The difference between the aa kernel and the ac kernel is that Alan Cox is widely recognized as the number 2 Linux guy, but he's promoting something completely opposed to Linus' decision.
If anyone could start a fork, it's Alan. However, remember that forks aren't necessarily bad. And there seems to be strong argument in favour of both VMs. . .
It doesn't because it doesn't duplicate the Windows 2000 environment or the Windows 95 environment. Instead, it implements the same API in a different way.
That's not emulation-- if it was, Linux would be a POSIX emulator. Windows 95 would be a Windows 3.1 emulator. Windows NT would be a Windows 95/3.1 emulator. . .
I agree that Wine has a many things in common with emulators, but performance is not one of those things. (Which was the point of this post).
VMware and Plex86 are much more like emulators (they simulate hardware, but not a CPU) than Wine. Bochs IS an emulator. It duplicates the x86 platform on non-x86 hardware.
You can't do thought experiments to determine the validity of this approach. You have to test it on real-world data.
While layer implies slower, it's not necessarily so. If Linux is more efficient, it can more than make up for the wrapper.
Besides, it's not all about performance all the time. When was the last time you saw a game written for a particular graphics card, skipping the drivers, written to the bare metal? No one writes to the bare metal these days.
There are times when it's appropriate to sacrifice performance for another good thing.
Furthermore, we don't know what the delay is-- on a 1 GHz processor, it could be a microsecond.
And it's more than possible, it's plausible that the game spends more than 90% of its time in the game and the drivers. If it's not spending much time in the actual API, then the wrapping doesn't matter.
Name a game that is so badly designed that the framerate reduces by half when performance drops slightly.
The big idea of bluetooth appears to be to make my cell phone talk to my laptop.
That's not what the piece says, and it's not what I've heard. It's to make everything talk to everything, in a standard, wireless way. More like a replacement for USB than a replacement for Ethrnet.
The developers appear to be part of some OSI holdout 'IP will go away' group
The author explains why they don't use "IP"-- the devices just aren't powerful enough to implement it. He also mentions that the spec includes PPP.
The author of the piece is a well known bluetooth developer.
Who would know more about the purpose and functionality of bluetooth?
When a group like that suddenly starts saying 'we can work together' it is pretty much an admission that the other side has established a dominant market position that can't be reversed
If the 802.11b is dominant and sufficient, why would IEEE be working to incorporate Bluetooth into its own standard? I don't know why you care so much about this. If Bluetooth's not useful to you, you don't have to use it.
Wine Is Not an Emulator. Say it with me. A Java VM IS an emulator. It emulates a fictional processor that Sun made up.
Wine is much more like a wrapper, and wrappers can be orders of magnitude faster than emulators. Wile it's true that a wrapper will introduce some overhead, it's not at all clear that the overhead must be significant.
First of all, the wrapper may have small overhead per call. Second, the wrapper may have large overhead per call, but there may not be a lot of calls-- the program may spend the majority of its time in the main program, or in the actual wrapped calls.
Look, I'm not some Wine fanatic. I know it's got a long way to go. But your argument makes a lot of assertions that I don't think you can prove.
Loki should recognize that TransGaming is actually helping them.
Where I live, there are a few streets that are absolutely infested with computer stores. If they were thinking like Loki here, this never would have happened. But storeowners realized that, far from stealing each other's business, they enhance each other's business. People know that if they want computer equipment, they should go to that street, and everyone benefits from that.
Now let's say WineX helps Linux become a popular gaming platform. Most of my games work well enough that I don't use a Windows partition anymore. Now, when I go to the store, am I going to buy Unreal 2 for Windows, or Unreal 2 for Linux?
Seems pretty obvious I'll get the one that's designed and optimized for Linux, rather than the one that will "probably work". Note also that TransGaming isn't focusing on games that Loki has ported.
Of course, if there's no Linux version available yet, I'll have to think more carefully about whether I wait for a port, or get the Windows version. I guess ports can't be an afterthought if WineX succeeds.
What I wonder, though, is whether TransGaming's working on a clone of the X box. If it takes off, WineX could win big there.
It wasn't "long dead" before Netscape shipped. I remember I had a free copy of OS/2 (part of the Warp promotion) that I was going to try on my computer at University. And Descent was pretty new. And I played with Netscape. To do that, I had to install "win32s" for Windows 3.1.
I want to like Transgaming wholeheartedly, but seeing that they're licensing CD copy protection from Macrovision makes me a little less enthusiastic. . .
Yes, VNC functions handily as a graphical "screen".
Actually, I thought "screen" was like VNC for the commandline.
Re:Aqua l'n'f or native Aqua implementation?
on
Qt Released For OS X
·
· Score: 2
I read it through and didn't see that. I see that it's a native app, and that it has the Aqua look and feel. And that it's carbon-based.
I don't see anything saying that it uses native widgets. I don't think this press release is meant for the Slashdot crowd.
A simple change would be making the USPTO liable in cases where ludicrous patents are granted. That would make it in their interest to use more rigid standards.
So basically this is just a remote control for Winamp. What else could this possibly add to any software mp3 player? Who cares if it
hooks up between your computer and stereo. You can just use a moderately-priced sound card to do that.
If you use it like winamp, it will work like winamp. Try reading the article:
I doubt it would be worth placing one in a room where you already have a desktop PC to play songs directly on, but any room where you don't want a computer, have a stereo, and want access to your MP3s, this is simply a great way to do it.
Sheesh.
The claim that this can be used with the highest-quality sound equipment is hilarious
Higher bitrate and variable-bitrate encodings sound pretty good to me. I've got decent speakers on my desktop, and I find MP3 sounds adequate if you take a little care. I would expect the same quality from this component.
No matter how tweaked out this bad boy is, mp3s will still have hisses and skips that can be dangerous to powerful, quality audio setups.
Have you forgotten that CDs skip? And tape hisses? And yet, such equipment has been used in stereos for more than a decade, with no systems damaged as a result. How can MP3 be "dangerous"?
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks muchly. I was about do post, "How does this relate to UDF?". . .
I guess I can see how it might make it easier for OS writers, but UDF solutions already exist for the major OSes. . .
For a long time, folks were running Windows, but dropping to DOS for gaming. Windows games succeeded in part because Windows was DOS-compatible.
What does that say about Wine(X)?
The difference between the aa kernel and the ac kernel is that Alan Cox is widely recognized as the number 2 Linux guy, but he's promoting something completely opposed to Linus' decision.
If anyone could start a fork, it's Alan. However, remember that forks aren't necessarily bad. And there seems to be strong argument in favour of both VMs. . .
If Wine was an emulator, it would work already.
It doesn't because it doesn't duplicate the Windows 2000 environment or the Windows 95 environment. Instead, it implements the same API in a different way.
That's not emulation-- if it was, Linux would be a POSIX emulator. Windows 95 would be a Windows 3.1 emulator. Windows NT would be a Windows 95/3.1 emulator. . .
I agree that Wine has a many things in common with emulators, but performance is not one of those things. (Which was the point of this post).
VMware and Plex86 are much more like emulators (they simulate hardware, but not a CPU) than Wine. Bochs IS an emulator. It duplicates the x86 platform on non-x86 hardware.
You can't do thought experiments to determine the validity of this approach. You have to test it on real-world data.
While layer implies slower, it's not necessarily so. If Linux is more efficient, it can more than make up for the wrapper.
Besides, it's not all about performance all the time. When was the last time you saw a game written for a particular graphics card, skipping the drivers, written to the bare metal? No one writes to the bare metal these days.
There are times when it's appropriate to sacrifice performance for another good thing.
Furthermore, we don't know what the delay is-- on a 1 GHz processor, it could be a microsecond.
And it's more than possible, it's plausible that the game spends more than 90% of its time in the game and the drivers. If it's not spending much time in the actual API, then the wrapping doesn't matter.
Name a game that is so badly designed that the framerate reduces by half when performance drops slightly.
That's not what the piece says, and it's not what I've heard. It's to make everything talk to everything, in a standard, wireless way. More like a replacement for USB than a replacement for Ethrnet.
The author explains why they don't use "IP"-- the devices just aren't powerful enough to implement it. He also mentions that the spec includes PPP.
Who would know more about the purpose and functionality of bluetooth?
If the 802.11b is dominant and sufficient, why would IEEE be working to incorporate Bluetooth into its own standard? I don't know why you care so much about this. If Bluetooth's not useful to you, you don't have to use it.
Wine Is Not an Emulator. Say it with me. A Java VM IS an emulator. It emulates a fictional processor that Sun made up.
Wine is much more like a wrapper, and wrappers can be orders of magnitude faster than emulators. Wile it's true that a wrapper will introduce some overhead, it's not at all clear that the overhead must be significant.
First of all, the wrapper may have small overhead per call. Second, the wrapper may have large overhead per call, but there may not be a lot of calls-- the program may spend the majority of its time in the main program, or in the actual wrapped calls.
Look, I'm not some Wine fanatic. I know it's got a long way to go. But your argument makes a lot of assertions that I don't think you can prove.
Loki should recognize that TransGaming is actually helping them.
Where I live, there are a few streets that are absolutely infested with computer stores. If they were thinking like Loki here, this never would have happened. But storeowners realized that, far from stealing each other's business, they enhance each other's business. People know that if they want computer equipment, they should go to that street, and everyone benefits from that.
Now let's say WineX helps Linux become a popular gaming platform. Most of my games work well enough that I don't use a Windows partition anymore. Now, when I go to the store, am I going to buy Unreal 2 for Windows, or Unreal 2 for Linux?
Seems pretty obvious I'll get the one that's designed and optimized for Linux, rather than the one that will "probably work". Note also that TransGaming isn't focusing on games that Loki has ported.
Of course, if there's no Linux version available yet, I'll have to think more carefully about whether I wait for a port, or get the Windows version. I guess ports can't be an afterthought if WineX succeeds.
What I wonder, though, is whether TransGaming's working on a clone of the X box. If it takes off, WineX could win big there.
Registered with who?
'scuse me-- I meant QT, not KDE.
That should be all that's required.
Windows will run KDE. So will Mac OS X. We just had an article about that.
It wasn't "long dead" before Netscape shipped. I remember I had a free copy of OS/2 (part of the Warp promotion) that I was going to try on my computer at University. And Descent was pretty new. And I played with Netscape. To do that, I had to install "win32s" for Windows 3.1.
I know. But I started with VNC on Windows. Then when I was using Linux, I went looking for something similar for the commandline. . .
I want to like Transgaming wholeheartedly, but seeing that they're licensing CD copy protection from Macrovision makes me a little less enthusiastic. . .
Yes, VNC functions handily as a graphical "screen".
Actually, I thought "screen" was like VNC for the commandline.
I read it through and didn't see that. I see that it's a native app, and that it has the Aqua look and feel. And that it's carbon-based.
I don't see anything saying that it uses native widgets. I don't think this press release is meant for the Slashdot crowd.
Windows can suck as a VNC server.
The best option in that case is to use Windows as a client, with Linux machines as the servers.
But when you spend 90% of your time in Linux, that just seems dumb.
I'm a twenty-six year-old developer, and it doesn't seem that far-fetched to me.
Agreed. Look at this quote from the article:
"Quirky" was obviously a code word used by his former employers to warn us without risking legal action.
So Mr. Ganssle admits that "quirky" didn't mean "quirky" in this context, then goes on to draw conclusions about those who actually are quirky?
Doesn't inspire my confidence. Sounds like he started with his conclusions, then tried to use the "Tom" incident to justify them.
The reason this is in the BSD section is because OSX is based on BSD.
A simple change would be making the USPTO liable in cases where ludicrous patents are granted. That would make it in their interest to use more rigid standards.
The pre-emptible kernel patches radically rework the way the kernel functions. So people are being cautious.
If you use it like winamp, it will work like winamp. Try reading the article:
Sheesh.
Higher bitrate and variable-bitrate encodings sound pretty good to me. I've got decent speakers on my desktop, and I find MP3 sounds adequate if you take a little care. I would expect the same quality from this component.
Have you forgotten that CDs skip? And tape hisses? And yet, such equipment has been used in stereos for more than a decade, with no systems damaged as a result. How can MP3 be "dangerous"?
Many distro kernels don't have NTFS support compiled-in. If you haven't done so already, you may wish to compile 2.4.11 with NTFS support.
Matter of degree. It's always a matter of degree.