Almost all extra-solar planets are detected by this indirect method. However, in the case of the planet around HD 209458, the detection was confirmed by measuring the drop in light as the planet passed between us and its star. More info at http://www.exoplanets.org/
Did you stop reading after the first few paragraphs? He explicitly mentioned that the distribution of hits would not be uniform. I quote:
"So Linux/Apache should be able to handle your site on a 4 CPU 1 Gig RAM box if you get 159 million hits per day or less. If you get only a measly 113 million hits/day, then a single CPU box with 256 meg of RAM should be able to host your site. Of course, this only works if your access is 100% even which is extremely unrealistic. Let's assume that your busy times get ten times more hits per second than your average hits/second. That means that a single CPU Linux box with 256 meg of RAM should work for you if you get about 11 million hits every day. Heck, let's be more conservative. Let's say that your busy times get 100 times more hits/second than your average hits/second. That means that if you get 1.1 million hits per day or less, that same box will serve your site just fine."
My God, linux users are really pulling out the stops to mincr, re-mince, and doubly re-mince the results of these performance tests. I don't think they'd be so critical of the numbers and methodology had linux come out on top.
Actually, most linux users that I know are quite level headed and take benchmarks for what they are worth. Of course, any community has its freaks. I do not consider the author of this one to be one of them -- he was illustrating a valid point.
BTW, you seem to be pulling out all of the stops to stereotype linux users as raving lunatics who cannot stand to live if their favorite OS looses in a benchmark.
And now this report that basically says that low performance is okay because your employees shouldn't be using an intranet that much anyway.
Something tells me that if your employees are generating ~1500 hits per second on an internal web server, you have bigger problems than a slow operating system.
Come on people, you lost fair and square.
I won't dispute that, but a lot of people do not seem to understand that this was not a test of NT vs. Linux. What you can say is that IIS on NT beat Apache & Zues on Linux, when serving static web pages.
Linux performance has always been at the bottom of the unix pack. Why do these tests shock you?
Have you ever run Linux vs. Solaris on uniprocessor Sun hardware?
Sounds like the netscape + 24bpp pimaps problem. Here is the answer from the XFree86 FAQ:
Q.D3- wrong colors or black and white images in 24bpp modes for Netscape, xanim, WABI and others This is a long-standing problem with all those client programs. It is NOT a problem in XFree86.
Technical details: it is caused by a relatively new feature of XFree86 (24bpp modes with 24bpp pixmaps) that is very poorly understood by many client authors: they assume 32bpp pixmaps instead of asking the XFree86 server for those details. Others (like Netscape) do ask for the pixmap size, but since they don't support 24bpp pixmaps, they fall back to using 1bpp (monochrome) pixmaps...
The current public versions of XFree86 can only support a 1:1 mapping between the framebuffer depth and the pixmap depth. Some commercial Xservers support 32bpp pixmaps in 24bpp modes, and hence they present an interface to client programs that happens to match their assumptions. XFree86 4.0 will also support this feature.
There are two possible solutions to this right now:
- do not use 24bpp modes, but rather 16bpp or 32 bpp modes. 32bpp is best, but it requires more video memory than 24bpp.
- don't use broken X clients. There are patches for Netscape and even compiled binaries on the net that fix this bug.
Oh well, I was pretty sure about #15 anyway. Of course, I have not been following much of the plot information that has been going around the web, so that particular piece of information may be common knowledge, in which case I just look stupid.
Judging from their current line of servers, these machines might not have graphics boards in them at all. My guess is that anything they do with respect to OpenGL will be separate from their server efforts. For example, they might release code and push the acceptance of a 3D graphics architecture on PC-class hardware, but I doubt they will release products which have all of the advantages of their Octane and Onyx lines (bandwidth and accelerated graphics). They charge a premium for these machines, and I doubt they would voluntarily create their own competition.
Thomas was pointing out that FreeBSD's claimed support of 3D rendering packages is in reference to povray, which is obviously not what they used. He said this because the poster before (BadlandZ) quoted this support as a possible reason that they chose FreeBSD. No one suggested that they used PovRay to render the movie scenes.
You seem to be stating that for the love of money or just the kicks you get when contemplating our insignificant technological achievements you are willing to ignore the fact that our beloved technology may have the side effect of rendering the planet unfit for human occupancy. Has your devotion to technology blinded you from the fact that we do indeed live on a planet with a finite amount of natural resources? Questioning the effect that technology has on our environment is a healthy process, and implying that anyone who holds this view is somehow related to a murderer is lunacy!
"All our lauded technological progress -- our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal."
To be fair, (s)he probably has not heard about it because the official Intel documentation says that it is not possible. Of course, as you pointed out, documentation is not always, er... 100% truthful.
Slashdot Mirror
Please tell me that the appropriate dose of sarcasm was included with that name. Somehow I fear it wasn't.
Does SCO still have 52 employees?
Almost all extra-solar planets are detected by this indirect method. However, in the case of the planet around HD 209458, the detection was confirmed by measuring the drop in light as the planet passed between us and its star. More info at http://www.exoplanets.org/
Now, let us bow our heads in payment.
Did you stop reading after the first few paragraphs? He explicitly mentioned that the distribution of hits would not be uniform. I quote:
"So Linux/Apache should be able to handle your site on a 4 CPU 1 Gig RAM box if you get 159 million hits per day or less. If you get only a measly 113 million hits/day, then a single CPU box with 256 meg of RAM should be able to host your site. Of course, this only works if your access is 100% even which is extremely unrealistic. Let's assume that your busy times get ten times more hits per second than your average hits/second. That means that a single CPU Linux box with 256 meg of RAM should work for you if you get about 11 million hits every day. Heck, let's be more conservative. Let's say that your busy times get 100 times more hits/second than your average hits/second. That means that if you get 1.1 million hits per day or less, that same box will serve your site just fine."
My God, linux users are really pulling out the stops to mincr, re-mince, and doubly re-mince the results of these performance tests. I don't think they'd be so critical of the numbers and methodology had linux come out on top.
Actually, most linux users that I know are quite level headed and take benchmarks for what they are worth. Of course, any community has its freaks. I do not consider the author of this one to be one of them -- he was illustrating a valid point.
BTW, you seem to be pulling out all of the stops to stereotype linux users as raving lunatics who cannot stand to live if their favorite OS looses in a benchmark.
And now this report that basically says that low performance is okay because your employees shouldn't be using an intranet that much anyway.
Something tells me that if your employees are generating ~1500 hits per second on an internal web server, you have bigger problems than a slow operating system.
Come on people, you lost fair and square.
I won't dispute that, but a lot of people do not seem to understand that this was not a test of NT vs. Linux. What you can say is that IIS on NT beat Apache & Zues on Linux, when serving static web pages.
Linux performance has always been at the bottom of the unix pack. Why do these tests shock you?
Have you ever run Linux vs. Solaris on uniprocessor Sun hardware?
Not according to the Chiplist
Provided you have the right version of Irix, of course :-)
SGI's 3D Filesystem Navigator (fsn)
Sounds like the netscape + 24bpp pimaps problem. Here is the answer from the XFree86 FAQ:
Q.D3- wrong colors or black and white images in 24bpp modes for Netscape, xanim, WABI and others This is a long-standing problem with all those client programs. It is NOT a problem in XFree86.
Technical details: it is caused by a relatively new feature of XFree86 (24bpp modes with 24bpp pixmaps) that is very poorly understood by many client authors: they assume 32bpp pixmaps instead of asking the XFree86 server for those details. Others (like Netscape) do ask for the pixmap size, but since they don't support 24bpp pixmaps, they fall back to using 1bpp (monochrome) pixmaps...
The current public versions of XFree86 can only support a 1:1 mapping between the framebuffer depth and the pixmap depth. Some commercial Xservers support 32bpp pixmaps in 24bpp modes, and hence they present an interface to client programs that happens to match their assumptions. XFree86 4.0 will also support this feature.
There are two possible solutions to this right now:
- do not use 24bpp modes, but rather 16bpp or 32 bpp modes. 32bpp is best, but it requires more video memory than 24bpp.
- don't use broken X clients. There are patches for Netscape and even compiled binaries on the net that fix this bug.
Well, it was...
Check out fsn on SGI's website. (Under "Serious Fun" then "Freeware", then "Software Development", I think)
To quote the trailer:
"Nooooooo!!!!!"
Oh well, I was pretty sure about #15 anyway. Of course, I have not been following much of the plot information that has been going around the web, so that particular piece of information may be common knowledge, in which case I just look stupid.
Judging from their current line of servers, these machines might not have graphics boards in them at all. My guess is that anything they do with respect to OpenGL will be separate from their server efforts. For example, they might release code and push the acceptance of a 3D graphics architecture on PC-class hardware, but I doubt they will release products which have all of the advantages of their Octane and Onyx lines (bandwidth and accelerated graphics). They charge a premium for these machines, and I doubt they would voluntarily create their own competition.
Any opinions?
Thomas was pointing out that FreeBSD's claimed support of 3D rendering packages is in reference to povray, which is obviously not what they used. He said this because the poster before (BadlandZ) quoted this support as a possible reason that they chose FreeBSD. No one suggested that they used PovRay to render the movie scenes.
The GTK Theme appears to be Marble3D. The window manager looks to be E, but I am not sure which theme.
You seem to be stating that for the love of money or just the kicks you get when contemplating our insignificant technological achievements you are willing to ignore the fact that our beloved technology may have the side effect of rendering the planet unfit for human occupancy. Has your devotion to technology blinded you from the fact that we do indeed live on a planet with a finite amount of natural resources? Questioning the effect that technology has on our environment is a healthy process, and implying that anyone who holds this view is somehow related to a murderer is lunacy!
"All our lauded technological progress -- our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal."
- Albert Einstein
To be fair, (s)he probably has not heard about it because the official Intel documentation says that
it is not possible. Of course, as you pointed out, documentation is not always, er... 100% truthful.
Linux ported to a furby?
A Beowulf of palm pilots running linux?
CmdrTaco starts posting a "Learning to program with MFC" series on slashdot?