DOSEMU Only Seams to Emulate X86 Microcircutry Under Unix.
The actual Dos you run with Dosemu is a separate package ( Freedos or Caldera Open Dos are prime candidates ). This of course is the only way to really do it since so many Dos programs did most of there work by going around the OS and dealing with the hardware directly.
Now that Dosemu runs and has even used substantial hardware trickery ( AKA X86 protected mode ) it will let your 1GHz Athelon under Linux run the same software as that old PS/2 under Dos. But faster.
A few questions though. Windows 3.1 actually sort of worked under some versions of it ( I'll check if it boots in the full 1.0 release ) and Windows applications still go around the OS when they feel like. What are the odds of getting this to help out the emulation mode of WINE? As an API for porting old application Wine is OK of course, but it leaves a lot to be desired in the emulation department ( maybe that's why they don't call it 1.0 ? ). Could running Wine and Dosemu together improve on that somehow ?
It's bad enough that Americans get to petition elected officials to vote down this law. Here we don't get to comment on it because we have no elected reps in the US. That makes sense until you realize that this law if passed would be enforced in 3rd world countries.
Not all of them and not immediately but it will come. What dose a little country like Jamaica or Trinidad do when American corporations with a wage bill beyond our GDP backed by Uncle Sam starts to brutalize our people under an unjust law that isn't even ours.
The Caribbean population in New York is probably big enough to push against this sort of thing but what about other states ?
I actually agree here. More precisely I say, put your money in the hands of somebody doing something cool tat you wouldn't bother with and he doesn't want to do.
As an example. When I talk to new Linux users one of the major problems they complain of is that none of the text mode editors follow any conventions they are familiar with. I.e. You learn VI at university and you learn Emacs on the Job.
If you are not an IT professional then you probably expect [shift + down arrow] to select a line of text and [ctrl + X] to cut it.
That's how all the GUI text editors work and EDIT.COM from dos dose the same thing. It's a small job and $5,000 would probably get it done. As it stands nobody who wants it can write it and nobody who can write it wants it.
There are several such small projects that go nowhere and will never get done without funding.
This person has a personal crusade. It may be important to other people on Slashdot or it may not. The fact that he has chosen to put it into his.sig means it's important to him.
Do you have the right to tell him what he should call important ? Can you set other people's priorities ?
So what if you get tired of reading the same sig every time he posts. All the people on/. who use sigs force you to do the same. You can just turn off sigs in your preferences.
Here is a much lower tech solution and one that is guaranteed to work almost 100% of the time.
You put all the library computers in a single hall, or several in one hall and another pile in the next. depending on the size of the Library. If you need to do rows of terminals then make sue each one points towards the wall.
Then in the middle of the room you have a librarian in a swivel chair who dose nothing all day but look over everybody's shoulder to see what they are doing and is specifically authorized to eject anyone who violates the rules.
The only downside of this, is of course that this person requires a salary. How about having the state increase the allotments to these libraries by $60,000 a year. Enough to pay two full time and one part time "content monitor". By my estimate you need one such monitor per 40 simultaneous users.
To make it less expensive you could have the adult and child sections of the library "browser pool" separated then only install a human filter in the larger kiddies section. Depending on demand adults may be allowed to use the kiddies section but only according to the kiddies' rules.
This system only breaks down in the unlikely event that the "human monitor" also want's to look at Pr0n and is dumb enough to risk his job for it.
The question just about everyone wants to know about.
Now the KDE and Gnome are usable and at least one claims to be mature. What are they doing right ? What are they doing wrong and what do the need to address in the near term ( I.e. obvious usability bugs ) and the long term ( pushing the envelope and making things better ).
How much stuff is needed at the lower levels of the system to make these projects more usable than they are now ?
What do you think is the most glaring gap among Linux applications. My favorite is a clone of "edit.com" from Windows/dos. What's yours' ?
I read somewhere that the editor was soposed to be selecteble from a menu option in a latter version of KDevelop.
This means using Emacs or some other manly editor will be less than trivial. In the mean time you shuld be able to hack something like "kfte" into it with little effort.
The fact is you asked how to make Gnome go fast. More hardware is what works. Personally; I am a pore person in a 3rd world country so I really can't afford some fancy Celeron machine.
My main workstation is a P200 with 64 Megs of assorted RAM. KDE is fairly responsive on it. In fact Netscape, StarOffice and Gnome are the only things that feel slow on this box.
Yes, I did try Win2K on it ( up to the RCs ) and it was almost as fast as Windows 3.11 on my PS/2 386.
I have a general question, and then some personal observations.
I'll try to help.
First, isn't the religious reason for Gnome the fact that QT is not GPL, and KDE needs QT?
Yes. But most Gnome developers won't even discus that these days.
Maybe I fundamentally misunderstand the situation, but couldn't the effort that created Gnome have created a GPL work-alike to QT?
Yeah. That's what team KDE said. In fact there was an attempt to do just that in a project called "Harmony". As soon as Troll Tech announced that QT-2.0 would be under an OSS / Free Software license called QPL the developers on that project quit and went to work on KDE.
In fact, as I recall, the KDE developers could not even VIEW the QT source when KDE was originally written,
This is incorrect. They could view the QT source all they wanted but they couldn't distribute modifications.
Gnome is not bad, but I don't see what the performance penalty is buying me.
A desktop interface is very much a matter of preference. There are people out there who prefer FVWM2 for reasons other than performance. Try them all and use whatever you like. There is no need to worry about benefits that don't affect you.
The general response to this question is "Gnome is not slow for me." If this is true for you, perhaps you have some configuration hints you can share.
Get a faster machine. After you get a really fast box there really isn't any need to worry about the performance of the desktop.
The short version: Why should I run Gnome instead of KDE, assuming that I don't care about QT licensing quibbles?
Why not just use whatever works for you ? If Gnome doesn't like your machine or the way you configure it so just use KDE and stop fretting. It's not like the KDE desktop will stop you from using the Gnome apps or vise versa.
What do I gain for the (possibly only perceived) poor performance of Gnome.
At the very least Gnome has a far better FreeCell program. Better even than the Windows 9x version.
(To disclaim again, I am posting these questions in good faith.)
That won't stop them from moderating us both into oblivion.:)
This will do wonders for Linux Availability and Scalebility.
That however is just touching on the obvious part. Less obvious is that this will let stuff written for Linux scale to the upper limits of business computing in very short order.
How is that you ask ?
Linux has been ported to the IBM Mainframe in such a way that a single s390 Box can run thousands of copies of Linux each doing dedicated tasks. The resources available to each can be adjusted to whatever the Kernel supports ( I.e. 64 GB or RAM, 2 TB of Storage etc... ) or what's needed for that particular operation ( 1 mips on the image server, 3 on the Web servers and 20 on the Database server ).
Add this in and you start to see a really terrifying scenario where Linux is able to scale to tomorrow's web service tasks and very little else can. By that I mean when Computing takes off in the 3rd world the way TV has. When Bandwidth becomes cheaper and more abundant. You are talking about 20 Million 800x600 two way Videophone conversations at the same time.
Nobody has the horsepower to play traffic cop in that situation now. But a Linux mainframe scaled to beyond today's limit will. Being Linux will simplify the development process since the developers can all have it on the desktop too.
As for the Licensing. SGI isn't completely cluless. They put XFS under the GPL to get it into the Kernel and avoid a fuss. This ccNUMA stuff will be at least partially in Kernel space so you can once again expect it to be GPLed.
"Could this sort of thing be used as protection against Denial of Service attacks?"
Not really. The classic DDoS attack ( AKA what took down Yahoo ) simply has no defiance. Apart from perhaps having separate sites under different names with the same Data onboard.
What most people miss about those DDoS attacks is that they didn't actually overload the servers. On the contrary, they loaded down the pipes so much that the servers sat idle for hours.
See cringly's latest rant for more details ( not from him but a letter writer ). The only practical protection is to secure machines to prevent them becoming zombies in someone else's DDoS army.
Linux on these devices will start hitting the street very soon weather you like it or not. Coolness factor isn't enough they have to be cheap enough to make and functional enough to use.
Palm Pilot already killed the whole novelty portable gadget thing two years ago. These days people want to get real work done. Now if we could get DeCSS on a device that was all edge to edge touch screen and just barely wide enough to include a DVD drive but only 1/2" thick.
Ohh, wait DeCSS was having a "chilling effect" on innovations in the DVD marketplace. Or could it be the lawsuits that are doing it ?
Here is a suggestion. All those companies who could use this code to cut costs on both CSS licensing and chipsets ( No CSS hardware decoder needed ) should get together and sponsor the defense and any possible counter attack ( The MPAA can be sued on this ). In the mean time they could form something like the Trillion project to hammer out the code which should then be 1.0 quality by the time the case ends.
Imagine these things hitting the street in Christmas seconds after the temporary injunction has been lifted ?
Yeah. Just like S3 and Video cards or Rockwell and Modems.
When you make the chipsets and unknown manufacturers use your refrence designes plus your brand name to sell the damnd things you may just as well be a manufacturer.
PS : The VIAGRA had that in bold multicolord letters on the largest chip on the board ( not counting the changeble CPU ). VIA was also plaster all over the box.
1. Google has an "I feel lucky" button next to the "google search" button that will take you to the 1st site on the list of matches rather than showing the list.
Quake 1, 2, & 3 are all share ware of the "Incomplete product" variety. I.e. You can download a fully playable "complete" game and enjoy yourself for a while then you go to the store and buy the version with the extra levels and whatnot.
McAfee, even if they offer a low-end product through shareware (not last time I looked) are not primarily a shareware company.
It may not be the main product but you can still get Macafee anti virus via FTP with an expiration date. That's why they bought up other companies. They can make lots of money in other channels and with other products.
PKWare are suffering badly because of InfoZip (who are Free Software) and WinZip (who have a kewl Windows program)
I thought WinZip was a PKWare product. If it isn't then PKWare may as well be dead.
The closest I can think of to a success would be Paint Shop Pro, but that's now outrageously expensive and pretending (badly) to be PhotoShop.
They got too ambitious. too bad.
Nag-based shareware is much worse than most other kinds of non-Free Software. I can have some respect for people who ask in their README for $10 for a copy of their work, but the ones that hassle you? Give me a break!
Gnome dose some things differently than KDE. As to ease of interface that depends on the user. I know people who have been driving stick shift for years and can't drive an automatic.
It's the same with desktops. Some people find Gnome clunky and others can't figure out KDE. Ask a Mac user about Windows and you will learn just how "not easy" that is. So if some journalist doesn't get Gnome, too bad. The Gnome authors should read what he found wrong with it and ask for details if necessary then incorporate the best of his ideas.
That's the tough thing about end user apps. To develop them with quality you have to listen to a lot of people who really can't code draw or write decent documentation.
Sometime last year Corel signed a deal with VIA that would have had them shipping Corel Linux tweaked and compatible with VIA motherboards.
This sounds like much the same thing but from Abit. Frankly the Corel Linux on VIA boards sounds more interesting even for VaporWare. 1st of all VIA sells a lot of Elcheapo all in one boards so they would have to use those LinModem drivers from PcTel ( they use PcTel Modem chipsets ). Also a board with everything included means a simple and consistent way for any white box manufacturer to build cheap and "reliable" Linux desktop computers with most of the usual niceties.
Too bad it doesn't exist until we see the code and this looks like it exists today.
PS : The "GRA" from VIA has got to be the coolest chipset name. It's printed as VIAGRA.
Macafee -> Anti Virus ID -> Doom Quake and other games mIRC CuteFTP. PKWare -> PKZip
These were the cream of the shareware crop and they are still alive and well. The 1st 2 are huge companies with million$ in revenue. Macafee bought up 3 other companies outright.
They all still do shareware. The problem is that buying shareware is so much of a hassle even when the price is low that many people don't bother. I.e. The $30 graphics program market until recently consisted of people who didn't have a credit card.
In it's person of the century issue Time magazine got experts in similar fields to write the biographies on the winners. Nelson Mandela wrote up on Ghandi and Knuth wrote up on Einstein.
He made up "Supper K" partly because the audience wasn't all Mathematicians. I am not and yet I could follow the calculations anyway. Also it was his creation and had made it into the Guinness Book as "largest defined number" or something like that.
As for his greatness. Tex is one of the very old pieces of Free Software. There has been a reward out for finding a bug for some years now. The last winner was 1/2 a decade ago.
1st and foremost you assume a Philosopher, Theologian and a Scientist are mutually exclusive. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is why I mentioned Knuth to begin with.
He lands squarely in all 3 categories at the same time. The lecture I mention above is a good example of this.
You see some scientists after spending a lifetime examining the universe arrive at the conclusion that something is missing and scientists are hammering square pegs into round holes. Mathematicians are especially prone to this because when they apply probability to "The Big Bang" and it's sister theory "Evolution" they get the same odds I got.
Too close to impossible to have happened this way. That leaves the door wide open for Theology. No other theory actually matches all the observable evidence.
This "most distant object" for instance opens to question the idea that the universe is 12 to 15 Billion years old. After all, the Light from this thing spent 13 Billion years traveling towards us. If we are traveling in opposite directions at less than the speed of light the existence of something anywhere near to that far away in the opposite direction would imply that we are at the center of the universe.
On the other hand maybe scientists have missed the estimates of the cosmos' size and age by an order of magnitude.
Finally the notion of Theologians and Philosophers not observing the universe is in itself preposterous. They do. Sometimes it's by direct observation (Telescope time etc..) Other times it's by reviewing the reports of scientists.
Finally on the matter of "Dogmatic Books". It is worth noting that most theories exist for years before anyone figures out how to test it and then another long wait until the technology exists. See the "WIMP" story for an example. Those areas of the Bible which have been tested have held up.
I.e. There is a single layer of silt well above the layers that hold dinosaur bones that occurs across the entire surface of the planet. It's the only bit of sediment that dose. Geologists say it means we had one big ocean for a very short while. This matches up with Flood. Arguably the most far fetched story in there.
I don't think scientists have been arguing with the Theologians and Philosophers,
well they have and the argument has been split every way you care to name. I.e. just because you are in one grope doesn't decide what your opinion on this is.
because the Theologians have nothing of interest to say,
Dogmatic. Closed mind. Uninterested in other points of view. It looks like being an Atheist and believing in Evolution is a religion for some people.
and the Philosophers can't prove anything.
Neither can astronomers or dentists. All we can do is pile up evidence and try to make sense of it.
Larger and better telescopes don't mean farther and farther items, because we've already seen the beginning of the universe- its everywhere in the form of CBR.
This is one theory. Another is that the background radiation has a current source. We won't even have a proper clue until we can check if it exists in space two galaxies over and find the same pattern.
The universe isn't "infinite" because it has a finite amount of mass in it. It may expand forever, however, meaning that it's surface area is infinite. But that's nowhere near the same thing.
This is some of the reasoning that makes this so fascinating. What if the universe is simpler than everyone likes to think ? I.e. a massive 3 dimensional cloud of stuff. This stuff includes all we can see and a billion times more that we can't. It isn't however infinite. Just too big for us to see the edge. It dose have an age but a lot farther in the past than visible objects suggest. It may be so broad that the light from some objects just hasn't gotten hear yet.
The theories may all be wrong. The measurements may not show what we think they do. Remember when all the Scientists thought the earth was flat and the center of the universe ?
Slashdot Mirror
Free Software projects need them.
DOSEMU Only Seams to Emulate X86 Microcircutry Under Unix.
The actual Dos you run with Dosemu is a separate package ( Freedos or Caldera Open Dos are prime candidates ). This of course is the only way to really do it since so many Dos programs did most of there work by going around the OS and dealing with the hardware directly.
Now that Dosemu runs and has even used substantial hardware trickery ( AKA X86 protected mode ) it will let your 1GHz Athelon under Linux run the same software as that old PS/2 under Dos. But faster.
A few questions though. Windows 3.1 actually sort of worked under some versions of it ( I'll check if it boots in the full 1.0 release ) and Windows applications still go around the OS when they feel like. What are the odds of getting this to help out the emulation mode of WINE? As an API for porting old application Wine is OK of course, but it leaves a lot to be desired in the emulation department ( maybe that's why they don't call it 1.0 ? ). Could running Wine and Dosemu together improve on that somehow ?
It's bad enough that Americans get to petition elected officials to vote down this law. Here we don't get to comment on it because we have no elected reps in the US. That makes sense until you realize that this law if passed would be enforced in 3rd world countries.
Not all of them and not immediately but it will come. What dose a little country like Jamaica or Trinidad do when American corporations with a wage bill beyond our GDP backed by Uncle Sam starts to brutalize our people under an unjust law that isn't even ours.
The Caribbean population in New York is probably big enough to push against this sort of thing but what about other states ?
I actually agree here. More precisely I say, put your money in the hands of somebody doing something cool tat you wouldn't bother with and he doesn't want to do.
As an example. When I talk to new Linux users one of the major problems they complain of is that none of the text mode editors follow any conventions they are familiar with. I.e. You learn VI at university and you learn Emacs on the Job.
If you are not an IT professional then you probably expect [shift + down arrow] to select a line of text and [ctrl + X] to cut it.
That's how all the GUI text editors work and EDIT.COM from dos dose the same thing. It's a small job and $5,000 would probably get it done. As it stands nobody who wants it can write it and nobody who can write it wants it.
There are several such small projects that go nowhere and will never get done without funding.
You are out of order here.
.sig means it's important to him.
/. who use sigs force you to do the same. You can just turn off sigs in your preferences.
This person has a personal crusade. It may be important to other people on Slashdot or it may not. The fact that he has chosen to put it into his
Do you have the right to tell him what he should call important ? Can you set other people's priorities ?
So what if you get tired of reading the same sig every time he posts. All the people on
Here is a much lower tech solution and one that is guaranteed to work almost 100% of the time.
You put all the library computers in a single hall, or several in one hall and another pile in the next. depending on the size of the Library. If you need to do rows of terminals then make sue each one points towards the wall.
Then in the middle of the room you have a librarian in a swivel chair who dose nothing all day but look over everybody's shoulder to see what they are doing and is specifically authorized to eject anyone who violates the rules.
The only downside of this, is of course that this person requires a salary. How about having the state increase the allotments to these libraries by $60,000 a year. Enough to pay two full time and one part time "content monitor". By my estimate you need one such monitor per 40 simultaneous users.
To make it less expensive you could have the adult and child sections of the library "browser pool" separated then only install a human filter in the larger kiddies section. Depending on demand adults may be allowed to use the kiddies section but only according to the kiddies' rules.
This system only breaks down in the unlikely event that the "human monitor" also want's to look at Pr0n and is dumb enough to risk his job for it.
The question just about everyone wants to know about.
Now the KDE and Gnome are usable and at least one claims to be mature. What are they doing right ? What are they doing wrong and what do the need to address in the near term ( I.e. obvious usability bugs ) and the long term ( pushing the envelope and making things better ).
How much stuff is needed at the lower levels of the system to make these projects more usable than they are now ?
What do you think is the most glaring gap among Linux applications. My favorite is a clone of "edit.com" from Windows/dos. What's yours' ?
I read somewhere that the editor was soposed to be selecteble from a menu option in a latter version of KDevelop.
This means using Emacs or some other manly editor will be less than trivial. In the mean time you shuld be able to hack something like "kfte" into it with little effort.
xemacs may take a bit more sweat.
The fact is you asked how to make Gnome go fast. More hardware is what works. Personally; I am a pore person in a 3rd world country so I really can't afford some fancy Celeron machine.
My main workstation is a P200 with 64 Megs of assorted RAM. KDE is fairly responsive on it. In fact Netscape, StarOffice and Gnome are the only things that feel slow on this box.
Yes, I did try Win2K on it ( up to the RCs ) and it was almost as fast as Windows 3.11 on my PS/2 386.
I'll try to help.
Yes. But most Gnome developers won't even discus that these days.
Yeah. That's what team KDE said. In fact there was an attempt to do just that in a project called "Harmony". As soon as Troll Tech announced that QT-2.0 would be under an OSS / Free Software license called QPL the developers on that project quit and went to work on KDE.
This is incorrect. They could view the QT source all they wanted but they couldn't distribute modifications.
A desktop interface is very much a matter of preference. There are people out there who prefer FVWM2 for reasons other than performance. Try them all and use whatever you like. There is no need to worry about benefits that don't affect you.
Get a faster machine. After you get a really fast box there really isn't any need to worry about the performance of the desktop.
Why not just use whatever works for you ? If Gnome doesn't like your machine or the way you configure it so just use KDE and stop fretting. It's not like the KDE desktop will stop you from using the Gnome apps or vise versa.
At the very least Gnome has a far better FreeCell program. Better even than the Windows 9x version.
That won't stop them from moderating us both into oblivion. :)
This will do wonders for Linux Availability and Scalebility.
That however is just touching on the obvious part. Less obvious is that this will let stuff written for Linux scale to the upper limits of business computing in very short order.
How is that you ask ?
Linux has been ported to the IBM Mainframe in such a way that a single s390 Box can run thousands of copies of Linux each doing dedicated tasks. The resources available to each can be adjusted to whatever the Kernel supports ( I.e. 64 GB or RAM, 2 TB of Storage etc... ) or what's needed for that particular operation ( 1 mips on the image server, 3 on the Web servers and 20 on the Database server ).
Add this in and you start to see a really terrifying scenario where Linux is able to scale to tomorrow's web service tasks and very little else can. By that I mean when Computing takes off in the 3rd world the way TV has. When Bandwidth becomes cheaper and more abundant. You are talking about 20 Million 800x600 two way Videophone conversations at the same time.
Nobody has the horsepower to play traffic cop in that situation now. But a Linux mainframe scaled to beyond today's limit will. Being Linux will simplify the development process since the developers can all have it on the desktop too.
As for the Licensing. SGI isn't completely cluless. They put XFS under the GPL to get it into the Kernel and avoid a fuss. This ccNUMA stuff will be at least partially in Kernel space so you can once again expect it to be GPLed.
Not really. The classic DDoS attack ( AKA what took down Yahoo ) simply has no defiance. Apart from perhaps having separate sites under different names with the same Data onboard.
What most people miss about those DDoS attacks is that they didn't actually overload the servers. On the contrary, they loaded down the pipes so much that the servers sat idle for hours.
See cringly's latest rant for more details ( not from him but a letter writer ). The only practical protection is to secure machines to prevent them becoming zombies in someone else's DDoS army.
Linux on these devices will start hitting the street very soon weather you like it or not. Coolness factor isn't enough they have to be cheap enough to make and functional enough to use.
Palm Pilot already killed the whole novelty portable gadget thing two years ago. These days people want to get real work done. Now if we could get DeCSS on a device that was all edge to edge touch screen and just barely wide enough to include a DVD drive but only 1/2" thick.
Ohh, wait DeCSS was having a "chilling effect" on innovations in the DVD marketplace. Or could it be the lawsuits that are doing it ?
Here is a suggestion. All those companies who could use this code to cut costs on both CSS licensing and chipsets ( No CSS hardware decoder needed ) should get together and sponsor the defense and any possible counter attack ( The MPAA can be sued on this ). In the mean time they could form something like the Trillion project to hammer out the code which should then be 1.0 quality by the time the case ends.
Imagine these things hitting the street in Christmas seconds after the temporary injunction has been lifted ?
The Microsoft thing was probebly a deliberate joke. many other serches for Satan and other demonic stuff dosn't go anywhere near there.
Yeah. Just like S3 and Video cards or Rockwell and Modems.
When you make the chipsets and unknown manufacturers use your refrence designes plus your brand name to sell the damnd things you may just as well be a manufacturer.
PS : The VIAGRA had that in bold multicolord letters on the largest chip on the board ( not counting the changeble CPU ). VIA was also plaster all over the box.
2. Google is a little broken in that a search for "More Evil than the devil himself" brings up Welcome to Microsoft's Homepage
Until recently google was in BETA and as such could have had significant bugs. Maybe one of those bugs did that ?
I beg to differ.
Quake 1, 2, & 3 are all share ware of the "Incomplete product" variety. I.e. You can download a fully playable "complete" game and enjoy yourself for a while then you go to the store and buy the version with the extra levels and whatnot.
It may not be the main product but you can still get Macafee anti virus via FTP with an expiration date. That's why they bought up other companies. They can make lots of money in other channels and with other products.
I thought WinZip was a PKWare product. If it isn't then PKWare may as well be dead.
They got too ambitious. too bad.
I agree.
Gnome dose some things differently than KDE. As to ease of interface that depends on the user. I know people who have been driving stick shift for years and can't drive an automatic.
It's the same with desktops. Some people find Gnome clunky and others can't figure out KDE. Ask a Mac user about Windows and you will learn just how "not easy" that is. So if some journalist doesn't get Gnome, too bad. The Gnome authors should read what he found wrong with it and ask for details if necessary then incorporate the best of his ideas.
That's the tough thing about end user apps. To develop them with quality you have to listen to a lot of people who really can't code draw or write decent documentation.
Sometime last year Corel signed a deal with VIA that would have had them shipping Corel Linux tweaked and compatible with VIA motherboards.
This sounds like much the same thing but from Abit. Frankly the Corel Linux on VIA boards sounds more interesting even for VaporWare. 1st of all VIA sells a lot of Elcheapo all in one boards so they would have to use those LinModem drivers from PcTel ( they use PcTel Modem chipsets ). Also a board with everything included means a simple and consistent way for any white box manufacturer to build cheap and "reliable" Linux desktop computers with most of the usual niceties.
Too bad it doesn't exist until we see the code and this looks like it exists today.
PS : The "GRA" from VIA has got to be the coolest chipset name. It's printed as VIAGRA.
Macafee -> Anti Virus
ID -> Doom Quake and other games
mIRC
CuteFTP.
PKWare -> PKZip
These were the cream of the shareware crop and they are still alive
and well. The 1st 2 are huge companies with million$ in revenue.
Macafee bought up 3 other companies outright.
They all still do shareware. The problem is that buying shareware
is so much of a hassle even when the price is low that many people
don't bother. I.e. The $30 graphics program market until recently
consisted of people who didn't have a credit card.
It dose. Buy a modem.
The chances are aproximatly '0' that this
beast will have a real modem.
In it's person of the century issue Time magazine got experts in similar fields to write the biographies on the winners. Nelson Mandela wrote up on Ghandi and Knuth wrote up on Einstein.
He made up "Supper K" partly because the audience wasn't all Mathematicians. I am not and yet I could follow the calculations anyway. Also it was his creation and had made it into the Guinness Book as "largest defined number" or something like that.
As for his greatness. Tex is one of the very old pieces of Free Software. There has been a reward out for finding a bug for some years now. The last winner was 1/2 a decade ago.
Wow. You have just demonstrated your utter lack of knowledge.
There are actually more written Languages in Africa than in Europe. Africa has several alphabets too.
It is worth noting that Egyptian Hieroglyphics are one of the oldest known written languages.
1st and foremost you assume a Philosopher, Theologian and a Scientist are mutually exclusive. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is why I mentioned Knuth to begin with.
He lands squarely in all 3 categories at the same time. The lecture I mention above is a good example of this.
You see some scientists after spending a lifetime examining the universe arrive at the conclusion that something is missing and scientists are hammering square pegs into round holes. Mathematicians are especially prone to this because when they apply probability to "The Big Bang" and it's sister theory "Evolution" they get the same odds I got.
Too close to impossible to have happened this way. That leaves the door wide open for Theology. No other theory actually matches all the observable evidence.
This "most distant object" for instance opens to question the idea that the universe is 12 to 15 Billion years old. After all, the Light from this thing spent 13 Billion years traveling towards us. If we are traveling in opposite directions at less than the speed of light the existence of something anywhere near to that far away in the opposite direction would imply that we are at the center of the universe.
On the other hand maybe scientists have missed the estimates of the cosmos' size and age by an order of magnitude.
Finally the notion of Theologians and Philosophers not observing the universe is in itself preposterous. They do. Sometimes it's by direct observation (Telescope time etc..) Other times it's by reviewing the reports of scientists.
Finally on the matter of "Dogmatic Books". It is worth noting that most theories exist for years before anyone figures out how to test it and then another long wait until the technology exists. See the "WIMP" story for an example. Those areas of the Bible which have been tested have held up.
I.e. There is a single layer of silt well above the layers that hold dinosaur bones that occurs across the entire surface of the planet. It's the only bit of sediment that dose. Geologists say it means we had one big ocean for a very short while. This matches up with Flood. Arguably the most far fetched story in there.
well they have and the argument has been split every way you care to name. I.e. just because you are in one grope doesn't decide what your opinion on this is.
Dogmatic. Closed mind. Uninterested in other points of view. It looks like being an Atheist and believing in Evolution is a religion for some people.
Neither can astronomers or dentists. All we can do is pile up evidence and try to make sense of it.
This is one theory. Another is that the background radiation has a current source. We won't even have a proper clue until we can check if it exists in space two galaxies over and find the same pattern.
This is some of the reasoning that makes this so fascinating. What if the universe is simpler than everyone likes to think ? I.e. a massive 3 dimensional cloud of stuff. This stuff includes all we can see and a billion times more that we can't. It isn't however infinite. Just too big for us to see the edge. It dose have an age but a lot farther in the past than visible objects suggest. It may be so broad that the light from some objects just hasn't gotten hear yet.
The theories may all be wrong. The measurements may not show what we think they do. Remember when all the Scientists thought the earth was flat and the center of the universe ?
http://www.technetcast.com/tnc_program.html?progra m_id=50