Why don't they combine them all into one uber-gadget that you wearlike a bracer. That way, not only do you have all your toys, you also have AC +1 on one arm!
Actually, bracers don't give you a +1 AC, they give you a specific AC, e.g. Bracers of Defense AC 6.
secondly, i went to the opera site and the future supported archs list has "G3/G4" listed. this is just nitpicking, but if you compile something to run on a "G3/G4" it'll run on any ppc, so i don't know why they list it as "G3/G4".
Translating corp-speak to geek-speak: What a statement like this invariably means is they're going to compile and test it on at least one G3 and at least one G4. If it also turns out that it happens to work on other things, fine, but they won't be supporting it.
I don't think a distro has to provide something new and innovative to the scene. That's not the point of a distro. Programmers provide new and innovative things, distros are just supposed to package them up nicely for me to save me the work of hunting down and installing them. And compiling them. I don't mind compiling the occasional package, but my/usr partition's got a gig worth of stuff in it! I shudder to think how long it would take to recompile my entire OS. Recompiling the kernel every time I upgrade is enough of a time killer.
Thus, any distro that provides these services for me is a great distro. I particularly like Mandrake because they recompile everything for Pentium, something I'd otherwise want to do but just don't have the time to do for every package in the system. They also package stuff up more quickly than RedHat. I believe Mandrake shipped a distro based on kernel 2.2.13 before RedHat shipped a distro based on 2.2.10! Not that there's anything wrong with RedHat's speed, I'm sure they spend more time making sure everything works well together than Mandrake does, which is why they're always behind on version numbers. But not everyone cares that much, if you're running a server this is wonderful (although why aren't you using Debian in that case?), but for a Pentium desktop machine used by a developer who wants to stay on the bleeding edge, Mandrake performs a great service by being a more up-to-date and optimized RedHat. I don't need anything NEW from them, I just need my RedHat updated more frequently and compiled with Pentium optimizations. Mandrake fills this niche wonderfully.
There aren't too many "based on" distros. Frankly, considering the variety of different users with different needs out there, there probably aren't enough.
Does anyone know how to read the fourth button on the Trackman Marble FX? The three bytes that come back on IRQ 12 don't seem to contain the state of that button anywhere.
...allow people to configure their servers to reject all "non-blessed" clients.
I'm confused. What prevents me from writing a non-blessed client that returns whatever response the server expects from a blessed client?
--
Re:Linux doesn't belong everywhere
on
V2OS under GPL
·
· Score: 1
And for the record, yes I know it's spelled "Dodge" -- my fingers are somewhat less intelligent than my brain.
But who cares, all Chrysler's (Dodge's parent company) best cars are designed by Mitsubishi anyways...
--
Re:Linux doesn't belong everywhere
on
V2OS under GPL
·
· Score: 1
You don't want a "one size fits all" universe. I never saw Sun or BSD advocates trying to get their system absolutely everywhere. Linux bigots are unique in this--in the Unix world.
Bzzt, false. Thanks for playing! Linux bigots are not unique in this. I've seen this from SunOS users, Solaris users (remember the recent "If Solaris was free, there would be no Linux" idiocy?), FreeBSD users, etc. I've also seen it from MacOS users, MS-DOS users, Amiga users, Apple II users, Atari users, etc. I've also seen it from Ford users, Chevy users, Dogde users, etc.
I believe it's called human nature...
--
Re:You can do ALOT in 37k!
on
V2OS under GPL
·
· Score: 1
Of course, it should be noted that the typical 6502 instruction is only 1 byte in size.:)
But seriously, I agree. At what was it, 37KB, what does it do that takes up all this space if it doesn't have memory management and all the other fun stuff you expect from an OS these days? An assembly language program for disk I/O, file system management and program launching out to take no more than 8K. 37KB is greater memory requirements than some old word processors I used to use -- they had to fit into 32K of memory along with the operating system! So, having seen OS + useful applications run in 32K, this new OS doesn't seem terribly impressive. Considering the features it lacks, it seems bloated...
Modern C compilers typically generate code that is as fast or faster than what a person could do it really doesn't make sense.
Correction: Modern C compilers typically generate code that is as fast or faster than what a person who doesn't know assembly language could write. Modern C compilers never generate code that is as fast as an experienced assembly language coder would write, except in trivial, easy cases where what the programmer is trying to do is simple enough that the compiler can understand it. AI still being a distant gleem in researchers' eyes, compilers lack the necessary understanding of what the programmer is actually attempting to do that they need to be truly effective optimizers.
I've seen a lot of disassembled code since I first learned assembly 16 years ago. Once in a while, I've seen trivial bits of code translated as fast as possible. Mostly, I've seen code that I could have written faster in assembly. Never, not even once, have I seen code that was faster than I would have produced myself.
The critical weakness that prevents C code from ever being as fast as assembly language code is the fact that the compiler doesn't know what you're doing. If I write a program in assembly language from the start, it's not going to look or work like a C program written to do the same thing. Not surprisingly then, since the best a C compiler can do is translate your C code into assembly code, it won't be as fast. In order to be as fast, the compiler would need to examine your C program, understand what it's supposed to do, and then write essentially from scratch its own assembly code to do the same thing, paying no attention to how your C code went about it but simply to what the end result would be. At this point, you're not feeding the C compiler code, you're feeding it a specificiation for what a program should do given these inputs and outputs.
Once compilers are capable of doing that, you won't need to write C code to begin with. You'll be able to simply tell the compiler what you want and let it do all the coding. But until this becomes the way compilers work, it will not be possible for a compiler to generate code as small and as fast as an experienced assembly language programmer.
I thought Knuth would get it at first. I thought he deserved it most. And perhaps he does. But upon further reflection, I think awarding Miguel de Icaza might have been a better idea after all. Frankly, Knuth doesn't need any awards. He deserves them in spades, but what good would it do? Everyone knows who he is! He's one of the most, if not the most respected programmer in existence!
Icaza could use the recognition boost more. That may sound funny around/., where everyone knows who he is, but he's not nearly as widely known outside this little community.
I don't know whether this is true, or just an urban legend, but that's the way I heard it.
It's true. A classmate of mine shared a dorm room with three other girls, one being Japanese. One day they had a small cake, and she cut the cake into four pieces. Four girls, four pieces, makes sense, right? Her Japanese roommate added a couple of extra cuts, cutting the cake into eight pieces, then gave each girl two pieces. All without explanation, by the way. It wasn't until later in a Japanese 101 that she found out about the four thing and realized why her roommate had acted so strange that day.
Our teacher, who is Japanese herself, confirmed this is true, and humorously suggested that if your Japanese boyfriend/girlfriend gets you four or nine of something as a gift, you might want to consider what you've been doing wrong lately...:-)
We give everything to slashdot and they give nothing.
Really? Then why are you hear, if you're getting nothing out of this? Personally, I find/. to be one of the best sources of entertainment on the 'net. You should read some of the shit people post here. It's a real hoot...
Put up or shut up./. is not an OpenSource/Free Software advocate for any other reason except profit and (false) recognition.
And the problem with this is?
But seriously, you're an idiot. Neuroscience has yet to perfect the ability to read people's minds that precisely. There's no way you can know if that is or is not the only reason. Maybe it's one reason, perhaps even a big one, but if you think we should have a problem with that, you seriously misunderstand what the free software movement is all about. I'll give you a hint: it has nothing to do with money.
But heck, even if it is, who cares? Just like a TV station, they get money for providing me with entertainment (and I'm not the one paying them, at least not directly). I don't think TV stations should be ashamed for making money. Why on Earth would I think/. should?
Watch in amazement as all critical posts are moderated into oblivion
Why then are people so keen on treating mental illness when we're just fine on adapting to physical illness?
It's the Cartesian dualist attitude: you have a body, you are your mind. If you're physically ill, there's something wrong with your body. If you're mentally ill, there's something wrong with you. And despite the name, I rather suspect this attitude has been prevelant in western civilization since before Descartes.
...would only allow an organism to function if it were in an environment which already provided many of the complex biochemical compounds needed for metabolism...
This is true of all known life, including humans. Take us out of the living environment we're designed/evolved to live in and place us in one without those chemicals we depend on, and we expire rather quickly...
If we take the 5 billion year history of earth and call it one year, then civilization arose on December 31 at about 11:59 PM (about 10,000 years ago). It's been an interesting minute...
Good luck getting permission from Oracle. Do you really not understand the problem?
I do understand the problem, that's why I object to your misstatement of it. Your claim that "the GPL requires..." is false. Now, if the authors of the programs in question refuse to work with you, be they the authors of GNU DBM or the authors of Oracle, then they, by refusing you permission to use their code in the manner you specify, are requiring you to reinventit. The GPL does not require it (which was your assertion), nor can either party (the authors of the GPL program or the authors of the closed source program) be given greater blame for your problem. Either one has the option to grant you license to do what you wish. If neither does, you're screwed, but it's a wild distortion of the situation to say the GPL is to blame for this.
I like what IBM is doing; they seem to be making the fewest mistakes of all the people jumping on the bandwagon, and sadly I think they are going somewhat unnoticed for it.
I'm not an IBM employee, so this is just the perspective of one interested outsider watching the goings-on, but...
I think the main reason IBM's moves are going unnoticed is because they're being awfully quiet about it. They don't want that kind of attention. At least, not yet.
My impression is that they're still "gearing up". They have a lot they want to do, and unlike some other companies, they don't want to generate a bunch of hype while they still don't have the products ready (e.g. how long between when you heard about HotSpot and when you actually saw HotSpot). Certain companies (like Sun) have a reputation for selling more hype than product. IBM would rather gain the opposite reputation. My prediction: expect IBM to continue to go unnoticed until they're good and ready. Then expect a hugh splash. When this mammoth cannonballs into the pool, the whole world's going to get wet...
Oh, no--the GPL requires reinvention. The LGPL does not. Consider what happens when you want to sell a program that uses both GNU DBM and an Oracle library.
Nothing, assuming you're willing to provide the source code. If you won't or can't, then you ask the author(s) of the GPL program for their permission (i.e. license) to do what you want to do. The GPL doesn't prevent you from using GPL'ed software in closed source products, it just prevents you from doing so without the author's permission! This seems fair to me. If you're going to profit from his/her code, the author ought to have a right to as well. Negotiate with him/her for rights to do what you want with his/her/their software.
You're screwed, and must reinvent.
Only if you can't come to agreeable terms with the author(s)...
I agree with this 100%. I tried the installer for RedHat 6.1 and was baffled as to why people think this was any easier than the 6.0 install (or Mandrake 6.1's install). It seemed to be the same install, you know, exact same questions asked requiring exact same answers. To say it was any easier than before it just silly. (I did get a kick out of the icon for kernel packages, though... (it's Alax Cox's head))
However, that's really not the point. Yes, you really should slap some sort of GUI install on top of Slackware. Why? Because that's what people want! It doesn't matter whether it is any easier, it'll be perceived as easier, and for making a user comfortable, that's actually more important. Strange but true...
The GPL expressly does not forbid what Sun did to Blackdown. There is nothing illegal in taking a GPL'd program, making zero or more changes to it, and calling it your own, as long as you preserve the original copyright (of course, you may copyright any changes you make).
Umm, there's a little more to it than that. The GPL permits you to do what you've said as long as the new product is also available under an open source license. I don't think Sun's licensing for their JDK 1.2.2 qualifies. If not, then what Sun did would be illegal if Blackdown was GPL'ed. But since it's not, this is really a moot point...
The above code is simple only because it's calling subroutines to hide the complexity. It's about as easy to do that in assembly as any other language. An assembly version of the above might look something like this (in pseudo-asm):
PUSH #100000;push parameter
PUSH socketAnswered;push "this"
JSR sockclass_recv
LDX currentURL;load index register
STA pageCache,X;store result in array
Oops, you're using a hash instead of an array -- change the last couple of instructions to call the hash store function instead of storing directly. No big deal.
The point is, you're making an unfair comparison. If your Python program is making use of a standard library of prewritten functions, to be fair, allow the assembly language programmer to do the same. Result? Programming it in assembly is not much more difficult than programming it in Python. Now, if you don't allow the assembly language programmer to simply do everything through calling library functions, then the Python program shouldn't either. In which case, it becomes infinitely easier to write the program in assembly since most useful programs can't be written at all in higher level languages unless you're allowed to make library calls.
It is true that higher level languages look nicer. It's a falacy that they're much easier to write code in. Given the same library calls available to both, there isn't much difference in difficulty writing code. I'll agree assembly can get tedious, but it's not difficult. Like any computer language, once you know the language, it's pretty much as easy to write code in as any other language you know.
There *WERE* processors of the era that have a much nicer architecture (like the 68000), and many more registers [wow. 8 32-bit data registers, and 7+1 32 bit address registers...]. Yes, I'm biased. I love coding in assembly on a 68k processor. And I've found out how to code in assembly on a nice HC11 microcontroller [great fun! Register deprived, yes, but nothing too complicated, and very simple to code for].
Ahh yes. My first assembly language programming was on the TMS9900 processor, and second on the 65C02. Being register deprived isn't great speed-wise but it's not so big a deal otherwise. The 6502 series processors had an impressive array of addressing modes to compensate for the lack of registers. The "zero page" addressing modes in particular were basically designed to allow you to pretend to have 128 16-bit registers using the first 256 bytes of memory. But still, the real thing is better. I thought I was in heaven when I learned 68030 assembly (my third assembly language). I thought I was in hell when I learned my fourth (you guessed it: x86).
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, bracers don't give you a +1 AC, they give you a specific AC, e.g. Bracers of Defense AC 6.
--
Translating corp-speak to geek-speak: What a statement like this invariably means is they're going to compile and test it on at least one G3 and at least one G4. If it also turns out that it happens to work on other things, fine, but they won't be supporting it.
--
Thus, any distro that provides these services for me is a great distro. I particularly like Mandrake because they recompile everything for Pentium, something I'd otherwise want to do but just don't have the time to do for every package in the system. They also package stuff up more quickly than RedHat. I believe Mandrake shipped a distro based on kernel 2.2.13 before RedHat shipped a distro based on 2.2.10! Not that there's anything wrong with RedHat's speed, I'm sure they spend more time making sure everything works well together than Mandrake does, which is why they're always behind on version numbers. But not everyone cares that much, if you're running a server this is wonderful (although why aren't you using Debian in that case?), but for a Pentium desktop machine used by a developer who wants to stay on the bleeding edge, Mandrake performs a great service by being a more up-to-date and optimized RedHat. I don't need anything NEW from them, I just need my RedHat updated more frequently and compiled with Pentium optimizations. Mandrake fills this niche wonderfully.
There aren't too many "based on" distros. Frankly, considering the variety of different users with different needs out there, there probably aren't enough.
--
--
I'm confused. What prevents me from writing a non-blessed client that returns whatever response the server expects from a blessed client?
--
But who cares, all Chrysler's (Dodge's parent company) best cars are designed by Mitsubishi anyways...
--
Bzzt, false. Thanks for playing! Linux bigots are not unique in this. I've seen this from SunOS users, Solaris users (remember the recent "If Solaris was free, there would be no Linux" idiocy?), FreeBSD users, etc. I've also seen it from MacOS users, MS-DOS users, Amiga users, Apple II users, Atari users, etc. I've also seen it from Ford users, Chevy users, Dogde users, etc.
I believe it's called human nature...
--
But seriously, I agree. At what was it, 37KB, what does it do that takes up all this space if it doesn't have memory management and all the other fun stuff you expect from an OS these days? An assembly language program for disk I/O, file system management and program launching out to take no more than 8K. 37KB is greater memory requirements than some old word processors I used to use -- they had to fit into 32K of memory along with the operating system! So, having seen OS + useful applications run in 32K, this new OS doesn't seem terribly impressive. Considering the features it lacks, it seems bloated...
--
Correction: Modern C compilers typically generate code that is as fast or faster than what a person who doesn't know assembly language could write. Modern C compilers never generate code that is as fast as an experienced assembly language coder would write, except in trivial, easy cases where what the programmer is trying to do is simple enough that the compiler can understand it. AI still being a distant gleem in researchers' eyes, compilers lack the necessary understanding of what the programmer is actually attempting to do that they need to be truly effective optimizers.
I've seen a lot of disassembled code since I first learned assembly 16 years ago. Once in a while, I've seen trivial bits of code translated as fast as possible. Mostly, I've seen code that I could have written faster in assembly. Never, not even once, have I seen code that was faster than I would have produced myself.
The critical weakness that prevents C code from ever being as fast as assembly language code is the fact that the compiler doesn't know what you're doing. If I write a program in assembly language from the start, it's not going to look or work like a C program written to do the same thing. Not surprisingly then, since the best a C compiler can do is translate your C code into assembly code, it won't be as fast. In order to be as fast, the compiler would need to examine your C program, understand what it's supposed to do, and then write essentially from scratch its own assembly code to do the same thing, paying no attention to how your C code went about it but simply to what the end result would be. At this point, you're not feeding the C compiler code, you're feeding it a specificiation for what a program should do given these inputs and outputs.
Once compilers are capable of doing that, you won't need to write C code to begin with. You'll be able to simply tell the compiler what you want and let it do all the coding. But until this becomes the way compilers work, it will not be possible for a compiler to generate code as small and as fast as an experienced assembly language programmer.
--
Icaza could use the recognition boost more. That may sound funny around
--
It's true. A classmate of mine shared a dorm room with three other girls, one being Japanese. One day they had a small cake, and she cut the cake into four pieces. Four girls, four pieces, makes sense, right? Her Japanese roommate added a couple of extra cuts, cutting the cake into eight pieces, then gave each girl two pieces. All without explanation, by the way. It wasn't until later in a Japanese 101 that she found out about the four thing and realized why her roommate had acted so strange that day.
Our teacher, who is Japanese herself, confirmed this is true, and humorously suggested that if your Japanese boyfriend/girlfriend gets you four or nine of something as a gift, you might want to consider what you've been doing wrong lately...
--
--
Really? Then why are you hear, if you're getting nothing out of this? Personally, I find
Put up or shut up.
And the problem with this is?
But seriously, you're an idiot. Neuroscience has yet to perfect the ability to read people's minds that precisely. There's no way you can know if that is or is not the only reason. Maybe it's one reason, perhaps even a big one, but if you think we should have a problem with that, you seriously misunderstand what the free software movement is all about. I'll give you a hint: it has nothing to do with money.
But heck, even if it is, who cares? Just like a TV station, they get money for providing me with entertainment (and I'm not the one paying them, at least not directly). I don't think TV stations should be ashamed for making money. Why on Earth would I think
Watch in amazement as all critical posts are moderated into oblivion
Ahh, another paranoid idiot heard from...
--
It's the Cartesian dualist attitude: you have a body, you are your mind. If you're physically ill, there's something wrong with your body. If you're mentally ill, there's something wrong with you. And despite the name, I rather suspect this attitude has been prevelant in western civilization since before Descartes.
--
This is true of all known life, including humans. Take us out of the living environment we're designed/evolved to live in and place us in one without those chemicals we depend on, and we expire rather quickly...
--
--
That's an interesting assumption...
--
I do understand the problem, that's why I object to your misstatement of it. Your claim that "the GPL requires..." is false. Now, if the authors of the programs in question refuse to work with you, be they the authors of GNU DBM or the authors of Oracle, then they, by refusing you permission to use their code in the manner you specify, are requiring you to reinventit. The GPL does not require it (which was your assertion), nor can either party (the authors of the GPL program or the authors of the closed source program) be given greater blame for your problem. Either one has the option to grant you license to do what you wish. If neither does, you're screwed, but it's a wild distortion of the situation to say the GPL is to blame for this.
--
I'm not an IBM employee, so this is just the perspective of one interested outsider watching the goings-on, but...
I think the main reason IBM's moves are going unnoticed is because they're being awfully quiet about it. They don't want that kind of attention. At least, not yet.
My impression is that they're still "gearing up". They have a lot they want to do, and unlike some other companies, they don't want to generate a bunch of hype while they still don't have the products ready (e.g. how long between when you heard about HotSpot and when you actually saw HotSpot). Certain companies (like Sun) have a reputation for selling more hype than product. IBM would rather gain the opposite reputation. My prediction: expect IBM to continue to go unnoticed until they're good and ready. Then expect a hugh splash. When this mammoth cannonballs into the pool, the whole world's going to get wet...
--
Nothing, assuming you're willing to provide the source code. If you won't or can't, then you ask the author(s) of the GPL program for their permission (i.e. license) to do what you want to do. The GPL doesn't prevent you from using GPL'ed software in closed source products, it just prevents you from doing so without the author's permission! This seems fair to me. If you're going to profit from his/her code, the author ought to have a right to as well. Negotiate with him/her for rights to do what you want with his/her/their software.
You're screwed, and must reinvent.
Only if you can't come to agreeable terms with the author(s)...
--
Oops...
--
However, that's really not the point. Yes, you really should slap some sort of GUI install on top of Slackware. Why? Because that's what people want! It doesn't matter whether it is any easier, it'll be perceived as easier, and for making a user comfortable, that's actually more important. Strange but true...
--
Umm, there's a little more to it than that. The GPL permits you to do what you've said as long as the new product is also available under an open source license. I don't think Sun's licensing for their JDK 1.2.2 qualifies. If not, then what Sun did would be illegal if Blackdown was GPL'ed. But since it's not, this is really a moot point...
--
pageCache[currentUrl]=page
The above code is simple only because it's calling subroutines to hide the complexity. It's about as easy to do that in assembly as any other language. An assembly version of the above might look something like this (in pseudo-asm):
PUSH #100000
PUSH socketAnswered
JSR sockclass_recv
LDX currentURL
STA pageCache,X
Oops, you're using a hash instead of an array -- change the last couple of instructions to call the hash store function instead of storing directly. No big deal.
The point is, you're making an unfair comparison. If your Python program is making use of a standard library of prewritten functions, to be fair, allow the assembly language programmer to do the same. Result? Programming it in assembly is not much more difficult than programming it in Python. Now, if you don't allow the assembly language programmer to simply do everything through calling library functions, then the Python program shouldn't either. In which case, it becomes infinitely easier to write the program in assembly since most useful programs can't be written at all in higher level languages unless you're allowed to make library calls.
It is true that higher level languages look nicer. It's a falacy that they're much easier to write code in. Given the same library calls available to both, there isn't much difference in difficulty writing code. I'll agree assembly can get tedious, but it's not difficult. Like any computer language, once you know the language, it's pretty much as easy to write code in as any other language you know.
--
Ahh yes. My first assembly language programming was on the TMS9900 processor, and second on the 65C02. Being register deprived isn't great speed-wise but it's not so big a deal otherwise. The 6502 series processors had an impressive array of addressing modes to compensate for the lack of registers. The "zero page" addressing modes in particular were basically designed to allow you to pretend to have 128 16-bit registers using the first 256 bytes of memory. But still, the real thing is better. I thought I was in heaven when I learned 68030 assembly (my third assembly language). I thought I was in hell when I learned my fourth (you guessed it: x86).
--