You're completely wrong - the best design _always_ wins - it's called a "free market".
In the end, it's performance, price, manufacturing technology that matter. This is the real "design", not meaningless gibber-jabber about RISC/CISC/EPIC/yadda yadda. It's all a load of crap.
It's like the VHS vs. Betamax. It's an urban legend that people just take as fact that betamax was "better". It simply wasn't, end of story. Same with the Alpha. It's overhyped and it has its fanboys, but that's about it.
If you sit around and think "gee, my processor could be more efficient" then you're truly a geeky dweeb who deserved the beatings he probably took in school (and I mean College).
Rational people say "Hmm, I get XX frames per second" or "I can complete this render in X seconds", or "this simulation takes 20% less time". That's what matters. Performance. Why people whine and whine about this architecture or that is beyond me.
Well, actually it's not beyond me - I understand it perfectly. People love an underdog and hate the person on top, be it Intel, Microsoft, or any other victim of nerddom's ire.
You seem to think all improvements in technology occur in equal amounts in all dimensions. That's, umm, silly.
You think all modern processors should be faster and run on less power? It simply doesn't work that way, sorry.
The increase in power consumption/heat profile is there, but they've used it to eek more performance out of the car. Cars 20 years ago got about the same gas mileage as cars today, but today they run with a lot more HP.
People like to point out these stories like there's some "higher ideal" and other poor fools don't see it.
VHS beat betamax, but Betamax is better! (Umm, VHS was better in the important dimentions) Microsoft beats Linux, Linux is better! (Umm, Microsoft understands one simple fact: Cater to developers) Intel beat AMD/Alpha/PowerPC/etc..! (Intel chips are cheaper, more stable and better tested, and generally faster in the long run, pointless architecture discussions aside).
In general, you're beating your chests over your own idiocy.
I didn't read the article (too lazy), but the synopsys is sadly confused.
Java scales well in the design side - it's a cleaner language and it's easier to develop large systems without losing yourself in a shitload of unmanageable code. PHP, umm, doesn't.
Which scales better in terms of performance depends, of course, on what you're doing. I'm sure there are areas where PHP scales much better than Java. Conversely, in most real-world areas Java probably scales better.
You're making a fairly simpleminded, fundamental mistake.
The fact that you conveniently ignore is the fact that IE is, without doubt, the most heavily used browser in existence and hence also the most widely scrutinized.
It's the same problem a lot of Unix bigots have, they throw stones from a glass house. Linux and Unix in general have the most laughable history of buffer overflows and general security flaws - period. Only because they're finally so mature now do they slow down a little.
In fact, there are still tons of Linux and Unix app and os flaws, but nobody cares because nobody targets Unix - there are (relatively speaking) like 5 people using it. Why bother?
IE is the fastest browser, it supports a larger number of sites than any other, it's embeddable in other apps, integrates well with the OS, etc... The security flaws will work themselves out and for the most part can easily be avoided by patching. The environment flaws (e.g. tabbed browsing) can be addressed by any of numerous IE 'extensions' like MyIE2.
So I take the opposite position, it's idiotic to use any other browser on Windows. I don't believe that, but it's just as valid as your assertion to the contrary.
Dude, you're an ass. Despite all the mountains from molehills ranting that you've apparently bought into, IE is a fine browser.
What kind of jackass actually composes a sentence like: "...I do not believe any intelligent user could make an informed, good faith decision to use IE."? Truly asinine.
That's about as valid as someone saying "I do not believe any intelligent user could choose a Chevy over a Ford.". i.e. you're just an idiotic fanboy.
This argument is essentially like arguing the existence of God. No matter that you do, you will never, ever prove that there is or isn't "something" beyond what you previously thought was the border of the "universe".
So saying that the universe is infinite is exactly as plausible as saying it's some fancy finite topology.
Which is it? Should Microsoft throw everything but the kitchen sink in (monopoly!) or should they not do everything and leave some for others (monopoly, not improving the product!)? Make up your minds, or at least confess:
"I am a contrarian. I don't like Microsoft because they're mainstream. I listen to off-the-wall music like The Wailing Cricket Sperms and make sure I tell everyone about it."
Here's a hint: There _are_ other browsers. Several of them. There are other browsers that even extend IE (I'm using MyIE2 right now) to add some features. It's the same with OS's, but still you whine "monopoly!". What a load of crap.
Let's see if I can summarize the tedious replies to this.
1. Oh, I'll show them - I'll use XXX now and dump the PC! 2. Same old MS, locking out Linux! (they're not) 3. Now my bios is going to get viruses! He He He. Ahahahaha. Tee-hee. 4. Let's see if I can summarize the tedious replies to this.... 5. Monopoly! How dare they offer more features to customers! 6. [Attempted voice of reason people] "Sure, this isn't bad now, but just wait until....".
I'll keep it short so you can get back to getting cheesy-puff cheese all over your size XXXL Linux Penguin shirts.
1. They didn't call Linux a monopoly. 2. The policy is idiotic, and the press release is at least reasonable, if not a little overboard. 3. Mandating the use of a particular piece of software over all others, regardless of the specific need or evaluation process, is idiotic. They should fire that asshole immediately.
Thanks for listening.
Re:If it's raw ethernet, then it's not "IP based"
on
HyperSCSI Examined
·
· Score: 1
I never said anything either way. I just said TCP/IP and IP are different beasts.
Re:If it's raw ethernet, then it's not "IP based"
on
HyperSCSI Examined
·
· Score: 4, Informative
TCP is a layer above IP. Hence, the two are not mutually exclusive.
You can have "without the overhead of TCP/IP" and "IP based". All IP gets you is an address format and ARP type standards, it's not a lot of overhead.
Yak yak yak. yak! And rights! Yak yak yak! Competition!
Dude, you're a fucking broken record. Real life is a little more complicated than your idiotic delusional-utopian vision of the big ape beating up the little ape and ascending to a supreme state of being.
In _real_ life, people care about their jobs. In _real_ life, people care about _cheap fucking food_. In _real_ life, people tend to have more of an emotional attachment, in the abstract, to people who live under the same government.
In short, you've got just as delusional view of reality as your average "give poor people back the taxes they didn't pay in the first place!" socialist scumbag.
Real life is a dichotomy, there's no simple answer as easy as letting the cheapest producer win, damn all.
First, Linus is a great guy and all and he has undeniably changed the face of computing, almost single-handedly. This is true.
However, his denigration by disinterest tactic towards Microsoft is a little trite. Saying they are (to paraphrase) technologically boring is disingenuous. You may not agree that they have the best technology, or you may not like proprietary software (this is the real truth).
But Microsoft is a technological leader, period. They _also_ cater to the lowest common denominator. True. But they also come out with some good shit.
Did they invent it _all_? No. People over-simplify and say.NET is Java, for example. It's really not - it's much more. But it's not a completely unique idea.
What gets me is that this guy has the sheer _balls_ to write a Unix clone, and then go on to say that Microsoft is not technologically interesting.
Seriously - that's some real balls. That's like 98 Degrees' lead singer saying Justin Timberlake isn't musically talented. Really, you Finnish bastard, get a fucking clue.
Remember how DVD was cracked? Someone basically go ahold of a particular "device's" (in this case, software) key. They're basically talking about revoking the device in this kind of case.
Oooh, big deal.
Re:Actually, do go get that AMD or IBM chip
on
Is Prescott 64-bit?
·
· Score: 1
Sorry, I meant "the need for 64-bits on the desktop is a was off".
You don't need it. "4GB of HD"? Did you go to the "TV School of Computing"? What on earth do you mean? Virtual memory, address space?
That was sort of my point, there, rocket surgeon. You don't need to address more than 4GB (of memory, or "HD") for _any_ desktop app. Hubris, you say? Well, I say _any_ because if you do, you need a workstation class machine and it's no longer desktop class.
And yes, the "pure hackery" is a non-argument precisely because of the above. Most people don't yet need 64-bits of address space. If they do, there are workstation solutions (from many companies).
Re:Actually, do go get that AMD or IBM chip
on
Is Prescott 64-bit?
·
· Score: 1
Umm, 64-bits on the desktop is a ways off. You hear nerds claiming they want it, but they don't really know why.
Let me give you a hint: You'll need 64-bit processors on the desktop exactly when you see average machines with 3-4 gigs of memory. Not before.
I'd lay wager that the average power-user/enthusiasts machine right now has 1 Gig, or 2 Gigs for the hard-core (who probably don't use more than 768 megs of it). The average _new_ desktop probably has 512 megs.
Now you can prattle on about how much easier it is to write software with 64-bit processors, but it's silly. The software's written. It's too late. In fact, it takes _effort_ to port to 64-bits. So that's a non-argument.
Really people, think about things before you start jumping on bandwagons.
For now, and for the next 5 years. People love to drag out that whole 640K quote.
PersonA: We won't need 32 processor systems on the desktop for a long time. PersonB: Ahaha. Fool! And we won't need more than 640K of memory, right? Ahahaha.
Hey, nerd. This is an email virus, hence it's not exploiting an OS bug.
If people mailed clueless Linux users and said "this is from Linus, run it" I'm sure people would be dumb enough to run it.
So here're a few hints for you:
1. Bugs that depend on the idiocy of the user don't have anything to do with your OS wars. People chose to use Microsoft because, umm, everyone runs a MS OS. Nobody (comparatively) runs Linux.
2. If you're going to make an OS issue, at least wait for a MS RPC bug or something. Then I can point to the litany of Mandrake/Debian/Redhat bugs for the week.
Slashdot Mirror
You're completely wrong - the best design _always_ wins - it's called a "free market".
In the end, it's performance, price, manufacturing technology that matter. This is the real "design", not meaningless gibber-jabber about RISC/CISC/EPIC/yadda yadda. It's all a load of crap.
It's like the VHS vs. Betamax. It's an urban legend that people just take as fact that betamax was "better". It simply wasn't, end of story. Same with the Alpha. It's overhyped and it has its fanboys, but that's about it.
Why, you ask? Retardation.
If you sit around and think "gee, my processor could be more efficient" then you're truly a geeky dweeb who deserved the beatings he probably took in school (and I mean College).
Rational people say "Hmm, I get XX frames per second" or "I can complete this render in X seconds", or "this simulation takes 20% less time". That's what matters. Performance. Why people whine and whine about this architecture or that is beyond me.
Well, actually it's not beyond me - I understand it perfectly. People love an underdog and hate the person on top, be it Intel, Microsoft, or any other victim of nerddom's ire.
You seem to think all improvements in technology occur in equal amounts in all dimensions. That's, umm, silly.
You think all modern processors should be faster and run on less power? It simply doesn't work that way, sorry.
The increase in power consumption/heat profile is there, but they've used it to eek more performance out of the car. Cars 20 years ago got about the same gas mileage as cars today, but today they run with a lot more HP.
Oh yeah, it's all advertising.. Umm, right.
People like to point out these stories like there's some "higher ideal" and other poor fools don't see it.
VHS beat betamax, but Betamax is better! (Umm, VHS was better in the important dimentions)
Microsoft beats Linux, Linux is better! (Umm, Microsoft understands one simple fact: Cater to developers)
Intel beat AMD/Alpha/PowerPC/etc..! (Intel chips are cheaper, more stable and better tested, and generally faster in the long run, pointless architecture discussions aside).
In general, you're beating your chests over your own idiocy.
Uhh, right... Ever tried to maintain half a million lines of Perl? 3 million lines?
The overhead of maintenance for Perl rises exponentially with the number of lines.
I didn't read the article (too lazy), but the synopsys is sadly confused.
Java scales well in the design side - it's a cleaner language and it's easier to develop large systems without losing yourself in a shitload of unmanageable code. PHP, umm, doesn't.
Which scales better in terms of performance depends, of course, on what you're doing. I'm sure there are areas where PHP scales much better than Java. Conversely, in most real-world areas Java probably scales better.
You're making a fairly simpleminded, fundamental mistake.
The fact that you conveniently ignore is the fact that IE is, without doubt, the most heavily used browser in existence and hence also the most widely scrutinized.
It's the same problem a lot of Unix bigots have, they throw stones from a glass house. Linux and Unix in general have the most laughable history of buffer overflows and general security flaws - period. Only because they're finally so mature now do they slow down a little.
In fact, there are still tons of Linux and Unix app and os flaws, but nobody cares because nobody targets Unix - there are (relatively speaking) like 5 people using it. Why bother?
IE is the fastest browser, it supports a larger number of sites than any other, it's embeddable in other apps, integrates well with the OS, etc... The security flaws will work themselves out and for the most part can easily be avoided by patching. The environment flaws (e.g. tabbed browsing) can be addressed by any of numerous IE 'extensions' like MyIE2.
So I take the opposite position, it's idiotic to use any other browser on Windows. I don't believe that, but it's just as valid as your assertion to the contrary.
Dude, you're an ass. Despite all the mountains from molehills ranting that you've apparently bought into, IE is a fine browser.
What kind of jackass actually composes a sentence like: "...I do not believe any intelligent user could make an informed, good faith decision to use IE."? Truly asinine.
That's about as valid as someone saying "I do not believe any intelligent user could choose a Chevy over a Ford.". i.e. you're just an idiotic fanboy.
Ahh, modern "voodoo" theoretical physics.
This argument is essentially like arguing the existence of God. No matter that you do, you will never, ever prove that there is or isn't "something" beyond what you previously thought was the border of the "universe".
So saying that the universe is infinite is exactly as plausible as saying it's some fancy finite topology.
Which is it? Should Microsoft throw everything but the kitchen sink in (monopoly!) or should they not do everything and leave some for others (monopoly, not improving the product!)? Make up your minds, or at least confess:
"I am a contrarian. I don't like Microsoft because they're mainstream. I listen to off-the-wall music like The Wailing Cricket Sperms and make sure I tell everyone about it."
Here's a hint: There _are_ other browsers. Several of them. There are other browsers that even extend IE (I'm using MyIE2 right now) to add some features. It's the same with OS's, but still you whine "monopoly!". What a load of crap.
Let's see if I can summarize the tedious replies to this.
1. Oh, I'll show them - I'll use XXX now and dump the PC!
2. Same old MS, locking out Linux! (they're not)
3. Now my bios is going to get viruses! He He He. Ahahahaha. Tee-hee.
4. Let's see if I can summarize the tedious replies to this....
5. Monopoly! How dare they offer more features to customers!
6. [Attempted voice of reason people] "Sure, this isn't bad now, but just wait until....".
It's all so idiotic and redunant.
I'll keep it short so you can get back to getting cheesy-puff cheese all over your size XXXL Linux Penguin shirts.
1. They didn't call Linux a monopoly.
2. The policy is idiotic, and the press release is at least reasonable, if not a little overboard.
3. Mandating the use of a particular piece of software over all others, regardless of the specific need or evaluation process, is idiotic. They should fire that asshole immediately.
Thanks for listening.
I never said anything either way. I just said TCP/IP and IP are different beasts.
TCP is a layer above IP. Hence, the two are not mutually exclusive.
You can have "without the overhead of TCP/IP" and "IP based". All IP gets you is an address format and ARP type standards, it's not a lot of overhead.
Yak yak yak. yak! And rights! Yak yak yak! Competition!
Dude, you're a fucking broken record. Real life is a little more complicated than your idiotic delusional-utopian vision of the big ape beating up the little ape and ascending to a supreme state of being.
In _real_ life, people care about their jobs. In _real_ life, people care about _cheap fucking food_. In _real_ life, people tend to have more of an emotional attachment, in the abstract, to people who live under the same government.
In short, you've got just as delusional view of reality as your average "give poor people back the taxes they didn't pay in the first place!" socialist scumbag.
Real life is a dichotomy, there's no simple answer as easy as letting the cheapest producer win, damn all.
Uhh, _right_. I mean, when Microsoft goes out of business nobody will _ever_ be able to get those documents out.
I mean, they're encrypted, hidden, and completely unintelligible without Microsoft. Hey, nobody else has been able to crack their format, right?
[ Yes, that was overly-sarcastic. I just thought your post was so over-the-top idiotic that it deserved a suitable reply. ]
I wrote a Unix clone.
Microsoft is not technologically interesting.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it, you fuckers!
[Meaning, does anybody smell any irony in here?]
First, Linus is a great guy and all and he has undeniably changed the face of computing, almost single-handedly. This is true.
.NET is Java, for example. It's really not - it's much more. But it's not a completely unique idea.
However, his denigration by disinterest tactic towards Microsoft is a little trite. Saying they are (to paraphrase) technologically boring is disingenuous. You may not agree that they have the best technology, or you may not like proprietary software (this is the real truth).
But Microsoft is a technological leader, period. They _also_ cater to the lowest common denominator. True. But they also come out with some good shit.
Did they invent it _all_? No. People over-simplify and say
What gets me is that this guy has the sheer _balls_ to write a Unix clone, and then go on to say that Microsoft is not technologically interesting.
Seriously - that's some real balls. That's like 98 Degrees' lead singer saying Justin Timberlake isn't musically talented. Really, you Finnish bastard, get a fucking clue.
Egads, people. Pull it together.
Remember how DVD was cracked? Someone basically go ahold of a particular "device's" (in this case, software) key. They're basically talking about revoking the device in this kind of case.
Oooh, big deal.
Sorry, I meant "the need for 64-bits on the desktop is a was off".
You don't need it. "4GB of HD"? Did you go to the "TV School of Computing"? What on earth do you mean? Virtual memory, address space?
That was sort of my point, there, rocket surgeon. You don't need to address more than 4GB (of memory, or "HD") for _any_ desktop app. Hubris, you say? Well, I say _any_ because if you do, you need a workstation class machine and it's no longer desktop class.
And yes, the "pure hackery" is a non-argument precisely because of the above. Most people don't yet need 64-bits of address space. If they do, there are workstation solutions (from many companies).
Umm, 64-bits on the desktop is a ways off. You hear nerds claiming they want it, but they don't really know why.
Let me give you a hint: You'll need 64-bit processors on the desktop exactly when you see average machines with 3-4 gigs of memory. Not before.
I'd lay wager that the average power-user/enthusiasts machine right now has 1 Gig, or 2 Gigs for the hard-core (who probably don't use more than 768 megs of it). The average _new_ desktop probably has 512 megs.
Now you can prattle on about how much easier it is to write software with 64-bit processors, but it's silly. The software's written. It's too late. In fact, it takes _effort_ to port to 64-bits. So that's a non-argument.
Really people, think about things before you start jumping on bandwagons.
For now, and for the next 5 years. People love to drag out that whole 640K quote.
PersonA: We won't need 32 processor systems on the desktop for a long time.
PersonB: Ahaha. Fool! And we won't need more than 640K of memory, right? Ahahaha.
Uhh, yeah...
Right... I mean, so many people out there are hitting that pesky 3/4GB limitation in their day-day computing lives.
64-bits is the domain of workstations and servers, it has no point in low and mid-end computing.
Hey, nerd. This is an email virus, hence it's not exploiting an OS bug.
If people mailed clueless Linux users and said "this is from Linus, run it" I'm sure people would be dumb enough to run it.
So here're a few hints for you:
1. Bugs that depend on the idiocy of the user don't have anything to do with your OS wars. People chose to use Microsoft because, umm, everyone runs a MS OS. Nobody (comparatively) runs Linux.
2. If you're going to make an OS issue, at least wait for a MS RPC bug or something. Then I can point to the litany of Mandrake/Debian/Redhat bugs for the week.
The "old proprietary" software model? Umm, I agree with a lot of what they say, but who the hell do they think they're kidding?
If you develop successfull software yourself, the "old proprietary" model is the best way to make money from it.
Don't be ridiculous. Free software is all fine, but don't pretend it's the wave of the future - it isn't.