It's a tiny QBASIC game shipped together in DOS 5.0 created by MICROS~1. Two gorillas were throwing each other with bananas. You can play human vs computer or human vs human.
because Microsoft's employees are addicted into playing GORILLA.BAS. They also try to port GORILLA.BAS to Win2k.NET with Visual Basic.NET without success. That's why Bill Gates cuts their benefits.
because Microsoft's employees are addicted into playing GORILLA.BAS. They also try to port GORILLA.BAS to Win2k with Visual Basic.NET without any success. That's why Bill Gates cuts their benefits.
Have you tried Mandrake 7.2? They have both ATA66 and ATA100 support. However, only the ATA66 supports auto-detection. There's an article in here regarding how to install Mandrake on an ATA100.
Now everybody flames Linux because Linux is not microkernel like Win2k (with its 40 million lines of code -- 500% bigger than Linux -- and still called "micro"). Everybody wants microkernel this, microkernel that. Then after that, people mock Linux and say "Oh FreeBSD and OpenBSD is much better, it's l33t" but BSD is still monolithic too.
Be patient, will ya?
The fact that in its IPC, monolithic kernel design reduces overhead and is faster than microkernel because monolithic kernel doesn't require yet another second-third-fourth-etc-etc layer for messaging.
By the way, in case you've never heard of zero stack copy, Linux is much faster than BSD in that area.
My point is: No operating system is perfect, not Linux, not BSD, not Win2k.
The thing is, some people claim that spam is legal.. Some people have legality tendency to say that spam, as regulated by Under Bill s.1618 TITLE III passed by the 105th U.S. Congress this letter is not considered "spam."
How can we prevent things like this happening? Take a look at the spam message over there. They claimed that their "expert programmers have made it possible for us to penetrate any email blocking filter in use."
We, Linux people have to realize that XFree86 still has a lot of shortcoming, and if we say that XFree86 is already good, why would companies such as Metro-X and XiGraphics make commercial X servers which are much faster than XFree? Don't be stubborn. The MIT-SMT code is not optimized AT ALL and still needs a lot of work, and it's not faster AT ALL compared to Win32 graphic
I didn't say that X Window was bad though. The problem might not only rely on the transport either. One of the test was conducted on "on a 350MHz Pentium II with an ATI Rage 128 Pro card and 64MB of PC-100 SDRAM running Linux 2.3.42" with XFree86 prior to v3.9.18.
I think only 1 test on one machine is not too fair though (they only use that PII-350). I think if they try another machine too (eg: PII-266) and conduct the same test the result will be different.
Also, I wonder:
0) Besides that ATI Rage Pro, have they tested another graphic card on the Intel x86 platform? It seems they only tested 1 graphic card though. Also notice the comparison on SGI Irix X Server.
1) What about the CPU usage comparison when using shared memory transport and unix domain socket?
2) What processes & daemons are running on that machine besides the XFree server itself?
3) How efficient is their SMT algorithm? Have they tested if there's a bug in it that makes the performance only 10% faster? Is there an inefficiency in their SMT code?
4) Notice the SGI X Server test comment:The SMT run did not complete, so all operations are not represented in the aggregate results. Does it mean that the SMT code is maybe stil buggy?
5) Notice the section 3.3 from that document:
Shared memory is a precious system-wide resource. The XF86Config file should specify:
- minimum and maximum values for the amount of shared memory that may be used by each client, and - a maximum value for the amount of shared memory that may be used by all clients.
When the shared memory limits are exceeded, a request for SMT should fall-back to a non-SMT connection.
What if the SMT limit was exceeded in that test?
How efficient is the algorithm written (in that short time?) for the SMT? How come, for example: MS-Windows 2000, BeOS, QNX doesn't even need to fall back to the non-SMT connection? MS-Win2k doesn't use non-SMT connection at all, since it doesn't have a network transparency like X-Window
I'm not saying that the overall MS-Windows is better. For example, Win2k's kernel is bloated, but the graphic code was pretty good, plus companies support it by providing drivers for hardware acceleration.
For your information, I develop Linux apps too. I don't use MS-Windows for my workstation at all. X-Window is good, but it can be improved a lot.
why can't they make it that small on normal machines? it takes up nearly all my RAM under normal linux
It's also because of X. First of all, X Window's screen is typically large: from 640x480, 800x600, and 1024x768 with 16bit per pixel.
For example, calculate this:
for 1 pixel for PutImage routine, it requires 1024 x 768 x 2 byte, so that is quite large. For 24 bpp, multiply that with 4 byte. The screen in that handheld is definitely much smaller than X-Window's screen size.
Also, X Window is not efficient the way it uses intra-process communication. For localhost display (which is the one in that handheld), X-Window still uses unix domain socket, which requires another memory segment for its routine for TCP/IP stuff and whatnot. If you don't trust me, try tcpdump -i lo and you can watch traffic on your loopback device even when you run the simplest application like xclock, xcpuinfo, kedit, gedit, gnome-terminal, etc.
The thing that most people don't really care/realize is that X-Window can actually be improved to be more efficient by using shared memory transport so that it's faster and more efficient. It is much faster than using the inefficient unix domain socket, and also when there is a very very heavy load, using socket vs using shared memory can be compared like tricycle vs Porsche. The shared memory transport under X-Window has never been implemented, since in the beginning it was not designed for fast graphic routine for personal computing, etc. However, X has advantage: although it's slower, it has network transparency so that you can run app over other computer via network.
That Qt/Embedded for the handheld does not use X-Window at all. That's one of the factor why it's small and fast. Oh, by the way, the graphic display in MS-Windows is faster not only because of its driver is better + DirectX accel support, but also because it uses shared memory transport.
Not true. Konqueror is faster than Netscape. The only graphic browser I know that has a lot of functionality (don't talk about Lynx) and is faster than Konqi is Opera.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a tiny QBASIC game shipped together in DOS 5.0 created by MICROS~1. Two gorillas were throwing each other with bananas. You can play human vs computer or human vs human.
because Microsoft's employees are addicted into playing GORILLA.BAS. They also try to port GORILLA.BAS to Win2k.NET with Visual Basic .NET without success. That's why Bill Gates cuts their benefits.
because Microsoft's employees are addicted into playing GORILLA.BAS. They also try to port GORILLA.BAS to Win2k with Visual Basic .NET without any success. That's why Bill Gates cuts their benefits.
It's Win2k kernel that has 30-40 million lines of code! That's jumbo! Read: http://www.fish.com/security/20-20-essay.html
And Linux kernel itself is around 2 - 2.5 million lines of code.
Have you tried Mandrake 7.2? They have both ATA66 and ATA100 support. However, only the ATA66 supports auto-detection. There's an article in here regarding how to install Mandrake on an ATA100.
Now everybody flames Linux because Linux is not microkernel like Win2k (with its 40 million lines of code -- 500% bigger than Linux -- and still called "micro"). Everybody wants microkernel this, microkernel that. Then after that, people mock Linux and say "Oh FreeBSD and OpenBSD is much better, it's l33t " but BSD is still monolithic too .
Be patient, will ya?
The fact that in its IPC, monolithic kernel design reduces overhead and is faster than microkernel because monolithic kernel doesn't require yet another second-third-fourth-etc-etc layer for messaging.
By the way, in case you've never heard of zero stack copy, Linux is much faster than BSD in that area.
My point is: No operating system is perfect, not Linux, not BSD, not Win2k.
The thing is, some people claim that spam is legal.. Some people have legality tendency to say that spam, as regulated by Under Bill s.1618 TITLE III passed by the 105th U.S. Congress this letter is not considered "spam."
m l
These kind of people should be eliminated since not everybody lives in USA. For example: LinuxBase.Org was spammed: http://lists.debian.org/lsb-impl-0012/msg00000.ht
How can we prevent things like this happening? Take a look at the spam message over there. They claimed that their "expert programmers have made it possible for us to penetrate any email blocking filter in use."
Read this: comment and this one too: here .
We, Linux people have to realize that XFree86 still has a lot of shortcoming, and if we say that XFree86 is already good, why would companies such as Metro-X and XiGraphics make commercial X servers which are much faster than XFree? Don't be stubborn. The MIT-SMT code is not optimized AT ALL and still needs a lot of work, and it's not faster AT ALL compared to Win32 graphic
I didn't say that X Window was bad though. The problem might not only rely on the transport either. One of the test was conducted on "on a 350MHz Pentium II with an ATI Rage 128 Pro card and 64MB of PC-100 SDRAM running Linux 2.3.42" with XFree86 prior to v3.9.18.
I think only 1 test on one machine is not too fair though (they only use that PII-350). I think if they try another machine too (eg: PII-266) and conduct the same test the result will be different.
Also, I wonder:
0) Besides that ATI Rage Pro, have they tested another graphic card on the Intel x86 platform? It seems they only tested 1 graphic card though. Also notice the comparison on SGI Irix X Server.
1) What about the CPU usage comparison when using shared memory transport and unix domain socket?
2) What processes & daemons are running on that machine besides the XFree server itself?
3) How efficient is their SMT algorithm? Have they tested if there's a bug in it that makes the performance only 10% faster? Is there an inefficiency in their SMT code?
4) Notice the SGI X Server test comment:The SMT run did not complete, so all operations are not represented in the aggregate results. Does it mean that the SMT code is maybe stil buggy?
5) Notice the section 3.3 from that document:
Shared memory is a precious system-wide resource. The XF86Config file should specify:
- minimum and maximum values for the amount of shared memory that may be used by each client, and
- a maximum value for the amount of shared memory that may be used by all clients.
When the shared memory limits are exceeded, a request for SMT should fall-back to a non-SMT connection.
What if the SMT limit was exceeded in that test? How efficient is the algorithm written (in that short time?) for the SMT? How come, for example: MS-Windows 2000, BeOS, QNX doesn't even need to fall back to the non-SMT connection? MS-Win2k doesn't use non-SMT connection at all, since it doesn't have a network transparency like X-Window
I'm not saying that the overall MS-Windows is better. For example, Win2k's kernel is bloated, but the graphic code was pretty good, plus companies support it by providing drivers for hardware acceleration.
For your information, I develop Linux apps too. I don't use MS-Windows for my workstation at all. X-Window is good, but it can be improved a lot.
why can't they make it that small on normal machines? it takes up nearly all my RAM under normal linux
It's also because of X. First of all, X Window's screen is typically large: from 640x480, 800x600, and 1024x768 with 16bit per pixel.
For example, calculate this: for 1 pixel for PutImage routine, it requires 1024 x 768 x 2 byte, so that is quite large. For 24 bpp, multiply that with 4 byte. The screen in that handheld is definitely much smaller than X-Window's screen size.
Also, X Window is not efficient the way it uses intra-process communication. For localhost display (which is the one in that handheld), X-Window still uses unix domain socket, which requires another memory segment for its routine for TCP/IP stuff and whatnot. If you don't trust me, try tcpdump -i lo and you can watch traffic on your loopback device even when you run the simplest application like xclock, xcpuinfo, kedit, gedit, gnome-terminal, etc.
The thing that most people don't really care/realize is that X-Window can actually be improved to be more efficient by using shared memory transport so that it's faster and more efficient. It is much faster than using the inefficient unix domain socket, and also when there is a very very heavy load, using socket vs using shared memory can be compared like tricycle vs Porsche. The shared memory transport under X-Window has never been implemented, since in the beginning it was not designed for fast graphic routine for personal computing, etc. However, X has advantage: although it's slower, it has network transparency so that you can run app over other computer via network.
That Qt/Embedded for the handheld does not use X-Window at all. That's one of the factor why it's small and fast. Oh, by the way, the graphic display in MS-Windows is faster not only because of its driver is better + DirectX accel support, but also because it uses shared memory transport.
I hope this helps.
Not true. Konqueror is faster than Netscape. The only graphic browser I know that has a lot of functionality (don't talk about Lynx) and is faster than Konqi is Opera.