I've found that in the 2.4 kernel series, whether or not one is using a kernel with decent virtual memory mgmt. completely dominates differences in performance across machines and choice of GUI environment. Attempts to resolve different people's perceptions of speed should focus on whether they are really doing an A/B comparison, particularly with respect to this kernel issue.
I find it disappointing that 99% of slashdot is concerned with defending the internet (as if the internet could be under attack) instead of reacting to the shitty state of the world. But the nature of the problem is clear: there is no penalty for spreading lies via the internet, so anyone with an agenda other than the truth can choose to do that. Readers can likewise tune in to 'information channels' that fit comfortably into their own distorted version of the truth. The problem isn't with the internet, but rather with groups of people who don't place an inherent value on objectivity and truth. Too bad for us that most of humanity falls into that category.
It is less code bloat in the individual object (.o) files. Shouldn't affect a final executable, but it does affect space/compile time on a developer's machine.
The implementation of the 'export' feature for templates has been missing from most compilers. Having it enables projects to possibly compile faster and with less code bloat in the binaries. Using templates often leads to faster executables than other strategies for doing the same thing.
Please understand that most all of the costs in this situation are sunk costs and that the buying power of 10 RS in India is perhaps equivalent to $2.50 USD or more. It is not really so different to what would be charged in the U.S.
But you're not affected by what they say about the nature of software, what should and should not be law, whether or not the government is treating them fairly, whether or not the GPL is a nice software license, etc. Everything they say on these and similar topics is simply encoded expressions of their commercial position. It's unchanging, and hence, uninformative.
I mean this as a serious question, not a potshot at MSFT products or users of MS-Windows products. Year after year, Gates, Ballmer, Allchin, etc. tell so many *obvious* lies wherever they speak. In the press, under oath, it makes no difference. Verbal communication for them is simply an extension of strategic competition. They feel no compunction whatsoever to tell the truth and therefore there is no literal information value in anything they say. But yet every pronouncement from their lips is treated as some kind of major news event. I don't get it. Does anyone out there understand this phenomena?
'P2P' Technology = Workarounds for IP4, HTTP, etc
on
HTTP's Days Numbered
·
· Score: 1
If P2P has a technical meaning beyond 'networking apps where each end is both client and server' then it is all about providing workarounds for the hurdles that exist because of firewalls, NAT, IPV4, dynamic IP, roaming user, asymmetric connections, etc. Designing network applications for use over HTTP transport that can't deal with it being high latency, mostly asymmetric, stateless at the transport level and not providing IPv6 services is just committing to broken design, nothing more. Trying to do a marketing pirouette to make it sound like that design is so innovative it requires a new internet infrastructure is a nice try at a coverup for bad design/planning.
Those "1000 unit" prices are always more expensive than the 1 unit prices that one finds on www.pricewatch.com after a chip is really available in quantity. So they don't mean much. And it turns out that the actual selling prices of AMD chips are always a much smaller fraction of the quoted price than the selling prices of Intel chips.
I sent a similar e-mail and I think it was the right thing to do. I simply informed them that I use Linux as my desktop at home and at work and if neither an open source or binary driver was available for XFree86 then I couldn't consider purchasing a product using that video adapter. I also mentioned that the XFree86 developers do a fine job for free if they can support a card.
I'm running a mixture of Debian unstable and testing, with XFree86 4.1 and KDE2.2 beta and it works well. I realize this doesn't change your point, but that is the nature of Debian releases
(perhaps the Debian releases would be more uptodate if they switched to four categories -
unstable, testing, platform release, cross-platform release).
Are there any plans for supporting sub-windows in the manner of GLUT? What would be your suggestion as an implementation strategy for someone who wants to use this functionality with currently available SDL?
The vast majority of the desktop and workgroup server software that the U.S. govt. buys is Microsoft product. Of course they are worried about the time when politicians and taxpayers start to question that use of funds, compared to a free beer alternative. Their aim with these remarks is to give their political allies some cover for counterarguments. It would be 'anti-business' to save taxpayers money by using Free software, blah, blah, blah...
One good step towards feasible support might be to get the tests Id and others need rolled into autoconf, or a version of autoconf that's tailored to installs. Autoconf is usually a development tool, but it seems like it could be useful at install time as well to see if a user's system is really compatible.
This point seems obvious. The Linux 3D World is currently going through a chaotic transition state with a widely fractured installed base. Supporting a shrink-wrapped commercial application that depends on the details of that 'platform' is noble but kooky. This doesn't say much about what the state of Linux 3D in the future will be or what it would be like to support an application that used only Linux functionality in areas that are well standardized.
http://www.debian.org has a link to "Getting Debian on CD" and some of the listed vendors indicate that they ship development snapshots.
In particular, I've purchased CDs from Greenbush, http://www.greenbush.com
Microsoft will initially favor Intel's IA64 over x86-64 for economic reasons: in order to get any kind of performance from IA64, people will need to buy all new software. For the same sort of reason, Linux is strategic to both AMD and Intel because once compilers are ready, it will be possible for distros to come out that have performance critical apps all ported to the new 64 bit instruction sets. Because of this, and the fact that Linux is big in the server market, Linux will be very well represented among early adopters of either architecture.
Huffman code construction and Adaptive Least Mean Squares (or stochastic optimization in general) are widely used algorithms in many fields, but especially telecommunications. Since everyone uses telecommunications, I these algorithms deserve some consideration, and also that the list was put together by a bunch of old physicists. (joking about the last part).
The proposals sound very good. One thing that I feel should probably be incorporated in this type of project - to improve what was left out of X rendering - is the addition of a parallel API that allows each rendering function to be applied directly to some array like structure like an Ximage on the client side. There are lots and lots of applications that need to give the user choice between screen display and/or output to something like a PNG image, and this type of API would make doing that more straightforward.
One thought that struck me after reading the article was that this sort of thing has the potential to be really good for multi-cpu machines, since the large majority of programs could potentially get some significant speed-up from devoting extra cpus to the background profiling and cacheing work required for the current binary being 'executed' (which is actually being interpreted/translated). The article doesn't says that dynamo itself is threaded, but this would be a natural thing to do. Assuming that worked, then all of a sudden the multi-cpu machine is speeding up everything, and not just programs that or threaded or situations where two heavy-duty processes are working at the same time.
When I think about getting a 10,000 (or now 15K) drive for home use, I wonder about the additional cost in electricity usage if the drive is left on all the time for each year of ownership. Does anyone have the information to calculate this or a good feel for what an estimate might be?
We had a discussion about this very topic on a newsgroup a while back. My suggestion was to add an X extension that would basically say something like "Please antialias all of the fonts that I draw to this window" or "Please antialias all rendering with this particular font". At which point XDrawText etc. would have the same syntax and components, but the output would be antialiased, as requested.
I'm not in a position to evaluate the correctness of what you claim regarding corporate propaganda against medical marijuana and freon. Let's say for the sake of argument that everything is just as you say. This still doesn't seem like strong examples against IP because the root problem is not IP per se, but rather corporate power to spread false ideas through the media and manipulate government. Unless you are advocating the removal of IP as a primary means of destroying large corporations, it doesn't seem like IP is closely relevant to the problem. There will be lots of motives for corporations to lie, persuade, and buy influence that are dangerous and have nothing to do with IP.
It doesn't eliminate my objection because my objection is that the implementation of patent granting principles by the government is poor, and doesn't fit the justification for the laws. You seem to be agreeing that the implementation is poor and saying that it would be too expensive to have an adequate implementation. I would counter that, to the extent that it is expensive to insure "unobviousness", then the govt. must react by being more conservative in their granting of patents. That is to say that they must place a greater burder of proof on the patent seeker, before they go and restrict other peoples rights/access to the protected object/activity. That just seems like common sense.
Slashdot Mirror
I've found that in the 2.4 kernel series, whether or not one is using a kernel with decent virtual memory mgmt. completely dominates differences in performance across machines and choice of GUI environment. Attempts to resolve different people's perceptions of speed should focus on whether they are really doing an A/B comparison, particularly with respect to this kernel issue.
I find it disappointing that 99% of slashdot is concerned with defending the internet (as if the internet could be under attack) instead of reacting to the shitty state of the world. But the nature of the problem is clear: there is no penalty for spreading lies via the internet, so anyone with an agenda other than the truth can choose to do that. Readers can likewise tune in to 'information channels' that fit comfortably into their own distorted version of the truth. The problem isn't with the internet, but rather with groups of people who don't place an inherent value on objectivity and truth. Too bad for us that most of humanity falls into that category.
It is less code bloat in the individual object (.o) files. Shouldn't affect a final executable, but it does affect space/compile time on a developer's machine.
The implementation of the 'export' feature for templates has been missing from most compilers. Having it enables projects to possibly compile faster and with less code bloat in the binaries. Using templates often leads to faster executables than other strategies for doing the same thing.
Please understand that most all of the costs in this situation are sunk costs and that the buying power of 10 RS in India is perhaps equivalent to $2.50 USD or more. It is not really so different to what would be charged in the U.S.
But you're not affected by what they say about the nature of software, what should and should not be law, whether or not the government is treating them fairly, whether or not the GPL is a nice software license, etc. Everything they say on these and similar topics is simply encoded expressions of their commercial position. It's unchanging, and hence, uninformative.
I mean this as a serious question, not a potshot at MSFT products or users of MS-Windows products. Year after year, Gates, Ballmer, Allchin, etc. tell so many *obvious* lies wherever they speak. In the press, under oath, it makes no difference. Verbal communication for them is simply an extension of strategic competition. They feel no compunction whatsoever to tell the truth and therefore there is no literal information value in anything they say. But yet every pronouncement from their lips is treated as some kind of major news event. I don't get it. Does anyone out there understand this phenomena?
If P2P has a technical meaning beyond 'networking apps where each end is both client and server' then it is all about providing workarounds for the hurdles that exist because of firewalls, NAT, IPV4, dynamic IP, roaming user, asymmetric connections, etc. Designing network applications for use over HTTP transport that can't deal with it being high latency, mostly asymmetric, stateless at the transport level and not providing IPv6 services is just committing to broken design, nothing more. Trying to do a marketing pirouette to make it sound like that design is so innovative it requires a new internet infrastructure is a nice try at a coverup for bad design/planning.
Those "1000 unit" prices are always more expensive than the 1 unit prices that one finds on www.pricewatch.com after a chip is really available in quantity. So they don't mean much. And it turns out that the actual selling prices of AMD chips are always a much smaller fraction of the quoted price than the selling prices of Intel chips.
I sent a similar e-mail and I think it was the right thing to do. I simply informed them that I use Linux as my desktop at home and at work and if neither an open source or binary driver was available for XFree86 then I couldn't consider purchasing a product using that video adapter. I also mentioned that the XFree86 developers do a fine job for free if they can support a card.
I'm running a mixture of Debian unstable and testing, with XFree86 4.1 and KDE2.2 beta and it works well. I realize this doesn't change your point, but that is the nature of Debian releases
(perhaps the Debian releases would be more uptodate if they switched to four categories -
unstable, testing, platform release, cross-platform release).
Are there any plans for supporting sub-windows in the manner of GLUT? What would be your suggestion as an implementation strategy for someone who wants to use this functionality with currently available SDL?
The vast majority of the desktop and workgroup server software that the U.S. govt. buys is Microsoft product. Of course they are worried about the time when politicians and taxpayers start to question that use of funds, compared to a free beer alternative. Their aim with these remarks is to give their political allies some cover for counterarguments. It would be 'anti-business' to save taxpayers money by using Free software, blah, blah, blah...
One good step towards feasible support might be to get the tests Id and others need rolled into autoconf, or a version of autoconf that's tailored to installs. Autoconf is usually a development tool, but it seems like it could be useful at install time as well to see if a user's system is really compatible.
This point seems obvious. The Linux 3D World is currently going through a chaotic transition state with a widely fractured installed base. Supporting a shrink-wrapped commercial application that depends on the details of that 'platform' is noble but kooky. This doesn't say much about what the state of Linux 3D in the future will be or what it would be like to support an application that used only Linux functionality in areas that are well standardized.
http://www.debian.org has a link to "Getting Debian on CD" and some of the listed vendors indicate that they ship development snapshots.
In particular, I've purchased CDs from Greenbush, http://www.greenbush.com
Microsoft will initially favor Intel's IA64 over x86-64 for economic reasons: in order to get any kind of performance from IA64, people will need to buy all new software. For the same sort of reason, Linux is strategic to both AMD and Intel because once compilers are ready, it will be possible for distros to come out that have performance critical apps all ported to the new 64 bit instruction sets. Because of this, and the fact that Linux is big in the server market, Linux will be very well represented among early adopters of either architecture.
Huffman code construction and Adaptive Least
Mean Squares (or stochastic optimization in
general) are widely used algorithms in many fields,
but especially telecommunications.
Since everyone uses telecommunications, I these
algorithms deserve some consideration, and also
that the list was put together by a bunch of
old physicists. (joking about the last part).
The proposals sound very good. One thing that I feel should probably be incorporated in this type of project - to improve what was left out of X rendering - is the addition of a parallel API that allows each rendering function to be applied directly to some array like structure like an Ximage on the client side. There are lots and lots of applications that need to give the user choice between screen display and/or output to something like a PNG image, and this type of API would make doing that more straightforward.
One thought that struck me after reading the article was that this sort of thing has the potential to be really good for multi-cpu machines, since the large majority of programs could potentially get some significant speed-up from devoting extra cpus to the background profiling and cacheing work required for the current binary being 'executed' (which is actually being interpreted/translated). The article doesn't says that dynamo itself is threaded, but this would be a natural thing to do. Assuming that worked, then all of a sudden the multi-cpu machine is speeding up everything, and not just programs that or threaded or situations where two heavy-duty processes are working at the same time.
When I think about getting a 10,000 (or now 15K) drive for home use, I wonder about the additional cost in electricity usage if the drive is left on all the time for each year of ownership. Does anyone have the information to calculate this or a good feel for what an estimate might be?
We had a discussion about this very topic on a newsgroup a while back. My suggestion was to add an X extension that would basically say something like "Please antialias all of the fonts that I draw to this window" or "Please antialias all rendering with this particular font". At which point XDrawText etc. would have the same syntax and components, but the output would be antialiased, as requested.
One comes across a lot of people switching from NT to Linux. One rarely meets anyone switching from Linux to NT.
I'm not in a position to evaluate the correctness of what you claim regarding corporate propaganda against medical marijuana and freon. Let's say for the sake of argument that everything is just as you say. This still doesn't seem like strong examples against IP because the root problem is not IP per se, but rather corporate power to spread false ideas through the media and manipulate government. Unless you are advocating the removal of IP as a primary means of destroying large corporations, it doesn't seem like IP is closely relevant to the problem. There will be lots of motives for corporations to lie, persuade, and buy influence that are dangerous and have nothing to do with IP.
It doesn't eliminate my objection because my objection is that the implementation of patent granting principles by the government is poor, and doesn't fit the justification for the laws. You seem to be agreeing that the implementation is poor and saying that it would be too expensive to have an adequate implementation. I would counter that, to the extent that it is expensive to insure "unobviousness", then the govt. must react by being more conservative in their granting of patents. That is to say that they must place a greater burder of proof on the patent seeker, before they go and restrict other peoples rights/access to the protected object/activity. That just seems like common sense.