Today we are using higher level languages to remove the underlying complexity to make it simpler and more easy to develop programs.
machine code -> assembler -> C -> C++ -> C# or machine code -> assembler -> C -> C++ -> Java
The bad thing is that the price you pay for abstraction is performance. As you say, if we wrote our programs like back in the ol' days in pure assembler it would be blitzing fast.
But I doubt anyone would like to go back to assembler programming, so I think the path we should go is to create more efficient high-level languages so we can squeze out more performance from the underlying hardware.
Berkely Software Distribution (BSD) has been available as source since the early eighties? The Berkely UNIX is the true orginal UNIX sourcecode written at Belllabs and donated to the university?
Hehe, agree with the mobile density in Scandinavia. I got like five GSM phones lying around collecting dust in the appartment, only using two of em currently. I mean its hard to find anyone who does'nt have a cell phone, even most 10-12 year old kids got cell's.
Re:gcc 3.3 fails on glibc 2.3.2
on
GCC 3.3 Released
·
· Score: 1
If glibc break due to crappy programmers unable to follow the ISO C standard its their fault. The glibc team should fix their buggy code, not hassle the GCC team with ugly workarounds.
Big greets go our to all GCC developers/testers making the 3.3 release possible!
They where strange beasts yes, but kickass at the time. Was'nt there a special designed crossbar architecure which glued the onboard GFX circuts to the memory to alow jaw-dropping access times between the GFX and memory banks, I remember they had amazing memory I/O compared to the vanilla Intel boxes they competed with, which only had first generation of AGP. Another thing I remember is that they managed to do the impossible (according to Intel) of running the P-III CPU in a quad setup.
Yep, maybe Linux is ready to step out of kindergarten soon. SGI IRIX supports 1024 CPU's in NUMA if I recall correct, so Linux has alot of progress to make then it comes to single-image scalability. Well Microsoft is still stuck in kindergarten too, and have not yet managed to move beyond basic 32bit which most UNIX'es did 10 years ago.:)
Simply put I hate Sun and all their software products
Duh you dont know much about history do you, without Sun there would not be much of UNIX today. They have been one of the few companies that have keept UNIX viable since the eighties and been driving down the costs of UNIX machines so even smaller companies and schools/universities could aford UNIX.
I doubt there would be much Linux today if Torvalds did not have the opportunity to access to Sun UNIX workstations and servers at school.
If you are against Sun you also are againt the global UNIX/Linux movement.
Hum, but can you still export an MacOS-X application display over the network in an easy manner with something like --display x.x.x.x:0.0 ?
I agree that the X11 protocol is chatty and bandwidth inefficient, they should redesign the TCP/IP parts and still maintain backward compatibility with the old "version". Going hardware accellerated "local-only" is the wrong approach.
Well, no. "Open Source" does not mean something is free to distribute. You can sell Open Source applications and charge per license/copy. If you pay $100 and get an CD with source and binaries, that does not mean you can give away the source to somebody else. I belive one can sell propitary open-source programs just like propitary closed-source programs. I guess you are thinking of GPL and BSD licenses, there are many other Open Source licenses which place additional restrictions on the user.
Well, I can't help what you see yourself as but you don't sound like a GPL fanatic to me. I'M not a GPL fanatic but I would never go back to writing closed-source code again.
I dont know any other way to protect my investment and get return back for the effort put into this project. I would love to sell it as a pure open-source application, but even if I charge a small price compared to what these kind off applications do cost in the Windows world ($100 vs $1000-$5000) I fear my source-code would get pirated and spread over the internet.
I must admit that I'm surprised by this. How is GNOME a GNU project if this is allowed/easy? I don't have either GNOME or KDE installed anymore (I couldn't decide which was worse so I deleted both) so I've never looked at the details of their license but I assumed that GNOME is all GPL.
All libraries used for building applications are LGPL, and the enduser GNOME stuff is GPL.
Well I see myself as a GPL fanatic and I'm currently developing a closed-source profesional financial trading and technical-analysis application for trading equitys, futures, options and currencies for GNOME2/GTK2. An application which will be 100% closed-source and I will charge money for each copy of it. Ofcouse I have written alot of open-source software and participate in many open-source projects, have full commit/write access to the Gnome Project CVS repository for over 6 years.
GNOME is a good environment for writing closed-source application as there is no license fees like in the KDE world. Thats one of the reasons why I think Gnome will succeed and KDE fail.
That if you have a large company or school with 1000 Linux/UNIX desktops and want to apply a specific desktop configuration rule or restriction on all different 1000 workstations?
Uh, then you ofcouse need a distributed configuration management system with a distributed configuraion database -> Gconf
I agree with that bandwidth is a cornerstone in succesfully deploying IPv6. I'm hacking on an IPv6 video-streaming plugin for the Gstreamer media framework on my spare time, it will be used to stream/broadcast realtime one-to-many video like Movies/Television/Music/Radio using IPv6 multicast in a codec independent fasion thanks to the flexible Gstreamer architecture. I'm alot into homecinema and satelite/cable stuff and it would be nice to be able to stream TV channels and movies (MPEG2/MPEG4) in good quality over the net.
I enjoy doing low-level network programming, like designing protocols, ponder upon network routing issues, etc. I got bored about doing IPv4 stuff for some years ago, so I moved into the IPv6 area in 98-99, after a while I got bored of doing IPv6 unicast stuff becouse that area are much covered today, not much design and research to be done there. IPv6 multicast is fairly new and un-expoited and are evolving quick, so its a fun area to be involved in, I'm part of a global IPv6 multicast research network called M6bone, most things revolve about research of new protocols like MLD and SSM and effecient multicast routing.
In a future world I would be able to stream video from my server at home to my Cellphone/PDA anytime via Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) connectivity. Most new phones today have a IPv4 stack and color-screen but no IPv6 support in the phones yet. With Linux on the Ipaq I can get fully Mobile IPv6 in my pocket thru WiFi networks or wireless GSM/GPRS today if I wish.
I would like to see IPv6 being deployed in broadband networks to the homes, I think that would fuel IPv6 into mainstream usage in conjunction with P2P filesharing and true high-quality video streaming.
Agree with your post. One of the main reasons for being "source only" and "no-binaries" is becouse Mplayer needs to be tailour made to take fully advance of all the power and features your current architecture and CPU has.
Thats why you dont want to install a binary release of Mplayer.
You dont want to use a P-II compiled version of Mplayer on a P-III, P4 or AMD Athlon processor and vice versa.
At build time Mplayer is custom-built to take fully advantage of MMX, MMX2, SSE, 3Dnow and other features your specific CPU got to squeeze every ounce of performance out of your CPU, you do not get that with a binary installation.
The problem is that they make too much money. The artists and big record companies has keeped CD prices on a artifical high level due to oglipoly tactics. Most succesfull artists are milionaires, Some has even hundreds of milions like Madonna, Michael Jackson and Maria Carrey. This money comes from OUR pockets. I call it stealing, record companies and artists (some) are scum that only wants to rob consumers of their money so they can fly their fancy jets, ride their fat limmos and live at their luxuary hotels which normal people like you and me only can dream of.
I see you failed to understand my ironic comment, let me elaborate the issue.
American tax payers is the ones that have keept SGI alive thru the companys resent crisis and struggle, goverment investing in bigiron SGI machines at the major national labratories and military facilities. Which is in fact your hardearned money that have paid for these systems. One part of the reson is that it is the US goverment interest to have a strong national supercomputer industry, and not being dependent on foreign countries for key technologies which supercomputers are (you dont see many Japanese systems at the national labs, do you?). The US goverment has managed serval govermental tax funded joint projects of commercial nature with the supercomputer maker Cray for example. The Cray SV1 was the result of one.
Yes, does'nt it feel good to know your tax money is poured into SGI?
A linuxfarm may be much cheaper performance/dollar but it will suck bigtime on tasks that require closely-coupled systems like fluid-dynamics and material stress calculations, etc.
I guess the first thing you should do then you purchase a new DVD or audio CD is to make a backup copy of it and put the original on the shelf never to be used anymore, and only use the copy. Its also much easier to resell the original later if its brand new and never used.
Sometimes is makes me wonder if MPAA did chose to not enclose the disc on purpose just to sell more DVDs then they breaks. All discs get scratched and fingerprinted soner or later, especially if you have small children at home, then the lifetime of the discs gets very limited with discs lying all over the floor getting kicked around.
Slashdot Mirror
Today we are using higher level languages to remove the underlying complexity to make it simpler and more easy to develop programs.
machine code -> assembler -> C -> C++ -> C#
or
machine code -> assembler -> C -> C++ -> Java
The bad thing is that the price you pay for abstraction is performance. As you say, if we wrote our programs like back in the ol' days in pure assembler it would be blitzing fast.
But I doubt anyone would like to go back to assembler programming, so I think the path we should go is to create more efficient high-level languages so we can squeze out more performance from the underlying hardware.
If you are located on a boat on international water there is no other local law than the captains.
Berkely Software Distribution (BSD) has been available as source since the early eighties? The Berkely UNIX is the true orginal UNIX sourcecode written at Belllabs and donated to the university?
Hehe, agree with the mobile density in Scandinavia. I got like five GSM phones lying around collecting dust in the appartment, only using two of em currently. I mean its hard to find anyone who does'nt have a cell phone, even most 10-12 year old kids got cell's.
If glibc break due to crappy programmers unable to follow the ISO C standard its their fault. The glibc team should fix their buggy code, not hassle the GCC team with ugly workarounds.
Big greets go our to all GCC developers/testers making the 3.3 release possible!
They where strange beasts yes, but kickass at the time. Was'nt there a special designed crossbar architecure which glued the onboard GFX circuts to the memory to alow jaw-dropping access times between the GFX and memory banks, I remember they had amazing memory I/O compared to the vanilla Intel boxes they competed with, which only had first generation of AGP. Another thing I remember is that they managed to do the impossible (according to Intel) of running the P-III CPU in a quad setup.
Yep I know 64bit enabled MS-SQL is fast, but I'm not impressed. If they pulled it of back in 1990-1992 it would be impressive.
Yep, maybe Linux is ready to step out of kindergarten soon. SGI IRIX supports 1024 CPU's in NUMA if I recall correct, so Linux has alot of progress to make then it comes to single-image scalability. Well Microsoft is still stuck in kindergarten too, and have not yet managed to move beyond basic 32bit which most UNIX'es did 10 years ago.:)
Simply put I hate Sun and all their software products
Duh you dont know much about history do you, without Sun there would not be much of UNIX today. They have been one of the few companies that have keept UNIX viable since the eighties and been driving down the costs of UNIX machines so even smaller companies and schools/universities could aford UNIX.
I doubt there would be much Linux today if Torvalds did not have the opportunity to access to Sun UNIX workstations and servers at school.
If you are against Sun you also are againt the global UNIX/Linux movement.
BRILLIANT [sarcasm] environment called CDE which i have used many a time and want to throw a brick at every single time.
Stupid ignorant troll, check your facts before you spew lies around.
Sun did not invent CDE, they just licensed the sourcecode from OpenGroup just like HP, IBM, SGI and alot of other vendors.
Thanks for the link. It was a interesting read.
Hum, but can you still export an MacOS-X application display over the network in an easy manner with something like --display x.x.x.x:0.0 ?
I agree that the X11 protocol is chatty and bandwidth inefficient, they should redesign the TCP/IP parts and still maintain backward compatibility with the old "version". Going hardware accellerated "local-only" is the wrong approach.
Well, no. "Open Source" does not mean something is free to distribute. You can sell Open Source applications and charge per license/copy. If you pay $100 and get an CD with source and binaries, that does not mean you can give away the source to somebody else. I belive one can sell propitary open-source programs just like propitary closed-source programs. I guess you are thinking of GPL and BSD licenses, there are many other Open Source licenses which place additional restrictions on the user.
Well, I can't help what you see yourself as but you don't sound like a GPL fanatic to me. I'M not a GPL fanatic but I would never go back to writing closed-source code again.
I dont know any other way to protect my investment and get return back for the effort put into this project. I would love to sell it as a pure open-source application, but even if I charge a small price compared to what these kind off applications do cost in the Windows world ($100 vs $1000-$5000) I fear my source-code would get pirated and spread over the internet.
I must admit that I'm surprised by this. How is GNOME a GNU project if this is allowed/easy? I don't have either GNOME or KDE installed anymore (I couldn't decide which was worse so I deleted both) so I've never looked at the details of their license but I assumed that GNOME is all GPL.
All libraries used for building applications are LGPL, and the enduser GNOME stuff is GPL.
Well I see myself as a GPL fanatic and I'm currently developing a closed-source profesional financial trading and technical-analysis application for trading equitys, futures, options and currencies for GNOME2/GTK2. An application which will be 100% closed-source and I will charge money for each copy of it. Ofcouse I have written alot of open-source software and participate in many open-source projects, have full commit/write access to the Gnome Project CVS repository for over 6 years.
GNOME is a good environment for writing closed-source application as there is no license fees like in the KDE world. Thats one of the reasons why I think Gnome will succeed and KDE fail.
That if you have a large company or school with 1000 Linux/UNIX desktops and want to apply a specific desktop configuration rule or restriction on all different 1000 workstations?
Uh, then you ofcouse need a distributed configuration management system with a distributed configuraion database -> Gconf
I agree with that bandwidth is a cornerstone in succesfully deploying IPv6. I'm hacking on an IPv6 video-streaming plugin for the Gstreamer media framework on my spare time, it will be used to stream/broadcast realtime one-to-many video like Movies/Television/Music/Radio using IPv6 multicast in a codec independent fasion thanks to the flexible Gstreamer architecture. I'm alot into homecinema and satelite/cable stuff and it would be nice to be able to stream TV channels and movies (MPEG2/MPEG4) in good quality over the net.
:-)
I enjoy doing low-level network programming, like designing protocols, ponder upon network routing issues, etc. I got bored about doing IPv4 stuff for some years ago, so I moved into the IPv6 area in 98-99, after a while I got bored of doing IPv6 unicast stuff becouse that area are much covered today, not much design and research to be done there. IPv6 multicast is fairly new and un-expoited and are evolving quick, so its a fun area to be involved in, I'm part of a global IPv6 multicast research network called M6bone, most things revolve about research of new protocols like MLD and SSM and effecient multicast routing.
In a future world I would be able to stream video from my server at home to my Cellphone/PDA anytime via Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) connectivity. Most new phones today have a IPv4 stack and color-screen but no IPv6 support in the phones yet. With Linux on the Ipaq I can get fully Mobile IPv6 in my pocket thru WiFi networks or wireless GSM/GPRS today if I wish.
I would like to see IPv6 being deployed in broadband networks to the homes, I think that would fuel IPv6 into mainstream usage in conjunction with P2P filesharing and true high-quality video streaming.
Enough ranting from my side.
Hmm, good idea but there already exist two applications that supports IPv6 native. They are called "Apache" and "Mozilla".
Agree with your post. One of the main reasons for being "source only" and "no-binaries" is becouse Mplayer needs to be tailour made to take fully advance of all the power and features your current architecture and CPU has.
Thats why you dont want to install a binary release of Mplayer.
You dont want to use a P-II compiled version of Mplayer on a P-III, P4 or AMD Athlon processor and vice versa.
At build time Mplayer is custom-built to take fully advantage of MMX, MMX2, SSE, 3Dnow and other features your specific CPU got to squeeze every ounce of performance out of your CPU, you do not get that with a binary installation.
The problem is that they make too much money. The artists and big record companies has keeped CD prices on a artifical high level due to oglipoly tactics. Most succesfull artists are milionaires, Some has even hundreds of milions like Madonna, Michael Jackson and Maria Carrey. This money comes from OUR pockets. I call it stealing, record companies and artists (some) are scum that only wants to rob consumers of their money so they can fly their fancy jets, ride their fat limmos and live at their luxuary hotels which normal people like you and me only can dream of.
Gordon Moore forgot about Nanotech.
I see you failed to understand my ironic comment, let me elaborate the issue.
American tax payers is the ones that have keept SGI alive thru the companys resent crisis and struggle, goverment investing in bigiron SGI machines at the major national labratories and military facilities. Which is in fact your hardearned money that have paid for these systems. One part of the reson is that it is the US goverment interest to have a strong national supercomputer industry, and not being dependent on foreign countries for key technologies which supercomputers are (you dont see many Japanese systems at the national labs, do you?). The US goverment has managed serval govermental tax funded joint projects of commercial nature with the supercomputer maker Cray for example. The Cray SV1 was the result of one.
Yes, does'nt it feel good to know your tax money is poured into SGI?
A linuxfarm may be much cheaper performance/dollar but it will suck bigtime on tasks that require closely-coupled systems like fluid-dynamics and material stress calculations, etc.
I guess the first thing you should do then you purchase a new DVD or audio CD is to make a backup copy of it and put the original on the shelf never to be used anymore, and only use the copy. Its also much easier to resell the original later if its brand new and never used.
Sometimes is makes me wonder if MPAA did chose to not enclose the disc on purpose just to sell more DVDs then they breaks. All discs get scratched and fingerprinted soner or later, especially if you have small children at home, then the lifetime of the discs gets very limited with discs lying all over the floor getting kicked around.
If private property is equal to capitalism. Therefore must restricting the use of private property be communism, becouse its the opposite, right?
MPAA = communist bastards