While I haven't gone to read the whole article from this stupid site that requires login/pass,
I still think that the article or the poster is wrong.
PlamOS 3.5 existed for a while now and it was installed by default on several Palm models, such as my Pilot Vx (which has been shipping for like 8 months now).
Recently released Debian GNU/Linux 2.2 runs
on x86, PowerPC(most powermacs and some RS/6000) Sparc/UltraSparc, m68k, StrongArm, and Alpha.
S/390, MIPS, and HP PA-RISC ports are under development as well.
In my school, CS majors typically learn some or all of the following things
1. Hack OS kernels, write device drivers, filesystem drivers
2. Object oriented programming
3. Algorithms
4. Hack programming language interpreters/compilers
5. Underying math
6. internal organization and design of computers, deisgn simple electoronic devices for their pet projects.
7. computer graphics
Now, I doubt that many self-taught "techies" in the industry even know any of that. A monkey can learn how to admin a unix or NT box too, you know it. Plus they have missed all the fun of spending some time of their life in a university setting.
Are you implying that someone who has taken the time and effort to train himself (or herself) to be qualified for
a high paying tech job are hopelessly unable to train themself in history, literature, art, philosophy, and so on?
Of couse the Wall street has absolutely no clue about whats going on in the tech world. If you hagned around in the Sun circles for a while you'd notice that the CPU failur problems are -very-common on 400Mhz ultraparcs with 4 and 8MB of cache, the ones that are probably used in +50% of sun's systems.
Dude, if you have been waiting for those featues till now, I am sorry for you. There are unofficial KDE, October GNOME and XFree86 3.3.5 packages for Debian 2.1 (slink) and you can campile the latest kernel your-self...
Every time Intel or AMD introduce even faster chips that run at even faster clock speeds, other competitors (IBM,VIA, etc) seem to be compelled to anounce:"We will have a 1Ghz chip too... in the first quater of the next year", and, of couse, then delay it to the end of the last quarter of that year when it absolutely will not matter.
Cyrix' CEO (I am not sure if he still has that position now at VIA) affirmatively promissed a "1Ghz CPU by the end of 1999" in early 1999 in an interview with the Maximum PC magazine. Where the hell is that 1Ghz CPU for god's sake?
While I agree that "unstable" is usually "stable enough" for home use or a developer box, it still does not cut it. Try to explain to management "their unstable is actually stable.. ". Also, way too many serious flaws (bash breakage, perl nightmare, there were lots of obvious bugs popping out , etc) have happened during potato development which makes the "unstable" a lousy choice to use in a production environment. In fact, when bash was unistalled in potato, people were saying on debian-devel: "But we told you it was unstable.. "
On the other hand, while I appreciate the stability of the stable release, 6 months after the release it becomes nearly useless.
Hardware support is HORRIBLE. Look at slink:
kernel v 2.0.3x, XFree86 3.3.2, no GNOME, etc.
It was obsolete by all standards a year ago already. I don't mind installing upgrades on my own box at home but at work I manage hundreds of boxes and prefer to use Redhat because of that (which also has a nifty feature, kickstart, for automated installs). This situation also scares the newbies as hell.
Don't get me wrong. My point is that the slow release schedule significantly reduces debian's
acceptance among the newbies and in orgranizations.
The first thing I do when I setup a new mac is to throw out that irritating and stupid one button mouse. Don't they fucking get it? one button mice stick.
*BSD weren't the only systems featured in the test and in addition while they performed well, they didn't beat the other OSes in all tests, just in some of them.
Don't forget that the main reason Sun maintains x86 port is to get students, geeks, developers, etc interested in their Solaris platform. As far as Solaris production systems are concerned, most of them are Solaris on ultrasparc.
Also the later versions of the OS really need more RAM to operate efficiently. 64MB? This is a joke for Solaris. I bet there would be a -significant- performance increase if they used ~128MB.
IDE drives, another joke. Solaris IDE drivers never were good (look even at the ultrasparc based Ultra5/10 with IDE disks). On intel they gotta be worse by definition.
First there was the "Caldera and SCO merge, don't you think they suck anyways?" type of article, and now this.
This makes slashdot look no better that your average cheap rumors site (like macosrumorros).
If Apple was planning on using Radeons on cube and then decided not to, they are punishing their customers, not ATI. I don't think Apple is -that- stupid. Also, ATI is too big to feel the effect of this decission as a "punishment". They sell their graphics cards and chips to a large number of OEMs of which Apple is just a small fraction..
I think the EFNet admins should get off their butts and start a channel service just like Undernet has "X" and "W" bots or the "chanserv" on Dalnet and finally end this IRC bot stupidity. (How else can people keep their channels organized?)
Meanwhile I consider Undernet a better place to irc.
What if you are striping? If you use raid zero on your disk array you'll notice that reading a file from a 10 disk stripe is way faster than from one disk (and this is the whole purpose of having those superfast ultrascsi160 interfases)
Their track record is still much better than Intel's
Are you kidding ? K6-2 had incompatibility/stability problems, specially in the graphics areas, to no end for like a year since it has been released. Most of the problems came from CPU/chipset/video card type incompatibilities. I have dealt with many of those systems myself a lot.
Mhz comparisons among different architectures don't mean crap. 300Mhz MIPS R12000 has faster FPU performance than your 1Ghz Athlon. You could claim that 700 Mhz P3 is faster than 500Mhz P3, but you can't just say that brand A cpu is faster than brand B cpu only because of clock speed difference.
What if the 700mhz crusoe performs worse than pentium 200MMX ?
Changing your versioning conventions just because of this is just fucking stupid. Anyone who is stupid enough to think that RedHat 6.1 is more advanced than say Debian 2.2 just because of version numbers is a moron and shouldn't be using Linux anyways.
This makes me -NOT- want to use Debian any more. Yes, non-free software suck, blah, blah. Yet there are people who prefer the non-free software. Having a non-free section in Debian makes it more convenient for users to install it.
The Debian developers should come out of their closets and see that there is more to this world than free software.
I suspect the Crue's are not faster than even the low-end Celerons. If that is not true, I'd like to see spec95 benchmark results which transmeta, of course, did not post on their site
Slashdot Mirror
There is a big difference between WindowsNT/2000
and Windows98.
While I haven't gone to read the whole article from this stupid site that requires login/pass,
I still think that the article or the poster is wrong.
PlamOS 3.5 existed for a while now and it was installed by default on several Palm models, such as my Pilot Vx (which has been shipping for like 8 months now).
BAH, Mhz comparisons have no meaning AT ALL unless you are comparing two exactly same chips that run let say at 700 and the other at 900Mhz.
For example, a 300Mhz MIPS R12000 used in SGI workstations and servers has FPU faster than a 1Ghz Pentium 3!
Recently released Debian GNU/Linux 2.2 runs on x86, PowerPC(most powermacs and some RS/6000) Sparc/UltraSparc, m68k, StrongArm, and Alpha. S/390, MIPS, and HP PA-RISC ports are under development as well.
In my school, CS majors typically learn some or all of the following things
1. Hack OS kernels, write device drivers, filesystem drivers
2. Object oriented programming
3. Algorithms
4. Hack programming language interpreters/compilers
5. Underying math
6. internal organization and design of computers, deisgn simple electoronic devices for their pet projects.
7. computer graphics
Now, I doubt that many self-taught "techies" in the industry even know any of that. A monkey can learn how to admin a unix or NT box too, you know it. Plus they have missed all the fun of spending some time of their life in a university setting.
Yes
Of couse the Wall street has absolutely no clue about whats going on in the tech world. If you hagned around in the Sun circles for a while you'd notice that the CPU failur problems are -very-common on 400Mhz ultraparcs with 4 and 8MB of cache, the ones that are probably used in +50% of sun's systems.
The CPUs with 4MB caches are affected too.
Dude, if you have been waiting for those featues till now, I am sorry for you. There are unofficial KDE, October GNOME and XFree86 3.3.5 packages for Debian 2.1 (slink) and you can campile the latest kernel your-self...
Every time Intel or AMD introduce even faster chips that run at even faster clock speeds, other competitors (IBM,VIA, etc) seem to be compelled to anounce:"We will have a 1Ghz chip too... in the first quater of the next year", and, of couse, then delay it to the end of the last quarter of that year when it absolutely will not matter.
Cyrix' CEO (I am not sure if he still has that position now at VIA) affirmatively promissed a "1Ghz CPU by the end of 1999" in early 1999 in an interview with the Maximum PC magazine. Where the hell is that 1Ghz CPU for god's sake?
Been there, done that.
..
While I agree that "unstable" is usually "stable enough" for home use or a developer box, it still does not cut it. Try to explain to management "their unstable is actually stable.. ". Also, way too many serious flaws (bash breakage, perl nightmare, there were lots of obvious bugs popping out , etc) have happened during potato development which makes the "unstable" a lousy choice to use in a production environment. In fact, when bash was unistalled in potato, people were saying on debian-devel: "But we told you it was unstable.. "
On the other hand, while I appreciate the stability of the stable release, 6 months after the release it becomes nearly useless.
Hardware support is HORRIBLE. Look at slink:
kernel v 2.0.3x, XFree86 3.3.2, no GNOME, etc.
It was obsolete by all standards a year ago already. I don't mind installing upgrades on my own box at home but at work I manage hundreds of boxes and prefer to use Redhat because of that (which also has a nifty feature, kickstart, for automated installs). This situation also scares the newbies as hell.
Don't get me wrong. My point is that the slow release schedule significantly reduces debian's
acceptance among the newbies and in orgranizations.
Anyways, I should probably get a life
The first thing I do when I setup a new mac is to throw out that irritating and stupid one button mouse. Don't they fucking get it? one button mice stick.
What next? Three button keyboard?
Why is this topic was posted in BSD cathegory?
*BSD weren't the only systems featured in the test and in addition while they performed well, they didn't beat the other OSes in all tests, just in some of them.
Don't forget that the main reason Sun maintains x86 port is to get students, geeks, developers, etc interested in their Solaris platform. As far as Solaris production systems are concerned, most of them are Solaris on ultrasparc.
Also the later versions of the OS really need more RAM to operate efficiently. 64MB? This is a joke for Solaris. I bet there would be a -significant- performance increase if they used ~128MB.
IDE drives, another joke. Solaris IDE drivers never were good (look even at the ultrasparc based Ultra5/10 with IDE disks). On intel they gotta be worse by definition.
How can solaris suck at everything if it poststed the best postgresql scores?
First there was the "Caldera and SCO merge, don't you think they suck anyways?" type of article, and now this.
..
This makes slashdot look no better that your average cheap rumors site (like macosrumorros).
If Apple was planning on using Radeons on cube and then decided not to, they are punishing their customers, not ATI. I don't think Apple is -that- stupid. Also, ATI is too big to feel the effect of this decission as a "punishment". They sell their graphics cards and chips to a large number of OEMs of which Apple is just a small fraction
I think the EFNet admins should get off their butts and start a channel service just like Undernet has "X" and "W" bots or the "chanserv" on Dalnet and finally end this IRC bot stupidity.
(How else can people keep their channels organized?)
Meanwhile I consider Undernet a better place to irc.
Just go to a website and read.
see redhat's documentation on their Alpha port on the redhat's website or the linux/mips docs at www.linux.sgi.com
Doh!
What if you are striping? If you use raid zero on your disk array you'll notice that reading a file from a 10 disk stripe is way faster than from one disk (and this is the whole purpose of having those superfast ultrascsi160 interfases)
Their track record is still much better than Intel's
Are you kidding ? K6-2 had incompatibility/stability problems, specially in the graphics areas, to no end for like a year since it has been released. Most of the problems came from CPU/chipset/video card type incompatibilities. I have dealt with many of those systems myself a lot.
Compaq's don't count. Specially their Deskpro line which are utter pieces of junk. Stay away from them.
Mhz comparisons among different architectures don't mean crap. 300Mhz MIPS R12000 has faster FPU performance than your 1Ghz Athlon. You could claim that 700 Mhz P3 is faster than 500Mhz P3, but you can't just say that brand A cpu is faster than brand B cpu only because of clock speed difference.
What if the 700mhz crusoe performs worse than pentium 200MMX ?
Changing your versioning conventions just because of this is just fucking stupid. Anyone who is stupid enough to think that RedHat 6.1 is more advanced than say Debian 2.2 just because of version numbers is a moron and shouldn't be using Linux anyways.
This makes me -NOT- want to use Debian any more.
Yes, non-free software suck, blah, blah.
Yet there are people who prefer the non-free software. Having a non-free section in Debian
makes it more convenient for users to install it.
The Debian developers should come out of their closets and see that there is more to this world
than free software.
I dunno. Did he say that ? No.
I suspect the Crue's are not faster than even the low-end Celerons. If that is not true, I'd like to see spec95 benchmark results which transmeta, of course, did not post on their site