Intel said they were working with Redhat to make sure their Linux 'runs best' on Intel architecture. It's pretty sad that their processors are so bad that the only way they can make sure distros run best on IA32 is to (no doubt) delay ports to other architectures...
Ship first, fix later. So long as your program largely works, and doesn't corrupt data, it's ok if it crashes or misbehaves occasionally. It's more important to be out there and be largely feature-complete than bugfree. So long as the patches come often, it's far better to have something that mostly works and has a lot of useful features than a product that's far less featureful than the opposition and bugless.
Grr. The day after I decide to update my old Alpha to 6.0, Redhat makes a 6.1... Oh well, I guess it's not such a loss -- the Alpha 6.1 isn't around yet anyhow.
But there's still a large amount of luck involved, and so it might be considered to be gambling. After all, to use the guidelines proposed by someone else in this channel, to setup a lemonade stand, there's a cost of entry there's risk involved there's something you get if you win (profit)
Why could it possibly be wrong? If the gambler chooses to behave suboptimally (i.e. use bad strategy), then the results are their responsibility. WRT Nintendo and the kids, the kids arn't suffering -- it's the parents money that's being spent, all because they're giving it to their kids. Where is nintendo doing wrong? WRT worth, the pokemon cards arn't worthless pieces of cardboard any more than a twenty dollar bill is a worthless piece of green paper. Value is based on perception.
Perhaps you'd be willing to give me specifics on how you think FreeBSD is superior. I'm certainly not down on FreeBSD, but I have a suspicion that you don't know what you're talking about. WRT interface, yes, OS/2 has a really nice GUI. But is it really worth running a dying OS barely supported by its designer to get that interface? Binary INI files that get corrupted every so often, making you rebuild your desktop from scratch? Uptimes of usually only a few weeks? Very little active development of software for end users? I moderate 2 usenet newsgroups on OS/2 currently, one of them an announce group, and traffic has been steadily dropping. Yes, OS/2 has a great interface, but are you willing to let UI be the only thing you look at when you choose your OS? If not, you probably should be looking elsewhere.
Finally, what exactly do you mean by hacked together and poorly documented? Be specific.
It seems an ok time for OS/2 to die, now that Linux is mature enough and X now has nice enough Window Managers to make it usable by ex-OS/2 users. I made the switch a few years ago (a bit after 4.0's release)... OS/2, like any OS, had it's problems and it's strengths. Let's go down the line with NT, Linux, and OS/2...
Unix compatibility OS/2 -- Pretty good. Could run X, and had the EMX libraries to make porting Unix apps fairly painless. Port of GCC available, lots of tools available NT -- Ok. No free X, but various libraries (Cgywin, etc) make porting Unix apps less painful. Lots of tools available Linux -- Duh.
Windows Compatability OS/2 -- Ok. Win32s and Win16 done well, a binary converter that works well on some Win32 apps is available for free on the net NT -- Duh. Linux -- Ok. WINE and DosEmu do ok here.
Stability OS/2 -- Ok. Better than Win95, and if you don't consider the WPS hanging to be hanging the OS, then the OS is very stable. Of course, the WPS does hang sometimes, and occasinally when the WPS databases get corrupted, you need to do some fairly ugly and destructive things to recover. NT -- Good. Occasionally the OS hangs, but not very often, and when it does, you normally just need to reboot. Linux -- Excellent. Uptime is frequently measured in months.
Interface OS/2 -- Highly customizable, very sophisticated, and sometimes slow. For the adventurous, it's possible to run other desktops apart from the WPS (Some of which use PM, or you can run X) NT -- Much less customizable, very standardized, and with the advent of IE4 integration, often slow. It's possible to run other desktops, but more difficult than under OS/2 or Linux, and reduces system functionality Linux -- Highly customizable, no standard interface. Networking functionality built-in.
Overall, I'd have to say that the interface was the high point of OS/2, and I kind of miss it...
Damn. My cat is sitting on my mouse and I can't click submit.:(
Activestate has a few things (http://www.activestate.com), including a support program, language ties to VisualBasic, and a few other doodads. There's a GUI perl debugger at http://members.tripod.com/~CurtMcKelvey/perldbgu i/ I thought there was a commercial IDE, but I lost the URL to it..
Personally, I greatly prefer programming alone, as it eliminates problems with group communication and lets me pursue a vision as to how things should work. IMO, if you have 10 programmers and 9 programs to be written, it'd be really great if you assign 1 to making a library with stuff that the other programmers think are likely to be useful to many people, and assign the other 9 to one project each.
Strictly speaking, Win3.1 used a mix of preemptive and cooperative multitasking -- cooperative for Win16/32s apps, and preemptive for DOS apps. Completely cooperative multitasking wouldn't work with DOS apps -- DOS programs don't have a way to give up the timesplice.
There are some traffic lights in my area (Columbus, Ohio) where there are crosswalks, buttons for the crosswalks, and 4-way intersections. At these intersections, the light will periodically change even when there are no cars waiting to use the intersection the other way and no pedestrians have pushed the button to request walk across traffic. This is quite irritating...
1) Do POWER processors have an integrated FPU? If so, does this 2-CPU on a die have a shared FPU or 2 separate FPUs? 2) Is it possible and/or likely that they might share certain components without performance degradation? 3) Does this use the copper fab stuff that IBM announced some time ago?
Re:Everything we'd need in a potential replacement
on
Is X The Future?
·
· Score: 1
What I meant was I was using client to mean where the user is at, and server to mean the other place:)
Slashdot Mirror
reached, there are numerous other areas to work
on to improve performance. Among them:
Intel said they were working with Redhat to make
sure their Linux 'runs best' on Intel architecture.
It's pretty sad that their processors are so bad
that the only way they can make sure distros
run best on IA32 is to (no doubt) delay ports to
other architectures...
Ship first, fix later. So long as your program
largely works, and doesn't corrupt data, it's ok
if it crashes or misbehaves occasionally. It's
more important to be out there and be largely
feature-complete than bugfree. So long as the
patches come often, it's far better to have
something that mostly works and has a lot of
useful features than a product that's far less
featureful than the opposition and bugless.
Grr. The day after I decide to update my old ... Oh well,
Alpha to 6.0, Redhat makes a 6.1
I guess it's not such a loss -- the Alpha 6.1
isn't around yet anyhow.
It supports most of the common quicktime codecs..
Damn. Looks like someone beat me to it. I guess
I should've peeked through before posting.
Netscape*Navigator*toolBar*myshopping.isEnabled: false
:)
If you don't know what this is or how to use it,
this message probably isn't for you
But there's still a large amount of luck involved,
and so it might be considered to be gambling.
After all, to use the guidelines proposed
by someone else in this channel, to setup a
lemonade stand,
there's a cost of entry
there's risk involved
there's something you get if you win (profit)
Why is it just plain wrong? Would encouraging
them to set up a lemonade stand to be wrong?
They might not earn any money. Isn't that a
gamble?
Why could it possibly be wrong? If the gambler
chooses to behave suboptimally (i.e. use
bad strategy), then the results are their
responsibility. WRT Nintendo and the kids,
the kids arn't suffering -- it's the parents
money that's being spent, all because they're
giving it to their kids. Where is nintendo doing
wrong?
WRT worth, the pokemon cards arn't worthless
pieces of cardboard any more than a twenty dollar
bill is a worthless piece of green paper. Value
is based on perception.
Perhaps you'd be willing to give me specifics on
how you think FreeBSD is superior. I'm certainly
not down on FreeBSD, but I have a suspicion that
you don't know what you're talking about.
WRT interface, yes, OS/2 has a really nice
GUI. But is it really worth running a
dying OS barely supported by its designer to
get that interface? Binary INI files that get
corrupted every so often, making you rebuild your
desktop from scratch? Uptimes of usually only
a few weeks? Very little active development of
software for end users? I moderate 2 usenet
newsgroups on OS/2 currently, one of them an
announce group, and traffic has been steadily
dropping. Yes, OS/2 has a great interface, but
are you willing to let UI be the only thing you
look at when you choose your OS? If not, you
probably should be looking elsewhere.
Finally, what exactly do you mean by hacked
together and poorly documented? Be specific.
It seems an ok time for OS/2 to die, now that
:(
Linux is mature enough and X now has nice enough
Window Managers to make it usable by ex-OS/2
users. I made the switch a few years ago (a bit
after 4.0's release)...
OS/2, like any OS, had it's problems and it's
strengths. Let's go down the line with
NT, Linux, and OS/2...
Unix compatibility
OS/2 -- Pretty good. Could run X, and had the
EMX libraries to make porting Unix apps
fairly painless. Port of GCC available,
lots of tools available
NT -- Ok. No free X, but various libraries
(Cgywin, etc) make porting Unix apps less
painful. Lots of tools available
Linux -- Duh.
Windows Compatability
OS/2 -- Ok. Win32s and Win16 done well, a binary
converter that works well on some Win32
apps is available for free on the net
NT -- Duh.
Linux -- Ok. WINE and DosEmu do ok here.
Stability
OS/2 -- Ok. Better than Win95, and if you don't
consider the WPS hanging to be hanging
the OS, then the OS is very stable. Of
course, the WPS does hang sometimes, and
occasinally when the WPS databases get
corrupted, you need to do some fairly
ugly and destructive things to recover.
NT -- Good. Occasionally the OS hangs, but not
very often, and when it does, you normally
just need to reboot.
Linux -- Excellent. Uptime is frequently
measured in months.
Interface
OS/2 -- Highly customizable, very sophisticated,
and sometimes slow. For the adventurous,
it's possible to run other desktops apart
from the WPS (Some of which use PM, or you
can run X)
NT -- Much less customizable, very standardized,
and with the advent of IE4 integration,
often slow. It's possible to run other
desktops, but more difficult than under
OS/2 or Linux, and reduces system
functionality
Linux -- Highly customizable, no standard
interface. Networking functionality
built-in.
Overall, I'd have to say that the interface was
the high point of OS/2, and I kind of miss it...
Damn. My cat is sitting on my mouse and I can't
click submit.
*moves cat*
There we go
Well, maybe after they do that, they can make an :)
OS for people like me who have scottish blood.
Us Scots need an OS all our own too!
I don't care. I don't see ads anyhow :)
I had this problem until I installed some of the
recommended patches for 6.2. And I kind
of *liked* 4Dwm (I use Windowmaker too now though)
Wouldn't getting an Alpha be an alternative to x86?
All they seem to want to talk about is IA32 and
IA64. Some gurus.
Activestate has a few thingsu i/
(http://www.activestate.com), including a support
program, language ties to VisualBasic, and a few
other doodads.
There's a GUI perl debugger at
http://members.tripod.com/~CurtMcKelvey/perldbg
I thought there was a commercial IDE, but I lost
the URL to it..
Neat. I wonder if they need extra sysadmins...
Personally, I greatly prefer programming alone,
as it eliminates problems with group communication
and lets me pursue a vision as to how things
should work. IMO, if you have 10 programmers
and 9 programs to be written, it'd be really
great if you assign 1 to making a library with
stuff that the other programmers think are likely
to be useful to many people, and assign the other
9 to one project each.
Of course, if you're on an Alpha, and lack
an intel machine, you could use the x86 emulator
that DEC has so generously provided us...
Strictly speaking, Win3.1 used a mix of preemptive
and cooperative multitasking -- cooperative for
Win16/32s apps, and preemptive for DOS apps.
Completely cooperative multitasking wouldn't
work with DOS apps -- DOS programs don't have
a way to give up the timesplice.
There are some traffic lights in my area
(Columbus, Ohio) where there are crosswalks,
buttons for the crosswalks, and 4-way
intersections. At these intersections, the
light will periodically change even when there
are no cars waiting to use the intersection the
other way and no pedestrians have pushed the
button to request walk across traffic. This is
quite irritating...
1) Do POWER processors have an integrated FPU? If
so, does this 2-CPU on a die have a
shared FPU or 2 separate FPUs?
2) Is it possible and/or likely that they might
share certain components without
performance degradation?
3) Does this use the copper fab stuff that IBM
announced some time ago?
What I meant was I was using client to mean where :)
the user is at, and server to mean the other
place