"I think it is pretty interesting that the benchmark that they used measured memory throughput of the graphics CPU.... The overhead comes in when you're trying to synchronize a large number of threads/CPUs to do a large task. For example, an Oracle database."
Are you aware of the primary functions at which SGI workstations are supposed to excel? Do you know anything of their reputation as graphics workhorses? Can you tell me why an SGI workstation's performance at handling an Oracle database is relevant to this discussion, and why such a benchmark would be at all useful for those who are most likely to utilize such a workstation for its stated intended purpose?
Indeed, I find it very interesting that they would use a benchmark that measures memory bandwidth through the graphics subsystem of a graphics workstation. It tells me what I need to know about what the system needs to do.
"And I've even more suspicious because they use a benchmark I've never heard of to push its superiority on a single-aspect synthetic benchmark."
"There are a million things that you don't know. That doesn't make them
secrets." - R.B. Fairchild
Tuesday
Dec 31, 2002
12:00 PM
LindowsOS General Release - Expected Before the End of the Year (or sooner)!
LindowsOS is expected out before the end of the year.
Apparently, even they don't know exactly when 1.0 is to be released. Maybe they're counting down. I hear LindowsOS Version 0 is going to rock!
Why should I wait for Sun when I can buy from Pogo Linux today?
Frankly, there's little reason, probably even as far as Sun is concerned.
I think the simple point is that they don't want you to buy Windows. If they sell Linux boxes to anyone, it represents potentially fewer desktops upon which Windows appears, and as a result, fewer profits to Microsoft. Remember, many, many people are into having a big name behind their hardware and software (hey, even I have a particular fondness for the HP Kayak), and it's becoming more and more difficult to purchase a name-brand PC that doesn't automatically include a fee for a Windows license, even if you just want it to run some other OS... any other OS. Microsoft's bullying tactics against hardware sellers tend to be very effective. Sun cannot and will not be pushed around by them, because they don't rely on any deals with MS simply to stay competitive, unlike most other PC vendors.
Similarly, Sun's view of Star Office is equally pragmatic. Fewer purchases of Microsoft Word translates directly to less cash in Microsoft's coffers. That means less R&D money, less advertising money, and hopefully less leverage against competitors, hardware vendors, and consumers.
Yes, it is known that Sun is rather keen on Linux, but largely as a sales tool that will steer market share away from Little Blue.
A Starbucks representative could not be reached Friday for comment. A representative at Wireless carrier T-Mobile, which supplies Starbucks with the access, declined to comment.
Probably because they couldn't care less. Seriously, what's the point? Okay, he drives the war car around and provides sporadic wireless 'net access to people in the general area of a Starbucks, thus proving to them that they do indeed have a choice... until he drives away.
Then the user is left without the choice unless someone else nearby also happens to be giving it away, which is unlikely, as there would be no benefit in his being there in the first place if a free Wi-Fi alternative already existed in the area.
Thus he proves the the business model against which he's rallying is perfectly sound, as it provides consistent 'net access to all subscribing patrons. Yes, unlike the war car, their pay network is there when the customers need it.
Okey dokey.
Not every neighborhood is chock full of good citizens who are willing to share their bandwidth with anyone within range who happens to have a laptop. There's nothing inherently wrong with or immoral about a business model based upon selling Internet access. Those who want to set up public access Wi-Fi networks that will serve their local few hundred meters are welcome to it, but I fail to see the point in blasting ISPs for actually daring to charge for the services they provide.
Sometimes stuff costs money. Sometimes people are willing to pay for that stuff, and thus they reap whatever benefits are available to them. Those who are not willing to pay for stuff have the option of seeking alternatives to stuff, circumventing the fee model for stuff, or simply doing without stuff.
...needs to learn how to use the software with which he's working.
Hey, I hate MS products as much as the next Slashdotter, but the article simply points to someone who wasn't really paying attention to what his software was set up to do. The application performed its fnctions as designed, and it used the settings as they were configured. He obviously didn't bother to look closely enough at his own configuration and figure out what the settings in the options panel meant.
Indeed, some people need to be protected from their own ignorance, but the real story here is that a Microsoft product actually worked the way it was supposed to. How novel.
When I put a service on Win2k, running under 'System' and that service listens to a port and executes all the crap that is posted to that port, is it MS' fault? No. It's the fault of the developer of the service.
Under Windows (at least Win2K), look at your Services control and find out how many of them are set to run as LocalSystem. Most to all of them? Ah, yes. Now look at how many of those are built-in Microsoft Windows components. Most to all of them? Ah, yes.
I suppose, by this token, that it's not the fault of the Win32 API, but instead each and every Windows service that Microsoft shipped and each and every third-party service delivered post-install.
...or will each visitor to the web site have to agree to them all (including, presumably, a license for the web site itself)?
*shrug*
I have a license on my site which demands the souls, firstborn children, home, property, spare body parts, and allegiance of the users, among other things. It seems to work for me, and it's always good to have a list of potential kidney donors in case I ever have need for one.
A case is just a case. I'd rather double the CPU speed/RAM and house a PC in a shoebox than have a P100 in a five hundred pound case:p
Well then, double the CPU speed/RAM in your own system so that it might occupy the time you would otherwise spend bitching about what other, more clever people are doing with their own time. By the way, as the article states, this particular case will house an Iwill MPX2 board with dual 2100+ MPs, which is hardly a P100.
-- "Beware: history speaks of goals never intended."
- Andrew Boyd
In the wake of the recent HP debacle, I'd have to say that this is very interesting.
Regardless of the fact that it wasn't actually SnoSoft that officially published the exploit, even if they had, Clarke is basically saying that they went about things in pretty much the most appropriate manner.
Hey, I have one of those, and I haven't been bitten by a single mosquito while wearing it this summer.
Then again, I also have yet to be bitten by a bear, shark, or vampire while using the device... and come to think of it, it even seems to keep those pesky meteorites at bay. Bonus!
"In a counterpoint to that, we have the Pentagon cracking down on wireless devices...."
How is this at all counter to the preceding story? Though I think 802.11x devices are suitable for trivial and lightweight network traffic, I don't use it at home because of inherent security flaws (among other reasons). Similarly, I don't give out my credit card info over my cordless or cellular phones. Yes, fine, I'm paranoid though my needs for secrecy - as a private citizen - are relatively moderate.
However, I certainly don't see any reason why the US military shouldn't regulate the use of largely unregulated communications within its own sphere of influence. Seriously, these are some of the same people who modify computers for zero electromagnetic emissions. Why wouldn't they want to minimize the risks inherent in utilizing unsecured public bandwidth?
I'd actually like to see some of the design elements of the POWER4 architecture incorporated into PowerPC. Ironically, the latest POWER designs are based upon PowerPC, so it's come full-circle and just keeps getting better (though I don't think I can say much more without violating a non-disclosure agreement).
"And brain activity in the people who continually played games did not recover in the periods when they weren't playing games, the research showed."
If they're continually playing games, then which period would that be?
Of course, here we see an article of undetermined scientific merit, based upon the research of an individual (with a specific agenda) that has yet to see even a basic peer review. Where have we seen that type of thing before?
Well, something like that worked for Bill and Ted... sorta kinda... in a roundabout, not really way.
"To be fair, not all evil robots are killers." - Marge Simpson
Re:Ultra wideband to transmit 100 mbs wirelessly
on
New Wireless Technologies
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I mean, only ten feet?
It would be nice if the editors read the articles prior to hastily posting references to them. In such an ideal situation, the text could have been corrected to read "10 meters," not feet, which makes much more sense.
Not that wireless networking of 10 feet wouldn't be useful in and of itself. Even then I wouldn't have to face the dilemma - in my apartment - of how to implement a fast network between the servers in the lab downstairs and the workstations in the office upstairs without stringing an ethernet cable through a door and up a wall (and without making any holes).
It's appropriate that you used quotes to frame the letter, I. One doesn't give money to NPR through payment of taxes; it's not actually a US government-funded operation. Granted, contributions to NPR are tax-deductible, but that's another issue entirely.
I don't mean to troll, but advanced server is just now getting to 64 bit archatecture? Would someone please tell me how long *NIX has been doing this, and how far behind win-tel is?
What, pray tell, does "Win-tel" have to do with Red Hat Linux Advanced Server? Wintel [Microsoft Windows on the Intel platform] isn't typically a Linux platform unless a virtual machine technology is utilized, so please enlighten us as to your point.
For one who doesn't mean to troll, you certainly manage to do somewhat of a satisfactory job of it.
Hear, hear... but you missed PCI hotplug. (Now that's cool!)
I certainly hope you're not implying that Compaq is the only vendor that offers hot-pluggable PCI slots, because that would simply be a ludicrous implication.
Did you even read the article you've cited? I ask because if you had, then it should be safe to assume that you read:
Prof Leszcynski said mobile phones were still safe to use.
"At the moment, there is no scientific support for introducing any sort of limitation either on use of mobile phones or setting new safety limits.
"There is no need because we don't have any science to support it. All the guidelines in place at the moment are fine."
Laboratory evidence isn't necessarily practical evidence. The researchers discussed in the article even stated as much.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed, I find it very interesting that they would use a benchmark that measures memory bandwidth through the graphics subsystem of a graphics workstation. It tells me what I need to know about what the system needs to do.
"There are a million things that you don't know. That doesn't make them secrets."- R.B. Fairchild
(Some more than others.)
I think the simple point is that they don't want you to buy Windows. If they sell Linux boxes to anyone, it represents potentially fewer desktops upon which Windows appears, and as a result, fewer profits to Microsoft. Remember, many, many people are into having a big name behind their hardware and software (hey, even I have a particular fondness for the HP Kayak), and it's becoming more and more difficult to purchase a name-brand PC that doesn't automatically include a fee for a Windows license, even if you just want it to run some other OS... any other OS. Microsoft's bullying tactics against hardware sellers tend to be very effective. Sun cannot and will not be pushed around by them, because they don't rely on any deals with MS simply to stay competitive, unlike most other PC vendors.
Similarly, Sun's view of Star Office is equally pragmatic. Fewer purchases of Microsoft Word translates directly to less cash in Microsoft's coffers. That means less R&D money, less advertising money, and hopefully less leverage against competitors, hardware vendors, and consumers.
Yes, it is known that Sun is rather keen on Linux, but largely as a sales tool that will steer market share away from Little Blue.
Then the user is left without the choice unless someone else nearby also happens to be giving it away, which is unlikely, as there would be no benefit in his being there in the first place if a free Wi-Fi alternative already existed in the area.
Thus he proves the the business model against which he's rallying is perfectly sound, as it provides consistent 'net access to all subscribing patrons. Yes, unlike the war car, their pay network is there when the customers need it.
Okey dokey.
Not every neighborhood is chock full of good citizens who are willing to share their bandwidth with anyone within range who happens to have a laptop. There's nothing inherently wrong with or immoral about a business model based upon selling Internet access. Those who want to set up public access Wi-Fi networks that will serve their local few hundred meters are welcome to it, but I fail to see the point in blasting ISPs for actually daring to charge for the services they provide.
Sometimes stuff costs money. Sometimes people are willing to pay for that stuff, and thus they reap whatever benefits are available to them. Those who are not willing to pay for stuff have the option of seeking alternatives to stuff, circumventing the fee model for stuff, or simply doing without stuff.
"The moon belongs to America, and anxiously awaits the arrival of our astro-men."
- Troy McClure
Hey, I hate MS products as much as the next Slashdotter, but the article simply points to someone who wasn't really paying attention to what his software was set up to do. The application performed its fnctions as designed, and it used the settings as they were configured. He obviously didn't bother to look closely enough at his own configuration and figure out what the settings in the options panel meant.
Indeed, some people need to be protected from their own ignorance, but the real story here is that a Microsoft product actually worked the way it was supposed to. How novel.
Under Windows (at least Win2K), look at your Services control and find out how many of them are set to run as LocalSystem. Most to all of them? Ah, yes. Now look at how many of those are built-in Microsoft Windows components. Most to all of them? Ah, yes.
I suppose, by this token, that it's not the fault of the Win32 API, but instead each and every Windows service that Microsoft shipped and each and every third-party service delivered post-install.
Bad programming, indeed.
--
Please do not feed or tease the trolls.
Those who question the applicability of fair use statutes usually simply don't understand them.
*shrug*
I have a license on my site which demands the souls, firstborn children, home, property, spare body parts, and allegiance of the users, among other things. It seems to work for me, and it's always good to have a list of potential kidney donors in case I ever have need for one.
Well then, double the CPU speed/RAM in your own system so that it might occupy the time you would otherwise spend bitching about what other, more clever people are doing with their own time. By the way, as the article states, this particular case will house an Iwill MPX2 board with dual 2100+ MPs, which is hardly a P100.
--
"Beware: history speaks of goals never intended." - Andrew Boyd
It's plainly obvious that everyone needs one; "everyone," of course, referring specifically to me, and "needs," in this case, meaning "lusts after."
Regardless of the fact that it wasn't actually SnoSoft that officially published the exploit, even if they had, Clarke is basically saying that they went about things in pretty much the most appropriate manner.
Then again, I also have yet to be bitten by a bear, shark, or vampire while using the device... and come to think of it, it even seems to keep those pesky meteorites at bay. Bonus!
How is this at all counter to the preceding story? Though I think 802.11x devices are suitable for trivial and lightweight network traffic, I don't use it at home because of inherent security flaws (among other reasons). Similarly, I don't give out my credit card info over my cordless or cellular phones. Yes, fine, I'm paranoid though my needs for secrecy - as a private citizen - are relatively moderate.
However, I certainly don't see any reason why the US military shouldn't regulate the use of largely unregulated communications within its own sphere of influence. Seriously, these are some of the same people who modify computers for zero electromagnetic emissions. Why wouldn't they want to minimize the risks inherent in utilizing unsecured public bandwidth?
"The moon belongs to America...."
- Troy McClure {The Simpsons, 4F21, "The Secret War of Lisa Simpson"}
They should know how because PowerPC - not just POWER - is their technology as much as anyone else's, as it has been from the very beginning.
http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/products/powerpc/
I'd actually like to see some of the design elements of the POWER4 architecture incorporated into PowerPC. Ironically, the latest POWER designs are based upon PowerPC, so it's come full-circle and just keeps getting better (though I don't think I can say much more without violating a non-disclosure agreement).
If they're continually playing games, then which period would that be?
Of course, here we see an article of undetermined scientific merit, based upon the research of an individual (with a specific agenda) that has yet to see even a basic peer review. Where have we seen that type of thing before?
Take it as you will.
"To be fair, not all evil robots are killers." - Marge Simpson
It would be nice if the editors read the articles prior to hastily posting references to them. In such an ideal situation, the text could have been corrected to read "10 meters," not feet, which makes much more sense.
Not that wireless networking of 10 feet wouldn't be useful in and of itself. Even then I wouldn't have to face the dilemma - in my apartment - of how to implement a fast network between the servers in the lab downstairs and the workstations in the office upstairs without stringing an ethernet cable through a door and up a wall (and without making any holes).
It's appropriate that you used quotes to frame the letter, I. One doesn't give money to NPR through payment of taxes; it's not actually a US government-funded operation. Granted, contributions to NPR are tax-deductible, but that's another issue entirely.
What, pray tell, does "Win-tel" have to do with Red Hat Linux Advanced Server? Wintel [Microsoft Windows on the Intel platform] isn't typically a Linux platform unless a virtual machine technology is utilized, so please enlighten us as to your point.
For one who doesn't mean to troll, you certainly manage to do somewhat of a satisfactory job of it.
I certainly hope you're not implying that Compaq is the only vendor that offers hot-pluggable PCI slots, because that would simply be a ludicrous implication.