Species go extinct constantly. It's a natural part of evolution. By cloning an extinct species, we are just trying to interfere with evolution.
We are a part of nature too! So if we interfere, this interference is part of natural evolution. Many people seem to believe that man made stuff is unnatural, as if we were something special next to nature.
Consider this: This bird has of course an evolutionary advantage, as it is able to be cute enough in our view to motivate some effort to genetically restaurate it (as much as this is possible). You can bet that some ancient 10ft tall slimy hairy monster creature that went extinct won't get this privilege. (I assume that billg or some other weirdo with bucks is not a big fan of ancient 10ft tall slimy hairy creatures:)
The RIVA-128 was originally fabricated by SGS-Thompson. They were also involved in the design, if I remember correctly. (The initial RIVA support in XFree86 came from some SGS-Thompson folk too).
Later they added Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) to their manufacturers. I don't about the present role of SGS-Thompson.
The most important bit of the n-vidia/SGI story is that two former rivals went from competition to cooperation. It was not one of those '[open source] company XYZ goes IPO - quelle surprise' stories. => off topic.
Two remarks about the n-vidia/SGI competition:
1. PCs got a foot in the workstation market: A former colleague of mine, he is mechanical engineer, contracts in the realm of Finite Elements simulations (thermal stress analysis of turbine blades mostly). He owns some SGI workstations but switched to PC boxes (under NT) equipped with standard graphics boards because he got sufficient visualization powerfor less than half what the SGIs costed. This was the situation in 1997, I would not be surprised if PCs are even more attractive today.
2. I remember having read on riva zone that some of the n-vidia developers were former SGI employees. So it is likely that they brought some trade secrets er.. expertise over. So we had kind of a personal relationship between both companies already.
I believe we end user will benefit, after all this still is one of the most competetive markets.
And I wondered why I got miserable rates for some software download from ftp.cdrom.com 8 hours ago despite having a 8kb/s ISDN connection.. that were you hordes of quake players!
They should consider putting a warning in their banner ('Beware new Linux XY arrived') like a traffic warning.;-)
To make you snigger more: Yesterday I downloaded the old version - looks like I have to suck 22 megs again!:)
Re:XFree86 could be a little more open
on
XFree86 News
·
· Score: 1
Most likely your request came before the DRI stuff was released to XFree86 (at which point I usually deflected people since the stuff > they were looking for simply wasn't there, yet).
This is correct. I posted it in February, while the DRI code was released in June.
Normally everyone who sends email to XFree86@XFree86.Org and states "I would like to work on ABC" with "ABC" somewhat more informative than "XFree86" or "drivers" will get an application form within a few days.
That's what I anticipated (and reading this now explicitly from your side doesn't exactly make me feel better:-)
As to the generic issue here, yes, I think that XFree86 should open up its development a bit. And guess what, we will.
Glad to read this. I want to stress here that I don't want you folks to lower your quality criteria, just be more transparent, please. The usual way to do this is having some public forum of discussion. At that time I applied I did not find one. I don't want to transmit the message that the XFree86 folks are snobs, but rather (as the title of this message suggests) that the Xfree86 could make it easier for people to find out what is going and eventually participate.
The release of the 3.9.x snapshots is a first step in that direction, more will follow.
I would rather be able to follow the developers discussion (and join it on occasion). Without knowing where the project is heading I find it rather useless (for me) to have snapshots, with the exception of analyzing it to find out what is going on.:)
However, it's important to remember that even an organization that could break DES or RC6 (or any encryption, for that matter) in minutes would be overwhelmed if everyone used encryption (real-time mass scanning of internet traffic, for example, would be impossible), and the NSA knows it as well -- this is one reason they've campaigned alongside the FBI to limit the spread of encryption technology.
This is one of the things I wonder. There is lots of software available that would make spying harder, but still your software - lets take any UNIX distribution - comes preconfigured not using this.
So the default is lower security. Why is it not the other way round?
Would it really complicate the installation so much if for example PGP would be made part of the default installation process?
Why do we have telnet or ftp preconfigured, but not have ssh or scp running out of the box?
The NSA is generally portrayed as organization that has superior hardware and knowledge resources, everyone seems to assume that they are years ahead of everyone else.
But what is fiction and what is fact?
I don't know since when the NSA operates, but they are around for some years. I would like to know if any real proof about these mythical abilities surfaced in the past, some stunt the NSA performed that they were the only ones being capable to.
Watch Capricorn One for more on this conspiracy stuff.
Let me cite:
Plot Outline: A NASA Mars mission won't work, and its funding is endangered, so they decide to fake it just this once. But then they have to keep the secret..
One of my all-time favourites.
And it got even more weird after the OJ Simpson trial (OJ played one the astronauts).
.. but I hope it will be topped by "Samurai Fiction" move I'll see tonight..
JIT compiler drawbacks..
on
Java for EGCS
·
· Score: 1
This is not a Just-In-Time compiler.
I know, see my above posting. The question about the JIT came up at my work today and I just hoped to get it answered here, where some Java Slashdotters are likely to show up.
JIT compiler drawbacks..
on
Java for EGCS
·
· Score: 1
Can anyone help me with this:
I read some nice argument why JIT compilers are a bad idea, but I don't remember why exactly and where I read it - likely it was here on Slashdot.
It seems my technical interpretation skills are lacking today. In layman's terms, what does this libgcj actually do? Is a java source to native binary compiler?
The gnu 2.x compiler (and thus egcs) can use different front ends, until recently only C, C++, Objective C and Fortran 77. These frontends share the same intermediate optimzations and backends/code generators.
egcs has also frontends for chill and java.
A front end does nothing more than translating the source language, here java, into object code. So you need quite a lot of supporting libraries (startup code, Java system libraries, eg. for graphics). That is what libgcj will be.
It is big step, but still have a long way to go. Learning Java means learning the Java language (that is kind of a cut down C++) and becoming aquainted to the large libraries for graphics and other stuff. The latter taking most of the time IMHO.
I think his point is valid. What features, reliability, or performance does gdb have over a commercial compiler? Your average open source project is nothing more than an attempt to clone and make free something that was innovated by your traditional proprietary company.
You have no clue. First gcc is a very good C compiler, it's C++ frontend is worse but latest incarnation egcs is going to change this.
gcc is unique in one regard it runs on dozens of plattforms and supports even more plattforms as cross compiler.
Cygnus is making some dough by adding embedded processors as backends - latest prominent deal is the Playstation 2 chip, where gcc is the compiler of the development kit.
I worked on a client/server application where we had NT, Solaris and Sun clients, Solaris and Sun servers. It was a major relief to use Emacs as IDE on all plattforms, to use gcc/g++/g77/egcs for compilation and gdb for debugging.
Funny thing is that there was a HUGE traffic on the mailing list cdindex@freeamp.org after the first Slashdot article about cddb going megalomaniac.
Now there are only a couple of mails transported via the list. What does this tell?
The interest in this thing is probably still very high, but after the initial hot debate, where everyone stated their more or less funny ideas, the debate has now cooled down to the people who simply code something. I say something, because there was no idea that was officially tagged as masterplan (who should have done this blessing anyway?).
So I guess that we will see more code and more cdindex-enabled players, when those coders have fooled around enough with some of the ideas (the DNA one was cute, by the way).
I have read Michael Tiemann's chapter from "Open Sources".
While I am not 100% sure about my interpretation (I would have to reread it more carefully, and I will), it looked to me mostly that Cygnus simply uses Open Source as a business modell that allows them (them being the first mover in multiplatform compiler technology with many many embedded system targets) to stay ahead of the competition.
Under this conditions it is neccessary for them to take control of the compiler development.
Question: Is this an evil thing in itself?
My answer: I cannot tell right now. So far Cygnus has behaved well, taking from and giving to the net. If everyone is happy it is likely that they keep their leading position.
Crucial might be their relationship to the FSF, as happy as I'm about to see the progress on egcs, a starvation of gcc development would make me worry.
I would really like to know the FSF's point of view on the gcc/egcs issue.
> i can see an onslaught of "god didn't intend > for chickens to have three legs" bible-thumpers > coming from their corners to protest this one.
In my case you can leave out religous arguments, but indeed my feeling is that this is not a good thing to do.
Of course, if man does take chicken evolution this way, it is as "natural" as influencing this evolution by traditional selection and breeding. We are a part of nature so it is natural.
But do the scientists right now really understand what they do? I don't think so. It seems like take this gene here and put it there, lets switch some sequences here and there and lets see what will happen. Trial and error mostly.
To be honnest I cannot say what will happen in the future, maybe the biological systems are so fault tolerant, that it will indeed lead only to chicken with more tasty bits, but I would be not surprised at all, if it will have side effects of the strangest, well even deadliest kinds. We don't know right now.
I did already. But what good is it, if you as customer, can't decide if there is anything genetically tempered with in your food?
Of course the food industry is not stupid, they know that when they are forced to put a "gen soja" or "gen corn" on their packaging, many won't buy it. So they work against proper labeling.
Some years ago, when trying to explain the future of bioengeneering to a friend I made the joke that bioengineers may ultimately try to produce a chicken that when shouted at died immediatly of heart attack, looses all feathers and resolves into a couple of chicken nuggets.
When faced with the real image in the featured article, I must say the joke is not so funny anymore.
Albeit todays domestic animals were shaped by man too, such deep meddling with evolution goes far too far for my taste.
Slashdot Mirror
We are a part of nature too! So if we interfere, this interference is part of natural evolution. Many people seem to believe that man made stuff is unnatural, as if we were something special next to nature.
Consider this: :)
This bird has of course an evolutionary advantage, as it is able to be cute enough in our view to motivate some effort to genetically restaurate it (as much as this is possible). You can bet that some ancient 10ft tall slimy hairy monster creature that went extinct won't get this privilege.
(I assume that billg or some other weirdo with bucks is not a big fan of ancient 10ft tall slimy hairy creatures
Later they added Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) to their manufacturers. I don't about the present role of SGS-Thompson.
Two remarks about the n-vidia/SGI competition:
1. PCs got a foot in the workstation market:
A former colleague of mine, he is mechanical engineer, contracts in the realm of Finite Elements simulations (thermal stress analysis of turbine blades mostly). He owns some SGI workstations but switched to PC boxes (under NT) equipped with standard graphics boards because he got sufficient visualization powerfor less than half what the SGIs costed. This was the situation in 1997, I would not be surprised if PCs are even more attractive today.
2. I remember having read on riva zone that some of the n-vidia developers were former SGI employees. So it is likely that they brought some trade secrets er.. expertise over. So we had kind of a personal relationship between both companies already.
I believe we end user will benefit, after all this still is one of the most competetive markets.
And I wondered why I got miserable rates for some software download from ftp.cdrom.com 8 hours ago despite having a 8kb/s ISDN connection .. that were you hordes of quake players!
They should consider putting a warning in their banner ('Beware new Linux XY arrived') like a traffic warning. ;-)
To make you snigger more: Yesterday I downloaded the old version - looks like I have to suck 22 megs again! :)
This is correct. I posted it in February, while the DRI code was released in June.
Normally everyone who sends email to XFree86@XFree86.Org and states "I would like to work on ABC" with "ABC" somewhat more informative than "XFree86" or "drivers" will get an application form within a few days.
That's what I anticipated (and reading this now explicitly from your side doesn't exactly make me feel better :-)
As to the generic issue here, yes, I think that XFree86 should open up its development a bit. And guess what, we will.
Glad to read this. I want to stress here that I don't want you folks to lower your quality criteria, just be more transparent, please. The usual way to do this is having some public forum of discussion. At that time I applied I did not find one.
I don't want to transmit the message that the XFree86 folks are snobs, but rather (as the title of this message suggests) that the Xfree86 could make it easier for people to find out what is going and eventually participate.
The release of the 3.9.x snapshots is a first step in that direction, more will follow.
I would rather be able to follow the developers discussion (and join it on occasion). Without knowing where the project is heading I find it rather useless (for me) to have snapshots, with the exception of analyzing it to find out what is going on. :)
To illustrate that I am not just ranting let me end this post with a link that might be interesting for the BSD crowd:
http://www.netcologne.de/~nc-vanwoma/ riva-glx
This is one of the things I wonder. There is lots of software available that would make spying harder, but still your software - lets take any UNIX distribution - comes preconfigured not using this.
So the default is lower security. Why is it not the other way round?
Would it really complicate the installation so much if for example PGP would be made part of the default installation process?
Why do we have telnet or ftp preconfigured, but not have ssh or scp running out of the box?
I would like to see a change here.
But what is fiction and what is fact?
I don't know since when the NSA operates, but they are around for some years. I would like to know if any real proof about these mythical abilities surfaced in the past, some stunt the NSA performed that they were the only ones being capable to.
Let me cite:
Plot Outline: A NASA Mars mission won't work, and its funding is endangered, so they decide to fake it just this once. But then they have to keep the secret..
One of my all-time favourites.
And it got even more weird after the OJ Simpson trial (OJ played one the astronauts).
As trivial and stupid some parts of the series were, it had a special magic and was a true modern epic saga.. Kelly added a major part to it!
.. but I hope it will be topped by "Samurai Fiction" move I'll see tonight..
I know, see my above posting. The question about the JIT came up at my work today and I just hoped to get it answered here, where some Java Slashdotters are likely to show up.
I read some nice argument why JIT compilers are a bad idea, but I don't remember why exactly and where I read it - likely it was here on Slashdot.
The gnu 2.x compiler (and thus egcs) can use different front ends, until recently only C, C++, Objective C and Fortran 77. These frontends share the same intermediate optimzations and backends/code generators.
egcs has also frontends for chill and java.
A front end does nothing more than translating the source language, here java, into object code. So you need quite a lot of supporting libraries (startup code, Java system libraries, eg. for graphics). That is what libgcj will be.
It is big step, but still have a long way to go. Learning Java means learning the Java language (that is kind of a cut down C++) and becoming aquainted to the large libraries for graphics and other stuff. The latter taking most of the time IMHO.
Does anyone know in how many aspects a European i-Mac differs from the U.S. version?
You have no clue. First gcc is a very good C compiler, it's C++ frontend is worse but latest incarnation egcs is going to change this.
gcc is unique in one regard it runs on dozens of plattforms and supports even more plattforms as cross compiler.
Cygnus is making some dough by adding embedded processors as backends - latest prominent deal is the Playstation 2 chip, where gcc is the compiler of the development kit.
I worked on a client/server application where we had NT, Solaris and Sun clients, Solaris and Sun servers. It was a major relief to use Emacs as IDE on all plattforms, to use gcc/g++/g77/egcs for compilation and gdb for debugging.
I hope they publish some introduction/state of the nation report to make entry easy.
I pray that no one comes up with a Blue Daemon BSD! :-)
It would be more adequate to christen it Djihad Linux. :-)
Now there are only a couple of mails transported via the list. What does this tell?
The interest in this thing is probably still very high, but after the initial hot debate, where everyone stated their more or less funny ideas, the debate has now cooled down to the people who simply code something. I say something, because there was no idea that was officially tagged as masterplan (who should have done this blessing anyway?).
So I guess that we will see more code and more cdindex-enabled players, when those coders have fooled around enough with some of the ideas (the DNA one was cute, by the way).
Better not call it CygCo :-)
While I am not 100% sure about my interpretation (I would have to reread it more carefully, and I will), it looked to me mostly that Cygnus simply uses Open Source as a business modell that allows them (them being the first mover in multiplatform compiler technology with many many embedded system targets) to stay ahead of the competition.
Under this conditions it is neccessary for them to take control of the compiler development.
Question: Is this an evil thing in itself?
My answer: I cannot tell right now.
So far Cygnus has behaved well, taking from and giving to the net. If everyone is happy it is likely that they keep their leading position.
Crucial might be their relationship to the FSF, as happy as I'm about to see the progress on egcs, a starvation of gcc development would make me worry.
I would really like to know the FSF's point of view on the gcc/egcs issue.
> i can see an onslaught of "god didn't intend
> for chickens to have three legs" bible-thumpers
> coming from their corners to protest this one.
In my case you can leave out religous arguments, but indeed my feeling is that this is not a good thing to do.
Of course, if man does take chicken evolution this way, it is as "natural" as influencing this evolution by traditional selection and breeding. We are a part of nature so it is natural.
But do the scientists right now really understand what they do? I don't think so. It seems like take this gene here and put it there, lets switch some sequences here and there and lets see what will happen. Trial and error mostly.
To be honnest I cannot say what will happen in the future, maybe the biological systems are so fault tolerant, that it will indeed lead only to chicken with more tasty bits, but I would be not surprised at all, if it will have side effects of the strangest, well even deadliest kinds.
We don't know right now.
> I've gone vegetarian!
I did already. But what good is it, if you as customer, can't decide if there is anything genetically tempered with in your food?
Of course the food industry is not stupid, they know that when they are forced to put a "gen soja" or "gen corn" on their packaging, many won't buy it. So they work against proper labeling.
Some years ago, when trying to explain the future of bioengeneering to a friend I made the joke that bioengineers may ultimately try to produce a chicken that when shouted at died immediatly of heart attack, looses all feathers and resolves into a couple of chicken nuggets.
When faced with the real image in the featured article, I must say the joke is not so funny anymore.
Albeit todays domestic animals were shaped by man too, such deep meddling with evolution goes far too far for my taste.