Too bad. this would have been cool if it was possible to add the performances of Clusters with the performances of SMP. But that's pretty rare to be able to have the better of two worlds;)
At least 2000 it seems (if somebody try to do it then it must thoerically scale to that extent), but do we have a theorical limit or something like that???
And are these computers mono-processors or SMP? If Linux was going to have great enhancement in SMP for 4+ CPU's then would it be worth to create a cluster of SMP boxes given the price difference between SMP and non=SMP boxes actually (I suppose if you do a 2000 SMP cluster then you must have special price).
6)create a secret clone and make robbery "No Mister the policeman I was with 200 persons all this evening"
7)Create an army of Schwarzeneger/Stallone/...
Like all technology we can imagine the best and the worse with it.
BTW i suppose you wanted to say "send the clone at work and go to the Bahamas" because what you said is worse than the reality. Why would I pay a travel to the Bahamas to my clone if I must work for it??? Are you dumb;)
Like Julia Roberts, Sharon Stone,... and some other that aren't known.
Bu this is doomed to stay in my dream. they wouldn't be slave and would have the same right that other people.
Given that they must have these rights (they are human isn't it) we can't produce them to provide implants so would it be worth to do it???
Of course you will always find a nuts to make an army of clones but this would be easy to fight it (just find an allergy or a disease these clones are subject to and they will be diminished).
That is something i was wondering since the Mincraft benchmark. Is there some kernel level thread.
If there wasn't up to now and if we add it and modify some part of the kernel to use it efficiently this could be a considerabvle boost in SMP performances.
Hope this will become true.
Imagine Linux kicking Nt's ass on high level harware (something like 16+ CPU's). that is one thing I would want to see (the sooner the better;) but this isn't the most important thing either).
i don't know Be inc very well but it seems to me that they only have one big productL BeOS and that this product is still in the development phase. During this phase they need some money, so they sell beta versions for cheap.
As much I don't like when a multi-billion company try to get the last $ out of me by selling their beta versions, as much this is not the same for a small company that need some funding and don't have big pockets.
BTW Be is still beta right? (or i've missed something maybe) so it is better to make incompability in the Beta version than between the 1.0 version and the subsequent version. isn't that the point to make beta versions??
if they fork the standard base then they probably won't follow the LSB and that will fall in this category but you are right to point this out.
This is also the great strenght of Linux over *BSD on the political/practical plan.
First we are sure that the only way to take Linux into a proprietary OS is to fight the GPL in court (their can be proprietary code on top of the OS but the main parts are open source).
Second the GPL license seem to prevent code forking more efficiently than the BSD license. Ok their was the Emacs/XEmacs fork and the GCC/EGCS fork (which resolved gracefully BTW) but these seems to be exception.
Maybe the BSD forks are exception too (don't know enough about them) but they are more profound. People are fearing that Linux will split up in many incompatible version but we already have FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD and BSD/OS. They are 3 different OSes, not three different distros (although they must have a good part of code in common still). I suppose the compatibility between them is pretty good at least on the source level but they still are different as would 3 Linux-derived OS be different.
This may also be an argument against this kind of fear. If *BSD though different are compatible enough because they are open source then this is more likely to happen to Linux if he split (althoug if Linux split it would be more of a result of commercial pressures and may make it harder to maintain a good level of compatibility).
Ok, much more long that what I thought (and less constructed, as usual;)). Let not forget to support Free software even if a company come with a perverted version.
We have the chance that the major Linux distro is releasing all his code under GPL or another open license (for code they contribute to project that already had other licenses) so I will wait until they do something that will prove that they want to be the Microsoft of linux before criticising them on their size.
About something that will prove...(see above) i don't count marketing because this is necessary to any company that want to sell his products, they only have their name, don't forget it. But I count releasing code to an non-open license (no, selling other people products like Motif don't count either, they don't devellop it) or seeking agreements with company to port their products only to Redhat Linux (impossible until they release some proprietary stuff). the CodeWarrior buzz don't count because this is originated from Metrowerks and CodeWarrior can function under other distros. But if RedHat don't abid to the LSB (Linux Standard Base) when it come out (supposing this will be a good standard base) I will count it as something bad (i.e. not willing to share their dominant market share).
and if ever I switch to another distro I will avoid any distro that ship some proprietary code (installer, configuration tool...) and probably will go Debian.
Redhat IPO's don't count either, not until they do something bad will I critisize them on being too big... Ok if their was 2 commercial distros left because Redhat won the distro war being fair (which i doubt, they still will be a great choice i think) i probably will support the other one, but their is still some time before this is the case.
Re:*BSD are older -> more mature
on
Linux 2.2.10
·
· Score: 1
Shall we point that FreeBSD use a lot of code that is 20 years old (from BSD 4.4). FreeBSD may be more young that linux in this incarnation but they use a lot of code that is older and then more tested. Linux is still maturing and have a lot of default, but it is maturing very fast.
I know that my school were using the yellow pages service to distribute the password file so we had the same password on every machine, but since you seem to be wanting to centralize even the home directory I don't think this can scale up.
I have heard that Linux have been ported some time ago to Nintendo 64. the port haven't been made available because of pressure from Nintendo.
Maybe this was an hoax...but maybe not. it seems to me that the N64 was using MIPS chips and Linux was working on them, so one of the harder step was already done.
Maybe there product is better than what you think.
OSS/Free is not there product. OSS is there product. It support more HW than OSS/Free, have more feature,...
Ok this is closed source. I love Free Software and really thingit is great but i don't think we will get rid of closed source sofware any time soon simply because it is easier to make money with closed source softwares.
And if ALSA don't work with XMMS (ex-X11amp) then it may be better to add ALSA support to ESD (if it's not here) so any application using ESD can support ALSA through ESD.
The difference is when i buy a commercial version of Linux i still have the source.
When i buy the commercial version of Be I don't have them. And when i get the free version...Oh wait, I can't have a free version.
I don't think sources are important for me because I want to fix codes but this is important because I CAN fix code if I want, and other can and do it.
What people using this argument (I don't care about sources because I don't read them) are saying is the same as "i don't care about free speech because I have nothing to say". But the day you will have to defend you rights you will be happy to have free speech. It's the same with the source.
I'm not more English than you (I'm French and i can't speak a word of Dutch) but i can say you didn't speak oxford English...or Oxford English have new words like ";^]";)
Since you will have the choice between Windows and Linux the only people that would want a refund would be people wanting another distro or *BSD. This type of people probably won't buy compaq computers so your point is moot.
On the other end we didn't knew how much a company was paying MS to put Windows(and that was different for each company). I've read somewhere that redhat would receive about $6 per installation. The price involved to have a refund may be higher than the price of the refund.
Of course I suppose you just maid this post either for fun or for a flame war (I hope and think this was the first choice).
"If it weren't for Paul (I became a billionaire by being pals with Bill Gates) Allen, they'd have been out of business already"
Are you talking about Transmeta or Microsoft???
That's sure that if it wasn't for Paul Allen Microsoft wouldn't have become what it is. Of course he never was behind the politic but in the beginning he was the computer engineer far more than Bill Gates was. If they managed to sell DOS it was not only because Bill Gates was smart enough not to say to IBM that they hadn't any OS contract with Digital Research (though they redirected IBM to DR in the first place) but if they managed to sell DOS it was also because it was sufficently working to be sold. Microsoft has made is money not on good products but on products that work just enough to be sold, and without Allen (and the first creator of QDOS) they wouldn't have had something that would have been working enough to present to IBM.
Warning: With the GPL you can keep you changes closed as long as you keep it in your company. If you distribute amodified version then you must distribute the changes. There is a little trick here, you're not forced to give the changes as long as they don't change the external world.
I don't know the internals workings of Linux that much but I have some questions.
Since this would be a kind of boot on CD game, you can run root without any problem I think, at least when you are playing alone. There probably would be some security problems in a network but can't we do a special distro to secure this??
Or wouldn't it be possible to compile a special version of Linux that will allow user programs to directly access the display/soundcard/keyboard/joystick/network card... all the things that need a game to speed it up?? Couldn't it be possible to change Linux so you have an option at config time/a patch/any other system that will allow that without compromising the security too much (something more secure than Win9* at least).
And who talked about X window??? Crystal Space seems to work with SVGAlib so why use X-Window??? Furthermore if this is a bootable CD I really don't see the need to use X.
That's true that it would be hard to make it work on every PC due to the large range of HW their is, but wouldn't it be possible to use a directory to stock the saved games and the modules for the drivers??
The kernel would boot with the support for a generic Hard drive and a generic CD-ROM drivers and with support for ISO9660 and VFAT and Ext2fs (for those that use Linux, or ext3 if available) and load specific drivers once he is up and running, those drivers being on the hard drive.
You may say that there will be problems with different versions of kernel not being able to load the modules but if we do a specific distro to base the game development on we can assure that the kernel used does not change his loading scheme too often.
And if a free software game is enough successful I think that a lot of hardware manufacturer would make hteir hardware compatible with the game...so more hardware drivers for Linux;)
Of course i don't think this is that simple but without anything to base our reflexion on we can't discuss these issues.
Either I really don't understand what a hacker is (I'm not one yet, just a wannabe but thought I understood the def) or they are wrong or i really don't know how to learn English.
The way I understood what they called hackers or "white hat hackers" in this articles are people that are on the other side of the fence and help do network protection (like ISS). If this is what the article is meaning I don't agree that it is the definition of hacker. Maybe the guy at ISS are hacker but this isn't that that give them this distinction.
For me a hacker is someone who belong to a human society that have the characteristics (the society) to have a high global technical level in computer science domain and is a society of gift. That is I'm a hacker not only if I am a good at using computers (knowing how to use a spreadsheet doesn't count of course) but also if I do something to the hacker community and agree with the ethic of this community. I personnaly know how to use computer (there is a lot of things i don't know but I know how to learn them for most of them) and i really love the hacker ethic, but having never done anything for the community (writing free software, maintening/traducting an howto or a manual, administring a mailing list/a website...) I don't call myself a hackerm just a wannabe (and a newbie).
I am the only one that understand the word hacker like that (in the main line at least)???
Slashdot Mirror
The day Transmeta give some informations about what they are doing this could be a cool motto for slashdot. No????
Too bad. this would have been cool if it was possible to add the performances of Clusters with the performances of SMP. But that's pretty rare to be able to have the better of two worlds
thanks
how much can this type of computer scale up.
At least 2000 it seems (if somebody try to do it then it must thoerically scale to that extent), but do we have a theorical limit or something like that???
And are these computers mono-processors or SMP?
If Linux was going to have great enhancement in SMP for 4+ CPU's then would it be worth to create a cluster of SMP boxes given the price difference between SMP and non=SMP boxes actually (I suppose if you do a 2000 SMP cluster then you must have special price).
6)create a secret clone and make robbery "No Mister the policeman I was with 200 persons all this evening"
7)Create an army of Schwarzeneger/Stallone/...
Like all technology we can imagine the best and the worse with it.
BTW i suppose you wanted to say "send the clone at work and go to the Bahamas" because what you said is worse than the reality. Why would I pay a travel to the Bahamas to my clone if I must work for it??? Are you dumb
Like Julia Roberts, Sharon Stone,... and some other that aren't known.
Bu this is doomed to stay in my dream. they wouldn't be slave and would have the same right that other people.
Given that they must have these rights (they are human isn't it) we can't produce them to provide implants so would it be worth to do it???
Of course you will always find a nuts to make an army of clones but this would be easy to fight it (just find an allergy or a disease these clones are subject to and they will be diminished).
BTW, in TPM isn't the war called the Clone War???
That is something i was wondering since the Mincraft benchmark. Is there some kernel level thread.
If there wasn't up to now and if we add it and modify some part of the kernel to use it efficiently this could be a considerabvle boost in SMP performances.
Hope this will become true.
Imagine Linux kicking Nt's ass on high level harware (something like 16+ CPU's). that is one thing I would want to see (the sooner the better
just some of my dreams
this were the Japanese that attacked Pearl harbour, not the German.
the German didn't even fight in the pacific area (nothing I know about of at least).
BTW that is what drove the USA in the WW2 so it wasn't such a good move for the Japanese
i don't know Be inc very well but it seems to me that they only have one big productL BeOS and that this product is still in the development phase. During this phase they need some money, so they sell beta versions for cheap.
As much I don't like when a multi-billion company try to get the last $ out of me by selling their beta versions, as much this is not the same for a small company that need some funding and don't have big pockets.
BTW Be is still beta right? (or i've missed something maybe) so it is better to make incompability in the Beta version than between the 1.0 version and the subsequent version. isn't that the point to make beta versions??
if they fork the standard base then they probably won't follow the LSB and that will fall in this category but you are right to point this out.
This is also the great strenght of Linux over *BSD on the political/practical plan.
First we are sure that the only way to take Linux into a proprietary OS is to fight the GPL in court (their can be proprietary code on top of the OS but the main parts are open source).
Second the GPL license seem to prevent code forking more efficiently than the BSD license. Ok their was the Emacs/XEmacs fork and the GCC/EGCS fork (which resolved gracefully BTW) but these seems to be exception.
Maybe the BSD forks are exception too (don't know enough about them) but they are more profound. People are fearing that Linux will split up in many incompatible version but we already have FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD and BSD/OS. They are 3 different OSes, not three different distros (although they must have a good part of code in common still). I suppose the compatibility between them is pretty good at least on the source level but they still are different as would 3 Linux-derived OS be different.
This may also be an argument against this kind of fear. If *BSD though different are compatible enough because they are open source then this is more likely to happen to Linux if he split (althoug if Linux split it would be more of a result of commercial pressures and may make it harder to maintain a good level of compatibility).
Ok, much more long that what I thought (and less constructed, as usual
We have the chance that the major Linux distro is releasing all his code under GPL or another open license (for code they contribute to project that already had other licenses) so I will wait until they do something that will prove that they want to be the Microsoft of linux before criticising them on their size.
About something that will prove...(see above) i don't count marketing because this is necessary to any company that want to sell his products, they only have their name, don't forget it. But I count releasing code to an non-open license (no, selling other people products like Motif don't count either, they don't devellop it) or seeking agreements with company to port their products only to Redhat Linux (impossible until they release some proprietary stuff). the CodeWarrior buzz don't count because this is originated from Metrowerks and CodeWarrior can function under other distros. But if RedHat don't abid to the LSB (Linux Standard Base) when it come out (supposing this will be a good standard base) I will count it as something bad (i.e. not willing to share their dominant market share).
and if ever I switch to another distro I will avoid any distro that ship some proprietary code (installer, configuration tool...) and probably will go Debian.
Redhat IPO's don't count either, not until they do something bad will I critisize them on being too big... Ok if their was 2 commercial distros left because Redhat won the distro war being fair (which i doubt, they still will be a great choice i think) i probably will support the other one, but their is still some time before this is the case.
Shall we point that FreeBSD use a lot of code that is 20 years old (from BSD 4.4). FreeBSD may be more young that linux in this incarnation but they use a lot of code that is older and then more tested. Linux is still maturing and have a lot of default, but it is maturing very fast.
I know that my school were using the yellow pages service to distribute the password file so we had the same password on every machine, but since you seem to be wanting to centralize even the home directory I don't think this can scale up.
Oh wait, aren't Novell porting NDS under Linux???
I have heard that Linux have been ported some time ago to Nintendo 64. the port haven't been made available because of pressure from Nintendo.
Maybe this was an hoax...but maybe not. it seems to me that the N64 was using MIPS chips and Linux was working on them, so one of the harder step was already done.
Maybe there product is better than what you think.
OSS/Free is not there product. OSS is there product. It support more HW than OSS/Free, have more feature,...
Ok this is closed source. I love Free Software and really thingit is great but i don't think we will get rid of closed source sofware any time soon simply because it is easier to make money with closed source softwares.
And if ALSA don't work with XMMS (ex-X11amp) then it may be better to add ALSA support to ESD (if it's not here) so any application using ESD can support ALSA through ESD.
The more users Linux will get the more people will write worms or trojan horses for Linux.
We need to:
1)try to improve the security in order to not have obvious security bugs
2)teach users (especially new user, since they will be more and more non-techie) not to open attachments without a confirmation from the sender.
and we must not wait until there is a widespread trojan under Linux to teach them. We must do it now. It also apply for windows users.
The difference is when i buy a commercial version of Linux i still have the source.
When i buy the commercial version of Be I don't have them. And when i get the free version...Oh wait, I can't have a free version.
I don't think sources are important for me because I want to fix codes but this is important because I CAN fix code if I want, and other can and do it.
What people using this argument (I don't care about sources because I don't read them) are saying is the same as "i don't care about free speech because I have nothing to say". But the day you will have to defend you rights you will be happy to have free speech. It's the same with the source.
I'm not more English than you (I'm French and i can't speak a word of Dutch) but i can say you didn't speak oxford English...or Oxford English have new words like ";^]"
Since you will have the choice between Windows and Linux the only people that would want a refund would be people wanting another distro or *BSD. This type of people probably won't buy compaq computers so your point is moot.
On the other end we didn't knew how much a company was paying MS to put Windows(and that was different for each company). I've read somewhere that redhat would receive about $6 per installation. The price involved to have a refund may be higher than the price of the refund.
Of course I suppose you just maid this post either for fun or for a flame war (I hope and think this was the first choice).
"If it weren't for Paul (I became a billionaire by being pals with Bill Gates) Allen, they'd have been out of business already"
Are you talking about Transmeta or Microsoft???
That's sure that if it wasn't for Paul Allen Microsoft wouldn't have become what it is. Of course he never was behind the politic but in the beginning he was the computer engineer far more than Bill Gates was. If they managed to sell DOS it was not only because Bill Gates was smart enough not to say to IBM that they hadn't any OS contract with Digital Research (though they redirected IBM to DR in the first place) but if they managed to sell DOS it was also because it was sufficently working to be sold. Microsoft has made is money not on good products but on products that work just enough to be sold, and without Allen (and the first creator of QDOS) they wouldn't have had something that would have been working enough to present to IBM.
Ok thanks for the answer.
What's the question agains????
;)
Warning: With the GPL you can keep you changes closed as long as you keep it in your company.
If you distribute amodified version then you must distribute the changes. There is a little trick here, you're not forced to give the changes as long as they don't change the external world.
So RedHat, Caldera and the other free Software based companies have no CEO??? That's a big news I think.
Actually the French revolution didn't began like a popular uprising but have more been the utilisation of the poorer by the middle class.
But I understand you and I agree with you. I hope their will be a lot of choice (2, 3 or 4 OSes) and i hope that Linux will be one of these.
I don't know the internals workings of Linux that much but I have some questions.
;)
Since this would be a kind of boot on CD game, you can run root without any problem I think, at least when you are playing alone. There probably would be some security problems in a network but can't we do a special distro to secure this??
Or wouldn't it be possible to compile a special version of Linux that will allow user programs to directly access the display/soundcard/keyboard/joystick/network card... all the things that need a game to speed it up?? Couldn't it be possible to change Linux so you have an option at config time/a patch/any other system that will allow that without compromising the security too much (something more secure than Win9* at least).
And who talked about X window??? Crystal Space seems to work with SVGAlib so why use X-Window??? Furthermore if this is a bootable CD I really don't see the need to use X.
That's true that it would be hard to make it work on every PC due to the large range of HW their is, but wouldn't it be possible to use a directory to stock the saved games and the modules for the drivers??
The kernel would boot with the support for a generic Hard drive and a generic CD-ROM drivers and with support for ISO9660 and VFAT and Ext2fs (for those that use Linux, or ext3 if available) and load specific drivers once he is up and running, those drivers being on the hard drive.
You may say that there will be problems with different versions of kernel not being able to load the modules but if we do a specific distro to base the game development on we can assure that the kernel used does not change his loading scheme too often.
And if a free software game is enough successful I think that a lot of hardware manufacturer would make hteir hardware compatible with the game...so more hardware drivers for Linux
Of course i don't think this is that simple but without anything to base our reflexion on we can't discuss these issues.
Either I really don't understand what a hacker is (I'm not one yet, just a wannabe but thought I understood the def) or they are wrong or i really don't know how to learn English.
The way I understood what they called hackers or "white hat hackers" in this articles are people that are on the other side of the fence and help do network protection (like ISS). If this is what the article is meaning I don't agree that it is the definition of hacker. Maybe the guy at ISS are hacker but this isn't that that give them this distinction.
For me a hacker is someone who belong to a human society that have the characteristics (the society) to have a high global technical level in computer science domain and is a society of gift. That is I'm a hacker not only if I am a good at using computers (knowing how to use a spreadsheet doesn't count of course) but also if I do something to the hacker community and agree with the ethic of this community. I personnaly know how to use computer (there is a lot of things i don't know but I know how to learn them for most of them) and i really love the hacker ethic, but having never done anything for the community (writing free software, maintening/traducting an howto or a manual, administring a mailing list/a website...) I don't call myself a hackerm just a wannabe (and a newbie).
I am the only one that understand the word hacker like that (in the main line at least)???