direct function of money put into it. And guess who has the most cash? That's right, Intel.
Moving on to installed base, AKA existing market share. Basically, the more market you have, the more market you gain. Part of it is network effects, part of it is economy of scale. Because Intel owns so much of the CPU market, they continue to own so much of the CPU market. AMD is doing their damndest to chip away at that wall, but it is rather like the sea breaking upon the shore -- it takes a loooong time to gain any ground.
Oh, to be fair, there are other factors. Intel has very deep pockets, so they can afford more research, higher pay for better workers, and the old fashioned "throw dollars at it until the problem is solved" approach. And, unlike a popular software monopoly I know and hate, Intel's stuff actually works pretty well in many cases.
But "sundling" is right. AMD has bet the farm on Athlon. The other x86-clones have already fallen to the irresistible march of Chipzilla. If Athlon fails, so will AMD's CPU offerings. That leaves a single player to control the future of the most popular computer architecture in use.
Be afraid. Be very afraid. Chipzilla is far from dead.
As much as I hate to say it, I've found IE 4.x/5 under NT and 98 to be more stable and functional than any version of netscape on any OS.
It is a Netscape problem, not an OS problem. Netscape Navigator is essentially NCSA Mosiac hacked up beyond recognition. That is why the Mozilla folks have decided to do a complete rewrite.
However, for me, Netscape still runs better then IE. Because I use Linux, and slightly unstable but running always beats won't run at all. Tell Microsoft to support Linux and *BSD with their browser.
... we can listen to somebody fumble with a microphone for several minutes from our computers! And who says the Internet is over-rated? ;-)
Scott Adams actually can actually draw...
...and has a sense of pacing.
Funny, Mr. Adams says his artistic talent is pretty limited in several of his books. But I guess you know him better then he knows himself, since you're such an authority on cartooning.
Where do you get this? Frankly, Dilbert's been a lot slower then UF lately, IMNSFHO.
Verily, its unfunniness stabs at me from the depths of hell. Or possibly canada.
So you're not just an asshole, you're a prejudiced asshole. Wonderful combination.
FYI: The names of countries are CAPITALIZED.
Another post claimed that User Friendly was not painfully unfunny. I disagree.
Heads up, folks. Clue stick coming down! **WHAM!!** Hey, if you don't like the strip, then don't fucking read it! Ain't nobody forcing you to. Humor is highly subjective. Different people like different things. Personally, I find User Friendly funny as hell. Not quite as funny as you, but hey, you're not a popular comic strip.
I wasn't going to reply to this guy's flamebait, but then I realized I haven't had a good flame in a while. It invigorates the spirit, it does.
This flame was sponsored by Dust Puppy, Inc.(TM)
However, the rest of us, who have actually been paying attention to the events of the world, have reason to be nervous.
Maybe you do, and maybe you don't. I am not trying to prove that one way or the other. Personally, some of the things the government does do worry me, and I am concerned about them.
But EMSEC isn't one of them. EMSEC is about as much a violation of your rights as strong crypto is. Note: Not restrictions on strong crypto, but the possestion of it. If EMSEC is a threat to my privacy, then so is strong crypto. See my point?
And those of us who have seen the Justice Department kill innocent victims and children at Waco and Ruby Ridge have real reason to be upset.
Right. The entire DOJ decided, "Hey, let's go kill some innocent people. And children! Make sure you go after the children first! They make the best targets!"
Have you ever been in a firefight? Things are not quite so cut-and-dry as you seem to think. When you start getting shot at, you shoot back at any available target. Otherwise, you'll have a bullet in the brain quicker then you can say "Constituional liberties".
The fact of the matter is, the people at Waco were holed up in a compound, in violation of multiple laws, and shooting at people. The police fired back. What do you expect?
I think it is a shame that some of the people in that compound who were just caught up in the whole thing got hurt, but shit happens. You seem to think the police went out of their way to hurt these people. Did it ever occur to you that it was an accident?
<FLAME SETTING=MILD>
To put it bluntly: Get a grip.
</FLAME>
EMSEC (Emissions Security, the name for the security practices the TEMPEST program evolved into) is common practice in the world of Information Assurance today. It mainly consists of buying shielded everythings from certified vendors. IBM is one of them. With simple protections, EMSEC is no problem. Such practices are universal in the military world (even if compliance is not). In the civilian world, as usual, it almost always is not worth the effort.
"Getting all my secrets department"? Uh-huh. More paranoid ravings from the YRO folks. The more YRO I read, the less it sounds like a legitimate concern and the more it sounds like the delusions of people who have been watching too many "X-Files" episodes. Here's a hint: TV isn't real.
The only thing guaranteed to generate more flamage then choice of OS or editor is religion.
The clue here is that people disagree fundamentally on the issue at hand, and no amount of discussion will reach an answer. Furthermore, tempers invariably wear thin and get lost.
Rather like the subject of the movie War Games, it is a strange game. The only way to win is not to play.
Something to consider before you add fuel to the fire.
Since TOAD is written in Delphi, and Borland, according to most rumors, is working on a Delphi port to Linux,
Borland has since said that their Linux RAD tool is not Delphi, not C++Builder, but a new product, with a new class library. Thus, it will not be source compatible with Delphi or C++Builder. Or so Borland says.
An eight year old could become the next system administrator of a company!
;-)
Yeah. Just like NT.
This may be a more important decision than most people would guess.
Embedded systems are more then just a market segment. If information technology continues to advance itself and permeate our lives as it has so far, embedded systems will become the only market.
Consider the popular sci-fi future, where computers and IT are ubiquitous. Comptuers are everywhere. In your phone. In your car. In your fridge, your desk, your chair, your wallet, maybe even your body. Can it get any more embedded then that? Is IT likely to stop before it reaches this point, or one like it?
I don't think so. I think the logical progression is for IT to become omnipresent, like the written word is today. Computers will be everywhere -- embedded in our lives.
The software that drives those embedded systems could well determine the future of our civilization as we know it.
It has been demonstrated many times that Open Source Software does well on projects of this scale and impact, and that the benifits in terms of freedom, security, and trust are often overwhelming. While corporate might is not something to be ignored, OSS has both practical and political advantages that only a fool would ignore. It may be that the almighty buck cannot fight OSS well enough to win.
If that is the case, then it follows that if WinCE is closed source, it will fail. If it is open, it stands a chance (a chance -- no more, no less) of being a core part of the future of the information age.
If all systems are embedded, and MS is not a part of that, then MS will quickly die, very like so many big mainframe vendors did when micros took over.
This decision could be more then simple politics. It could be bigger then the industry. It could well impact the universal communication medium of the forseeable future.
Is this an extreme case, a maximzation of possible influence? Yes, it is. I am taking this to extremes to demonstrate a point. This may be no more then a small pop in a sea of noise. However, it has the potential to be a shot heard 'round the world.
Something to think about.
It is interesting, living in these times.
In the past, Intel has always been able to dismiss their competition as inferior. Oh, sure, there were times companies like AMD or Cyrix had a slightly faster chip, or better price-performance on the low end, but they were always brief and/or insignificant. Undercutting prices is a common enough thing on the low end; AMD/etc simply has to reduce costs below the giant Intel.
/. example, does a few things better then Linux.
Athlon was different. Athlon challenged Intel on Intel's home turf, and won. It was the fastest high-end x86 CPU around, and is going to stay that way for at least several months, if not longer. Intel had a serious threat for the first time. AMD may still be small compared to the behemoth Intel, but David was smaller then Goliath as well.
The fact was one thing, but as we know, the spin can be another. Intel could have found some sort of flaw in Athlon, or fired up the FUD guns. In most cases, you can argue some point or other as an advantage over your competitiors. Even Windows, to use the favorite
But Intel did not do that. Intel could not find a way to counter Athlon in the trenches. Intel looked for ammo, and found none. For the first time, Intel looked at the competition, and found itself unable to immediately compete!
Now Intel is scrabling to catch up, to try and build a counter-weapon to use against Athlon. The fact that they feel the need to "kill" Athlon is very telling. It is one thing to know you have a threat. It is quite another to classify it as the threat.
By accepting AMD's challenge, by admitting that the Athlon is strong enough that they need to target an entire product series at it as a "Athlon killer", Intel admits that they have lost a battle. That AMD has stole ground away from them. That Intel is wounded enough for it to hurt.
It may be only in pride, or in market perception, that Intel feels pain. Their sales are still large enough that AMD is no immediate financial threat.
But suddenly, the small fry that they paid little mind to before, has woken up and bit them hard. Hard enough for Intel to step back, shake itself, and wonder what to do about this new threat.
I imagine the British felt a similar feeling when their American colonies fought to break lose -- and started to win.
It will be very interesting to watch this war as it unfolds.
A *major* chunk of the story occurs in cyberspace...and *another* major chunk is mythological...and somehow, Our Reviewer seems to have glossed all of that over.
;-)
It is a review, not a summary or synopsis. There is a difference. A summary tells you what you will be reading. A review tells you why (or why not) you should read it.
This is Slashdot, not Cliff's Notes.
I would just like to point out that I originally saw these two articles linked from LinuxToday. I submitted them to Slashdot because they actually are not really Linux-specific at all, and are of interest to the general geek population. But I wanted to give LT their fair credit for good linkage.
They use the same fiber for all 40 or 80 channels. The light used is basically 80 different wavelengths...and crosstalk can occur between the wavelengths.
In conventional copper datacomm, interference between cables is crosstalk, while interference within cables is jabber. I suspect the original poster was not used to fibre, where a single cable can carry multiple channels. I've made the same mistake myself.
(this is an example of very bad moderating btw...)
No. It is an example of someone having an opinion that you do not agree with. There is a difference.
Moderation does not exist to ensure that only people who agree with you get read. It exists to promote interesting and insightful posts while filtering flamebait, offtopic, and other pointless posts.
In short: Freedom of speech. Not correctness of speech.
This is easy to fix. They just implant them on new born babies. That way nobody will know what happens.
Already being done. We're all just power sources living inside a gigantic virtual reality world, or haven't you seen The Matrix yet?
There is no spoon!
Go back and read my post.
The microprocessor is not the source of most of the heat in a system.
1. First they ignore you.
2. Then they laugh at you.
3. Then they fight you.
4. Then you win.
We seem to be at step #3 now. Microsoft must be pretty scared at this point.