DivX 3 isn't compliant with MPEG4 (or MPEG2 or 1 for that matter), so it'd have to be hacked in specifically in order to be supported.
DivX 5 has advanced features such as QPel motion vectors and global motion compensation, which are not supported by this card either (since they're also extensions of MPEG4). So in my opinion it's quite useless -- if you can't use it to watch every movie you download from the net, then what good is it?
There isn't such a thing as a GPS transmitter. GPS works by receiving signals from three sattelites at different points in orbit, and calculating your location based on the differences between the times of their arrival. A GPS doesn't transmit anything by itself.
Re:There's no integer decoder
on
Non-MP3 Codecs?
·
· Score: 1
However, the TI DSPs that handle floating-point arithmetic are much more expensive.
Not exactly true -- TI's C67 costs a couple dozen bucks in high quantities. It's actually one of their cheapest DSPs, and it handles floating point.
Can't really happen -- remember that DVDs are mostly watched not on computers but on consumer DVD players. Those are usually based on MPEG2-decoding ASICs which are produced by the millions and thus kept very cheap. (Most of that market belongs to Phillips I think.) The vendors of DVD players will not be happy to pay dividends to Microsoft for every player sold -- they're operating on low margins as it is.
Gosh... Why don't you just calm down a bit? This isn't an anti-Microsoft article, this is an article about the current state of security in e-commerce, which contained an amusing note that Roblimo highlighted (with a prominent irony alert) for our entertainment. Shashdot doesn't spew out anti-Microsoft FUD, this article doesn't contain anti-Microsoft propaganda, and you should just chill down and stop wasting your nerves on such nonsense.
You aren't a very careful reader, are you. You're talking about writing ASP scripts in VB, while the topic of my posting was precisely that you don't have to do that, and that you can write ASP scripts in perl, the language that you praise so much. The only difference then between a perl ASP script and a perl CGI script is that the former has access to the ASP objects which give you much more possibilities than CGI can (such as persistent storage through a session, managed via a cookie). perl is the same good old perl in both. Read the site linked in my original posting.
ASP is by no means a proprietary technology. Take a look at Apache::ASP. It's a perl module, running under Apache/mod_perl, that lets you write ASPs in perl. ASP is actually a very neat solution if you care to look at it. And if you write ASPs in perl (instead of VB), you get to write your scripts in a very nice language, get a much more feature-full technology than CGI, and it's cross-platform too -- those perl ASPs run on Apache with the above module and on NT/IIS with ActiveState PerlScript.
Interestingly, I noticed that they are fucked up exactly the other way around. There's a lot of software that's entirely useful, but never reaches the 1.0 level. Licq is at 0.71. WindowMaker is at 0.61. Telnetd is at 0.14. lpr is at 0.46. And do you know what's the latest version of the ext2 filesystem in the kernel? Well, 0.5b. Funny, isn't it.:-)
Not true. The last linux distro I've worked with is RH5.2, though I remember this very well: only one in around 20 programs/libs I've tried compiling actually succeded without flaw if I tried doing:
./configure make
If you'd try to do the same thing on your FreeBSD box it'd fail too. Oh, but you're using the ports tree on FreeBSD? So use the distribution's packaging system on Linux too. If instead of downloading and compiling the program you would have done "apt-get install program" (on a Debian system), it would have install it and all its dependencies without a flaw. It has been working for me on many many machines I'm using and administrating.
Correction: {Net|Open|Free}BSD are completley different operating systems.
Right. I understand the difference. But it's much more the matter of perception than you're trying to make it. In other words, you really can look at it any way you wish. You can see the above trio as different, modified distributions of 386/BSD, and you can see Linux distributions as different and unrelating operating systems too. Who cares that they are named "distributions" of the same "operating system"? Call them different operating systems that happen to use the same kernel and basic utilities and that are generally binary compatible.
It's just a matter of definition, and the definition doesn't matter. The fact is that Debian is different from Red Hat just about as much as FreeBSD is different from OpenBSD, however you want to call them.
The point was fbsd is not the same without it's utilities, and not only it's userland. Linux is JUST a kernel, not a complete system, and depends on other distros to make use of it
I understand your point, but again, it's more of a linguistic excersize than a statement of "what works", if you understand what I mean. At the end of the day, you can take a FreeBSD CD and install a system from it with all kinds of software, and you can do the same with a Debian CD, and from here it's all the matter of the technologies that enable it, like CVS for much of the software and the ports collection for the rest in FreeBSD, or the dpkg and apt technologies in Debian. Which is just a matter of what you like more. Some like CVSup'ing their system and making world, and some like apt-get'ting dist-upgrade. There are no philosophical differences here.
One of the reasons I like apt more is that *everything* is under dpkg and is updated with apt-get dist-upgrade, while in the FreeBSD model part of the software is in the CVS and should be taken from there and the other part is from the ports collection, so you have to watch *two* spaces to keep updated. But again, that's my personal taste.
(FWIW, I'm a Debian user who also uses OpenBSD and FreeBSD on some of the many machines he has to use and keep daily.)
First, you're trying to make a point sentimentally and not logically. Lets focus on the facts for a moment. There are two (that's 21.75 times less than 43 and a half) libc libraries for Linux, libc5 and libc6. All the Linux distributions are based on libc6 now, so for what it's worth, there's exactly *one* libc for Linux, and that is libc6. If you download a binary linked against libc6, and you have a recent distribution, as well as the other libraries the program is linked against, *it will run*. These are the facts.
Next. You say that there are many Linux distributions and it creates confusion. You completely omit the fact that there are three distinct distributions of 386/BSD, called NetBSD, OpenBSD, and FreeBSD. (Actually they're a little further splintered than Linux distributions since they are developed independently, on the source-code level.) You choose only to talk about FreeBSD and disregard the others, in which case you can also choose to only talk about e.g. Debian GNU/Linux and disregard the others. Now, everything you said about the FreeBSD packaging system is also applicable to Debian's apt system. Including automatic dependency resolving (be it libc versions or any other libraries and software). You're again trying to make use of sentimental arguments instead of facts. Please make a factual point.
While we're at it, FreeBSD is an operating system, Debian GNU/Linux is an operating system; the FreeBSD kernel is a kernel, Linux is a kernel. Repeat this sentence ten times. What's the point again?
There already exists an Intel-incompatible 64 bit chip for a long time, called Alpha. There's also the UltraSparc. What's new and exciting is waiting for us in 2001 that we don't have now? I thought the whole idea of AMD was to produce Intel-compatible chips for a smaller price; if they're doing different processors then there are already plenty of them, and for a pretty small market too. AMD's market position blurs somewhat.
Interesting.. The second paragraph in the article begins with "The privacy-protection program, which is available now". That puzzled me for a second -- of course it's available now if it's announced! Only five seconds later did I realize how much used I became to our world, where software is announced when it's available, and announcements are not fluff and vapor just to outrun the competition... Funny how CNN is talking in traditional terms which sound so strange here.
Linux 1.0.0 Linux 1.0.1 Linux 1.0.2 ... Linux 1.2.0 Linux 1.2.1 ... Linux 2.0.0 Linux 2.0.1 ... Linux 2.2.0 Linux 2.2.1
(not to mention the various patches people apply to their kernels...)
Most of the items you listed were just upates, not forks of code. Windows comes out with new versions just like Linux does. What's your point?
Re:Great Use for Old Computers
on
High Tech Junk
·
· Score: 1
We're using 486 Linux boxes as X terminals in our college, too. You must be aware that there are certain operations that require CPU from the X server, too. I notice that opening a new Netscape window can take up to five seconds on our 486 terminals (whereas it's much faster with Pentium terminals). There's also font rendering (although you can "outsource" it to an external font server). If you want speedy operation 486s don't cut it as X terminals.
Check out http://www.zip.com.au/~roca/ttssh.html. It's a free implementation of ssh for Windows, with source available. It's built upon the Tera Term telnet client, for which source is available, and is one of the most configurable telnet clients that I've seen in Windows... And ttssh inherits all that. Check it out.
...if the situation wasn't exactly the other way around -- the government is trying to prove that IE can be separated from the OS and thus it is not an essential service, and should not be bundled. Microsoft tries to "prove" otherwise.
Folks, don't bash this law and don't fight it -- if there's ever to be a law that'd promote open source, then this is it. Let it pass! Then make sure your bosses are very well aware of it. And then see how getting open-source software into your company becomes so much easier.
Re:Modules can have any license. FS's are modules.
on
SGI open-sourcing XFS
·
· Score: 1
If it can only be used as a module and can't be compiled into the kernel, you can't use the root partition with it. (Unless you go through all the mess of an initrd setup.) Arguably this is not a big issue since on most servers the root filesystem is distinct from/usr,/var,/home and the rest of the big stuff, so it's small and doesn't take much time to fsck. OTOH most of the configuration is on it (/etc) so losing anything there could be a problem.
There seems to be discussions about capabilities though (check the last few Kernel Traffic issues). Which seem to do what ACLs do in other systems. Or am I mistaken?
RMS must not believe in free speech since he disagrees with others who are exercising their free speech right to call it just "Linux".
How does disagreeing with others who are excercising their free speech right, makes him not believe in free speech? In other words since when disagreeing means prohibiting free speech? Think about it.
As someone whose Unix education began with Linux, and ended there, can anyone explain me what are these features that make commecrcial Unices so much better than Linux? The only things I can think of now are journaled FS, ACLs, and high-end SMP scalability, all of which Linux doesn't (yet) have. But what is this "dev elopment environment" you're talking about? And what else do I miss?
What about changing a theme?
on
Quickie Fu
·
· Score: 1
And then if you want to change the theme, what do you do? Edit all the 500 documents?
Probably a better idea would be using either SSI or WML.
This might have been a good idea in the days there was no widespread Internet yet and people had no easy way to copy software. But once there is the net, only one person needs to buy the software and then upload it to metalab or something, and after that noone would buy the software from the author anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention that their RTS is buggy and doesn't handle C++ exceptions well. Debugging their RTS macaroni is no fun...
DivX 3 isn't compliant with MPEG4 (or MPEG2 or 1 for that matter), so it'd have to be hacked in specifically in order to be supported.
DivX 5 has advanced features such as QPel motion vectors and global motion compensation, which are not supported by this card either (since they're also extensions of MPEG4). So in my opinion it's quite useless -- if you can't use it to watch every movie you download from the net, then what good is it?
There isn't such a thing as a GPS transmitter. GPS works by receiving signals from three sattelites at different points in orbit, and calculating your location based on the differences between the times of their arrival. A GPS doesn't transmit anything by itself.
However, the TI DSPs that handle floating-point arithmetic are much more expensive.
Not exactly true -- TI's C67 costs a couple dozen bucks in high quantities. It's actually one of their cheapest DSPs, and it handles floating point.
Can't really happen -- remember that DVDs are mostly watched not on computers but on consumer DVD players. Those are usually based on MPEG2-decoding ASICs which are produced by the millions and thus kept very cheap. (Most of that market belongs to Phillips I think.) The vendors of DVD players will not be happy to pay dividends to Microsoft for every player sold -- they're operating on low margins as it is.
Gosh... Why don't you just calm down a bit? This isn't an anti-Microsoft article, this is an article about the current state of security in e-commerce, which contained an amusing note that Roblimo highlighted (with a prominent irony alert) for our entertainment. Shashdot doesn't spew out anti-Microsoft FUD, this article doesn't contain anti-Microsoft propaganda, and you should just chill down and stop wasting your nerves on such nonsense.
You aren't a very careful reader, are you. You're talking about writing ASP scripts in VB, while the topic of my posting was precisely that you don't have to do that, and that you can write ASP scripts in perl, the language that you praise so much. The only difference then between a perl ASP script and a perl CGI script is that the former has access to the ASP objects which give you much more possibilities than CGI can (such as persistent storage through a session, managed via a cookie). perl is the same good old perl in both. Read the site linked in my original posting.
Interestingly, I noticed that they are fucked up exactly the other way around. There's a lot of software that's entirely useful, but never reaches the 1.0 level. Licq is at 0.71. WindowMaker is at 0.61. Telnetd is at 0.14. lpr is at 0.46. And do you know what's the latest version of the ext2 filesystem in the kernel? Well, 0.5b. Funny, isn't it. :-)
Not true. The last linux distro I've worked with is RH5.2, though I remember this very well: only one in around 20 programs/libs I've tried compiling actually succeded without flaw if I tried doing:
./configure
make
If you'd try to do the same thing on your FreeBSD box it'd fail too. Oh, but you're using the ports tree on FreeBSD? So use the distribution's packaging system on Linux too. If instead of downloading and compiling the program you would have done "apt-get install program" (on a Debian system), it would have install it and all its dependencies without a flaw. It has been working for me on many many machines I'm using and administrating.
Correction: {Net|Open|Free}BSD are completley different operating systems.
Right. I understand the difference. But it's much more the matter of perception than you're trying to make it. In other words, you really can look at it any way you wish. You can see the above trio as different, modified distributions of 386/BSD, and you can see Linux distributions as different and unrelating operating systems too. Who cares that they are named "distributions" of the same "operating system"? Call them different operating systems that happen to use the same kernel and basic utilities and that are generally binary compatible.
It's just a matter of definition, and the definition doesn't matter. The fact is that Debian is different from Red Hat just about as much as FreeBSD is different from OpenBSD, however you want to call them.
The point was fbsd is not the same without it's utilities, and not only it's userland. Linux is JUST a kernel, not a complete system, and depends on other distros to make use of it
I understand your point, but again, it's more of a linguistic excersize than a statement of "what works", if you understand what I mean. At the end of the day, you can take a FreeBSD CD and install a system from it with all kinds of software, and you can do the same with a Debian CD, and from here it's all the matter of the technologies that enable it, like CVS for much of the software and the ports collection for the rest in FreeBSD, or the dpkg and apt technologies in Debian. Which is just a matter of what you like more. Some like CVSup'ing their system and making world, and some like apt-get'ting dist-upgrade. There are no philosophical differences here.
One of the reasons I like apt more is that *everything* is under dpkg and is updated with apt-get dist-upgrade, while in the FreeBSD model part of the software is in the CVS and should be taken from there and the other part is from the ports collection, so you have to watch *two* spaces to keep updated. But again, that's my personal taste.
(FWIW, I'm a Debian user who also uses OpenBSD and FreeBSD on some of the many machines he has to use and keep daily.)
There are several flaws with your argument.
First, you're trying to make a point sentimentally and not logically. Lets focus on the facts for a moment. There are two (that's 21.75 times less than 43 and a half) libc libraries for Linux, libc5 and libc6. All the Linux distributions are based on libc6 now, so for what it's worth, there's exactly *one* libc for Linux, and that is libc6. If you download a binary linked against libc6, and you have a recent distribution, as well as the other libraries the program is linked against, *it will run*. These are the facts.
Next. You say that there are many Linux distributions and it creates confusion. You completely omit the fact that there are three distinct distributions of 386/BSD, called NetBSD, OpenBSD, and FreeBSD. (Actually they're a little further splintered than Linux distributions since they are developed independently, on the source-code level.) You choose only to talk about FreeBSD and disregard the others, in which case you can also choose to only talk about e.g. Debian GNU/Linux and disregard the others. Now, everything you said about the FreeBSD packaging system is also applicable to Debian's apt system. Including automatic dependency resolving (be it libc versions or any other libraries and software). You're again trying to make use of sentimental arguments instead of facts. Please make a factual point.
While we're at it, FreeBSD is an operating system, Debian GNU/Linux is an operating system; the FreeBSD kernel is a kernel, Linux is a kernel. Repeat this sentence ten times. What's the point again?
There already exists an Intel-incompatible 64 bit chip for a long time, called Alpha. There's also the UltraSparc. What's new and exciting is waiting for us in 2001 that we don't have now? I thought the whole idea of AMD was to produce Intel-compatible chips for a smaller price; if they're doing different processors then there are already plenty of them, and for a pretty small market too. AMD's market position blurs somewhat.
Interesting.. The second paragraph in the article begins with "The privacy-protection program, which is available now". That puzzled me for a second -- of course it's available now if it's announced! Only five seconds later did I realize how much used I became to our world, where software is announced when it's available, and announcements are not fluff and vapor just to outrun the competition... Funny how CNN is talking in traditional terms which sound so strange here.
What the hell are you trying to say?
Linux 1.0.0
Linux 1.0.1
Linux 1.0.2
...
Linux 1.2.0
Linux 1.2.1
...
Linux 2.0.0
Linux 2.0.1
...
Linux 2.2.0
Linux 2.2.1
(not to mention the various patches people apply to their kernels...)
Most of the items you listed were just upates, not forks of code. Windows comes out with new versions just like Linux does. What's your point?
We're using 486 Linux boxes as X terminals in our college, too. You must be aware that there are certain operations that require CPU from the X server, too. I notice that opening a new Netscape window can take up to five seconds on our 486 terminals (whereas it's much faster with Pentium terminals). There's also font rendering (although you can "outsource" it to an external font server). If you want speedy operation 486s don't cut it as X terminals.
Check out http://www.zip.com.au/~roca/ttssh.html. It's a free implementation of ssh for Windows, with source available. It's built upon the Tera Term telnet client, for which source is available, and is one of the most configurable telnet clients that I've seen in Windows... And ttssh inherits all that. Check it out.
...if the situation wasn't exactly the other way around -- the government is trying to prove that IE can be separated from the OS and thus it is not an essential service, and should not be bundled. Microsoft tries to "prove" otherwise.
Folks, don't bash this law and don't fight it -- if there's ever to be a law that'd promote open source, then this is it. Let it pass! Then make sure your bosses are very well aware of it. And then see how getting open-source software into your company becomes so much easier.
If it can only be used as a module and can't be compiled into the kernel, you can't use the root partition with it. (Unless you go through all the mess of an initrd setup.) Arguably this is not a big issue since on most servers the root filesystem is distinct from /usr, /var, /home and the rest of the big stuff, so it's small and doesn't take much time to fsck. OTOH most of the configuration is on it (/etc) so losing anything there could be a problem.
Can you distinguish between copyright anda patent?
There seems to be discussions about capabilities though (check the last few Kernel Traffic issues). Which seem to do what ACLs do in other systems. Or am I mistaken?
RMS must not believe in free speech since he disagrees with others who are exercising their free speech right to call it just "Linux".
How does disagreeing with others who are excercising their free speech right, makes him not believe in free speech? In other words since when disagreeing means prohibiting free speech? Think about it.
As someone whose Unix education began with Linux, and ended there, can anyone explain me what are these features that make commecrcial Unices so much better than Linux? The only things I can think of now are journaled FS, ACLs, and high-end SMP scalability, all of which Linux doesn't (yet) have. But what is this "dev elopment environment" you're talking about? And what else do I miss?
And then if you want to change the theme, what do you do? Edit all the 500 documents?
Probably a better idea would be using either SSI or WML.
This might have been a good idea in the days there was no widespread Internet yet and people had no easy way to copy software. But once there is the net, only one person needs to buy the software and then upload it to metalab or something, and after that noone would buy the software from the author anymore.