>Did you miss the part about 'single or limited-use'
No. Why should that bother me? Linux is already used in embedded applications. I see nothing wrong with the creation of internet appliances, and I'd rather that the next generation run Linux rather than WinCE.
Yes, I know that Linux supports "legacy" apps from the old Unix school. I recognize that my xterm is emulating a terminal which was emulating a teletype. Most everyone considers Office and Windows modern, though. Still, I think of them as sadly necessary baggage to upkeep some older files and programs.
Linux can be somewhat lighter because you can trim it down much further and still have a functional system. Plus, it is very customizable toward a particular task. Clean design, and source code availability makes it very attractive for the embedded market. Then there is the cost...
...that will probably make the decision for me. The G400 is a "high end" card. It will have TV out, dual head support on the card, and all sorts of whiz-bang features for DVD's and MPEG's. Most of those things I don't care about, so I'll probably just save my money and go with the more conservative TNT2. If you feel like going all out, though, the G400 is for you.
You notice that the article goes on about how this product is possible through low-cost alternatives such as Linux which do not require licensing fees? Then the writer goes on to explain that this is the fulfillment of a prediction made by a number of companies, including MS and Intel. Specifically:
Companies such as Microsoft and Intel as well as a host of PC and consumer electronics manufacturers have all postulated that in the near future, consumers will conduct e-commerce and pay for a variety of services through single or limited-use Internet appliances, rather than bulky and expensive PCs weighted down with bloated legacy applications.
In other words, traditional PC's are weighted down with "legacy" applications, specifically Windows and Office. What a beautiful way of phrasing the problem!
I'm pretty sure the three-fingered salute on Macintosh is still handled in software, albeit very low level software. You actually can crash your Mac hard enough that the key combo will not work -- I've had a friend do it. If I recall, he was trying to run some ancient, poorly ported kludge of a program compiled for an old 68K (emulation!). His system went down so hard, the reset switch didn't work. He had to pull the power cable to get the system to reboot.
Seriously, I could care less about Intel products. If I want an x86 box, I'll build it myself. Its quite easy to do, and you don't have to deal with Compaq's desktop line which is known for hardware failures.
Alphas, however, excite me. I want to see more and more of them, preferably running Linux. If Compaq can start getting the volume up a bit, Alpha prices can become more reasonable, and the platform will become much more attractive.
Most Mac users I know know little about computing, and don't particularly care to know more. I dare say that most Mac users that most people know are this way. Quite a lot of people get Macs because they think that PC's are "too hard to use". They want the out of the box experience.
I believe that technically competent Mac people are more visible than technically competent Windows people just because Mac advocates tend to be loud. Very loud.
I know some solid coders who love Mac, but not many. The competent Mac people get really touchy about how non-technical the Mac user base is, but that doesn't change matters.
Apple tries very hard to look cute and sell to hipsters. Some proficient computer users use their products, but not all that many.
--Lenny
Just a bit of cluelessness
on
Cool PC Cases
·
· Score: 1
The wording was strange, but I would attribute it to a marketeer who doesn't really understand what he is writing about. There are way too many of them out there. Intel's marketing is really starting to creep me out. I'm glad that I've never bought an Intel CPU.
Id does so many things right. They have done much to expand the gaming industry. They effectively created the online gaming scene. They are very open with their development, and give back to the community.
As I see it, Id doesn't fear things like opening up older games or, in general, being open with their development because they are very secure about their skills. They know that their games will be technically superior, so they don't have to resort to sneaky tricks. They are good enough to play fair, and still come out on top. I wish more software companies had this sort of mentality.
Of course I meant to say that Episode V was romantic in spots. Also, I'd have to say it was the best Star Wars yet. Hoth, the asteroid field, Luke when he was young, cocky and not-fully trained...it had it all. I hope that Episode II will be better, but I don't expect it to be.
He's NOT for the older age groups, yet people can't seem to accept that
Oh, I accept that he is meant for the kids. That doesn't mean that he isn't obnoxious and grating for adults. Many people knocked the Ewoks' blatant cute appeal. They were obviously meant to be cute, but I found them less intrusive than Jar Jar. I just don't expect (or want) that much slapstick in a Star Wars flick. I thought the bumbling droids were much cooler than some CG Jive-talking smiley donkey.
Lucas has also said that Episode 2 was supposed to be the "romantic" one...maybe he's thinking he could use Leo to draw all the ladies
This seems frighteningly likely to me. Even Episode IV was romantic in spots, but Harrison Ford is a considerably less annoying actor than Leo. Hell, Harrison is The Man.
Besides, Leo is such a pretty boy. He is almost the definition of "non-threatening". I just can't picture him ever turning into Darth Vader. I can't picture him with a lightsaber, either. Ewan McGreger and Liam Neeson: now that was good casting...
-Lenny
I don't like the moderation descriptions...
on
Slashdot Notes
·
· Score: 2
I think most all of us know why a post gets moderated. I find the descriptions annoying -- it should be obvious why a post was moderated. All in all, the old moderation system seemed pretty functional to me. If I'm away from my computer for a while, I like that I can pull up a day old story and browse a condensed version of the comments. The few posts that made it to 4 or 5 points do a good job of clearly presenting the important points made in that discussion. An excellent system.
I don't see what is gained by the moderation description. I like the simple "relevancy meter". --Lenny
Modern filesystems are extremely complex. Once I put together a very simple filesystem -- one less complicated even than DOS's FAT -- and it was a *nightmare* to write. Implementing extensible files, process synchronization and caching dealing directly with inodes and raw sectors makes for some very ugly code.
If a new filesystem is very similar to an old one that is already in the kernel, things are much easier as quite a lot of code can be reused. Howevre, if cxfs is a journaling system (I don't know too much about it), then we are almost starting over.
I imagine that putting cxfs support into the Linux kernel would be a Big Deal. SGI would have to open source a lot of IRIX code that presumably cost them a great deal to develop, or there would have to be an extremely large Linux development effort.
If we are lucky, SGI will decide that Linux really needs a cutting edge, high performance (better than ext2fs), file system and that they might as well just give us the filesystem code out of IRIX. One way or the other, I'm liking SGI more and more.
The construction firm botched the job and bent a support pin when trying to place the statue back. Fixing *that* cost a fair amount. One of the coolest parts of the jack was that the students, working in secret with nothing but some wood and ropes, got it right whereas the guys with the crane messed it up. I believe that sufficient funds were generated from T-shirt sales commemorating the event to pay for the clean-up, which is cool.
This year was the 10th anniversary of the prank and, at homecoming, the ever-wacky Rice band (the MOB) did a half-time show about the event. They made a mock-up of the statue with one of the original pranksters posing as William Rice, and turned him.
When you get to Rice, check out the MOB -- they are a witty bunch.
..my favorite is still one that happened at Rice about 10 years ago. Of course, at Rice they are called "Jacks", and aren't as smiled on by the administration.
At Rice, there is a rather large statue of William March Rice in the middle of the academic quad. Some engineering students were miffed at the administration and wanted to raise a stir, so they decided to remodel the main quad a bit.
They snuck into the quad one night with a pair of large wooden A-frames, and some ropes and pulleys. With some ingenuity, they then managed to lift up the statue, pivot it 180 degress, and then place it back down on its support pins backwards. The story goes that the frames splintered *just* as they lowered it back down, but the statue was unharmed.
The next day, all the kids went out to classes to found their founder backwards.:) The administration had to hire a construction firm to bring in a crane and set it back. Well, I suppose they could have just asked the kids to do it again, but they didn't want to do that...
These people think that Winamp stole some of their code. Alright, maybe that is possible. But they are trying to get money out of mp3.com? On what grounds? Because mp3.com spreads files that *could be used* with this tainted player?
Well, someone once ganked part of a text editor from me and made it shareware. I didn't mind at the time, but now I could kind of use some cash, so: all writers of text on the internet owe me money! They are flagrantly creating material that could be viewed and even *edited* with the program that was stolen from me. I better start a lawsuit right now...
Seriously, how can this person look at himself in the mirror in the morning?
SGI's embrace of Linux is good news. No doubt SGI will, over time, roll some of the more advanced features of Irix over into Linux. This means they don't have to port Irix to x86 and we get some nice, powerful features. Double win.
Now the question is: what advanced features does Irix have that Linux could benefit from? What might Linux gain from this? How's the filesystem? The NFS implementation?
I work with Linux and Solaris, so I can't comment on specifics. Who out there is familiar with Irix?
--Lenny
Use the LinuxHQ slashbox
on
Linux 2.3.0
·
· Score: 1
...it provides this information in a small package. I'm still glad that the 2.3 announcement made slashdot, though.
--Lenny
//"You can't prove anything about a program written in C or FORTRAN. It's really just Peek and Poke with some syntactic sugar."
*I* think that this is newsworthy...
on
Linux 2.3.0
·
· Score: 4
Some people have mentioned that Dev kernels should not be announced here because we shouldn't be encouraging newbies to download/use them. It's true: the people who would really care about the Dev kernels will find that information elsewhere. So I don't think that 2.3.1 or higher should be announced here on Slashdot.
However, I find it very newsworthy that the 2.3 series was *started*. This is something that I have been awaiting eagerly. I wish that a list of proposed features had been posted as well, but I'm not even sure if such a document exists.
Perhaps NFS is a priority? Maybe some more SMP work? I can't wait to see... --Lenny
//"You can't prove anything about a program written in C or FORTRAN. It's really just Peek and Poke with some syntactic sugar."
Putting that functionality in hardware ties you to a particular implementation. Systems have been designed that would handle page faults purely in hardware. They were very complicated and rather limiting. Experience has shown this to be an area best handled by software, which is flexible and can be easily changed or fixed.
Yes, I believe that 3D graphics were once done in software. They still are, in many applications. 3D game rendering is a rather specific task, and very computationally expensive. Thus, it was worthwhile to develop specialized hardware for this purpose. Compared to modern workstation hardware, TCP stacks are fairly inexpensive, if written correctly. I question how how useful silicon TCP would be. I expect that the added cost and reduced flexibility would more than outweigh the saved CPU-load for most cases.
Then again, perhaps NT's implementation of TCP is poor enough to where this is a concern.
Oh, and I never have problems with Linux MM. --Lenny
//"You can't prove anything about a program written in C or FORTRAN. It's really just Peek and Poke with some syntactic sugar."
I agree that true AI would be a problem for many religions to swallow. However, "free will" is a topic that has long been fiercely debated. AI wouldn't fundamentally change the argument -- it would just add some fuel to the fire.
Also, I'm not positive that true AI is coming. We don't really know if what we want is possible. And besides, humans control the definition of "intelligence", so we could always change around the definition of "intelligence", just to make AI-haters feel better.
And, do we want to communicate with dolphins?
--Lenny
...And, I apologize if the following is a bit personal...
ps (If anyone knows how I can get in touch with those damn matrix guys... let me know. I want my name back.)
Perhaps you are kidding, but if not: Do you really consider Neo a great, original thought of your own? Neo has been a rather overused "cool" cyberpunk name for a long time, and I groaned when The Matrix used it. There are a lot of people out there these days. It is rather difficult to come up with a decent, unique handle online. My handle here is slothbait, which is just ridiculous. Perhaps it is stupid, and it certainly isn't "cool". However, I thought it was slightly humorous, and more importantly, reliably unique. Perhaps I am wrong, though...
//"You can't prove anything about a program written in C or FORTRAN. It's really just Peek and Poke with some syntactic sugar."
From the National posting, it sounds like National is selling a fab and giving up on x86 pin-compatible architectures (ie: MII and Jalapeno). They will continue to develop the MediaGX line of systems. Further, they will refocus on information appliancs (like that web pad thing that Cyrix is developing).
--Lenny
//"You can't prove anything about a program written in C or FORTRAN. It's really just Peek and Poke with some syntactic sugar."
Coming from one of the fathers of Unix, that hurts quite a bit. However, I'd like to point out that Thompson is pretty much into OS research. Unix was cutting edge when he built it, but now it is somewhat mundane. I'm not surprised that he isn't interested in Linux.
He is working on Plan9 and other stuff. Somehow, I don't think that Plan9 will ever have the impact that Unix had (or that Linux is *having*). Many people here think that his statement amounts to sour grapes since his more recent work isn't getting any awards. I expect he has some real, technical reasons for his statements, and I'd like to hear them.
Another point to remember is that Linux is perhaps more a political movement than a technical one, and Thompson isn't into politics. As for the long term impact of Linux, I think that he is off, but only time will tell.
--Lenny
//"You can't prove anything about a program written in C or FORTRAN. It's really just Peek and Poke with some syntactic sugar."
WCarchive is the busiest *public* FTP archive in the world. Who knows what kind of private sites exist out there. Also, there are quite likely *larger* archives out there, though they don't push as much traffic as WC.
I remember when WC took this title away from MS a while ago. The former record had been made by a sizable cluster of machines, all of which ran on faster hardware than cdrom.com . A shining day for open source.
To me, the single greatest argument for using FreeBSD is that WCarchive uses it.
--Lenny
//"You can't prove anything about a program written in C or FORTRAN. It's really just Peek and Poke with some syntactic sugar."
It seems that to get 3dfx support under Linux (without running apps as root), you have to be using a modular kernel. But I *like* my monolithic kernel! It seems you also need to define X modes for your 3dfx resolutions, which I likewise want to avoid. Oh well, I'm sure that Q3test would be ridiculously slow on this system anyway, so I will stick to Team Fortress on QuakeWorld for now...
--Lenny
//"You can't prove anything about a program written in C or FORTRAN. It's really just Peek and Poke with some syntactic sugar."
Slashdot Mirror
>Did you miss the part about 'single or limited-use'
No. Why should that bother me? Linux is already used in embedded applications. I see nothing wrong with the creation of internet appliances, and I'd rather that the next generation run Linux rather than WinCE.
Yes, I know that Linux supports "legacy" apps from the old Unix school. I recognize that my xterm is emulating a terminal which was emulating a teletype. Most everyone considers Office and Windows modern, though. Still, I think of them as sadly necessary baggage to upkeep some older files and programs.
Linux can be somewhat lighter because you can trim it down much further and still have a functional system. Plus, it is very customizable toward a particular task. Clean design, and source code availability makes it very attractive for the embedded market. Then there is the cost...
--Lenny
...that will probably make the decision for me. The G400 is a "high end" card. It will have TV out, dual head support on the card, and all sorts of whiz-bang features for DVD's and MPEG's. Most of those things I don't care about, so I'll probably just save my money and go with the more conservative TNT2. If you feel like going all out, though, the G400 is for you.
--Lenny
In other words, traditional PC's are weighted down with "legacy" applications, specifically Windows and Office. What a beautiful way of phrasing the problem!
I like the tone of this article,
--Lenny
I'm pretty sure the three-fingered salute on Macintosh is still handled in software, albeit very low level software. You actually can crash your Mac hard enough that the key combo will not work -- I've had a friend do it. If I recall, he was trying to run some ancient, poorly ported kludge of a program compiled for an old 68K (emulation!). His system went down so hard, the reset switch didn't work. He had to pull the power cable to get the system to reboot.
Now that's some serious crashing...
--Lenny
Seriously, I could care less about Intel products. If I want an x86 box, I'll build it myself. Its quite easy to do, and you don't have to deal with Compaq's desktop line which is known for hardware failures.
Alphas, however, excite me. I want to see more and more of them, preferably running Linux. If Compaq can start getting the volume up a bit, Alpha prices can become more reasonable, and the platform will become much more attractive.
--Lenny, who wants an Alpha
Most Mac users I know know little about computing, and don't particularly care to know more. I dare say that most Mac users that most people know are this way. Quite a lot of people get Macs because they think that PC's are "too hard to use". They want the out of the box experience.
I believe that technically competent Mac people are more visible than technically competent Windows people just because Mac advocates tend to be loud. Very loud.
I know some solid coders who love Mac, but not many. The competent Mac people get really touchy about how non-technical the Mac user base is, but that doesn't change matters.
Apple tries very hard to look cute and sell to hipsters. Some proficient computer users use their products, but not all that many.
--Lenny
The wording was strange, but I would attribute it to a marketeer who doesn't really understand what he is writing about. There are way too many of them out there. Intel's marketing is really starting to creep me out. I'm glad that I've never bought an Intel CPU.
--Lenny
But the MS quote was a bad one to begin with. Way too many people are parodying it. Bad parodies of bad slogans make me double-cringe.
It may be a good game, though.
--Lenny
Id does so many things right. They have done much to expand the gaming industry. They effectively created the online gaming scene. They are very open with their development, and give back to the community.
As I see it, Id doesn't fear things like opening up older games or, in general, being open with their development because they are very secure about their skills. They know that their games will be technically superior, so they don't have to resort to sneaky tricks. They are good enough to play fair, and still come out on top. I wish more software companies had this sort of mentality.
just some thoughts,
--Lenny
Of course I meant to say that Episode V was romantic in spots. Also, I'd have to say it was the best Star Wars yet. Hoth, the asteroid field, Luke when he was young, cocky and not-fully trained...it had it all. I hope that Episode II will be better, but I don't expect it to be.
--Lenny
This seems frighteningly likely to me. Even Episode IV was romantic in spots, but Harrison Ford is a considerably less annoying actor than Leo. Hell, Harrison is The Man.
Besides, Leo is such a pretty boy. He is almost the definition of "non-threatening". I just can't picture him ever turning into Darth Vader. I can't picture him with a lightsaber, either. Ewan McGreger and Liam Neeson: now that was good casting...
-Lenny
I think most all of us know why a post gets moderated. I find the descriptions annoying -- it should be obvious why a post was moderated.
All in all, the old moderation system seemed pretty functional to me. If I'm away from my computer for a while, I like that I can pull up a day old story and browse a condensed version of the comments. The few posts that made it to 4 or 5 points do a good job of clearly presenting the important points made in that discussion. An excellent system.
I don't see what is gained by the moderation description. I like the simple "relevancy meter".
--Lenny
Modern filesystems are extremely complex. Once I put together a very simple filesystem -- one less complicated even than DOS's FAT -- and it was a *nightmare* to write. Implementing extensible files, process synchronization and caching dealing directly with inodes and raw sectors makes for some very ugly code.
If a new filesystem is very similar to an old one that is already in the kernel, things are much easier as quite a lot of code can be reused. Howevre, if cxfs is a journaling system (I don't know too much about it), then we are almost starting over.
I imagine that putting cxfs support into the Linux kernel would be a Big Deal. SGI would have to open source a lot of IRIX code that presumably cost them a great deal to develop, or there would have to be an extremely large Linux development effort.
If we are lucky, SGI will decide that Linux really needs a cutting edge, high performance (better than ext2fs), file system and that they might as well just give us the filesystem code out of IRIX.
One way or the other, I'm liking SGI more and more.
--Lenny
The construction firm botched the job and bent a support pin when trying to place the statue back. Fixing *that* cost a fair amount. One of the coolest parts of the jack was that the students, working in secret with nothing but some wood and ropes, got it right whereas the guys with the crane messed it up. I believe that sufficient funds were generated from T-shirt sales commemorating the event to pay for the clean-up, which is cool.
This year was the 10th anniversary of the prank and, at homecoming, the ever-wacky Rice band (the MOB) did a half-time show about the event. They made a mock-up of the statue with one of the original pranksters posing as William Rice, and turned him.
When you get to Rice, check out the MOB -- they are a witty bunch.
--Lenny
..my favorite is still one that happened at Rice about 10 years ago. Of course, at Rice they are called "Jacks", and aren't as smiled on by the administration.
:) The administration had to hire a construction firm to bring in a crane and set it back. Well, I suppose they could have just asked the kids to do it again, but they didn't want to do that...
At Rice, there is a rather large statue of William March Rice in the middle of the academic quad. Some engineering students were miffed at the administration and wanted to raise a stir, so they decided to remodel the main quad a bit.
They snuck into the quad one night with a pair of large wooden A-frames, and some ropes and pulleys. With some ingenuity, they then managed to lift up the statue, pivot it 180 degress, and then place it back down on its support pins backwards. The story goes that the frames splintered *just* as they lowered it back down, but the statue was unharmed.
The next day, all the kids went out to classes to found their founder backwards.
Man, hacks are cool.
--Lenny
These people think that Winamp stole some of their code. Alright, maybe that is possible. But they are trying to get money out of mp3.com? On what grounds? Because mp3.com spreads files that *could be used* with this tainted player?
Well, someone once ganked part of a text editor from me and made it shareware. I didn't mind at the time, but now I could kind of use some cash, so: all writers of text on the internet owe me money! They are flagrantly creating material that could be viewed and even *edited* with the program that was stolen from me. I better start a lawsuit right now...
Seriously, how can this person look at himself in the mirror in the morning?
--Lenny
SGI's embrace of Linux is good news. No doubt SGI will, over time, roll some of the more advanced features of Irix over into Linux. This means they don't have to port Irix to x86 and we get some nice, powerful features. Double win.
Now the question is: what advanced features does Irix have that Linux could benefit from? What might Linux gain from this? How's the filesystem? The NFS implementation?
I work with Linux and Solaris, so I can't comment on specifics. Who out there is familiar with Irix?
--Lenny
...it provides this information in a small package. I'm still glad that the 2.3 announcement made slashdot, though.
--Lenny
//"You can't prove anything about a program written in C or FORTRAN.
It's really just Peek and Poke with some syntactic sugar."
Some people have mentioned that Dev kernels should not be announced here because we shouldn't be encouraging newbies to download/use them. It's true: the people who would really care about the Dev kernels will find that information elsewhere. So I don't think that 2.3.1 or higher should be announced here on Slashdot.
However, I find it very newsworthy that the 2.3 series was *started*. This is something that I have been awaiting eagerly. I wish that a list of proposed features had been posted as well, but I'm not even sure if such a document exists.
Perhaps NFS is a priority? Maybe some more SMP work? I can't wait to see...
--Lenny
//"You can't prove anything about a program written in C or FORTRAN.
It's really just Peek and Poke with some syntactic sugar."
Putting that functionality in hardware ties you to a particular implementation. Systems have been designed that would handle page faults purely in hardware. They were very complicated and rather limiting. Experience has shown this to be an area best handled by software, which is flexible and can be easily changed or fixed.
Yes, I believe that 3D graphics were once done in software. They still are, in many applications. 3D game rendering is a rather specific task, and very computationally expensive. Thus, it was worthwhile to develop specialized hardware for this purpose. Compared to modern workstation hardware, TCP stacks are fairly inexpensive, if written correctly. I question how how useful silicon TCP would be. I expect that the added cost and reduced flexibility would more than outweigh the saved CPU-load for most cases.
Then again, perhaps NT's implementation of TCP is poor enough to where this is a concern.
Oh, and I never have problems with Linux MM.
--Lenny
//"You can't prove anything about a program written in C or FORTRAN.
It's really just Peek and Poke with some syntactic sugar."
Also, I'm not positive that true AI is coming. We don't really know if what we want is possible. And besides, humans control the definition of "intelligence", so we could always change around the definition of "intelligence", just to make AI-haters feel better.
And, do we want to communicate with dolphins?
--Lenny
...And, I apologize if the following is a bit personal...
Perhaps you are kidding, but if not: Do you really consider Neo a great, original thought of your own? Neo has been a rather overused "cool" cyberpunk name for a long time, and I groaned when The Matrix used it. There are a lot of people out there these days. It is rather difficult to come up with a decent, unique handle online. My handle here is slothbait, which is just ridiculous. Perhaps it is stupid, and it certainly isn't "cool". However, I thought it was slightly humorous, and more importantly, reliably unique. Perhaps I am wrong, though...
//"You can't prove anything about a program written in C or FORTRAN.
It's really just Peek and Poke with some syntactic sugar."
From the National posting, it sounds like National is selling a fab and giving up on x86 pin-compatible architectures (ie: MII and Jalapeno). They will continue to develop the MediaGX line of systems. Further, they will refocus on information appliancs (like that web pad thing that Cyrix is developing).
--Lenny
//"You can't prove anything about a program written in C or FORTRAN.
It's really just Peek and Poke with some syntactic sugar."
Coming from one of the fathers of Unix, that hurts quite a bit. However, I'd like to point out that Thompson is pretty much into OS research. Unix was cutting edge when he built it, but now it is somewhat mundane. I'm not surprised that he isn't interested in Linux.
He is working on Plan9 and other stuff. Somehow, I don't think that Plan9 will ever have the impact that Unix had (or that Linux is *having*). Many people here think that his statement amounts to sour grapes since his more recent work isn't getting any awards. I expect he has some real, technical reasons for his statements, and I'd like to hear them.
Another point to remember is that Linux is perhaps more a political movement than a technical one, and Thompson isn't into politics. As for the long term impact of Linux, I think that he is off, but only time will tell.
--Lenny
//"You can't prove anything about a program written in C or FORTRAN.
It's really just Peek and Poke with some syntactic sugar."
WCarchive is the busiest *public* FTP archive in the world. Who knows what kind of private sites exist out there. Also, there are quite likely *larger* archives out there, though they don't push as much traffic as WC.
I remember when WC took this title away from MS a while ago. The former record had been made by a sizable cluster of machines, all of which ran on faster hardware than cdrom.com . A shining day for open source.
To me, the single greatest argument for using FreeBSD is that WCarchive uses it.
--Lenny
//"You can't prove anything about a program written in C or FORTRAN.
It's really just Peek and Poke with some syntactic sugar."
It seems that to get 3dfx support under Linux (without running apps as root), you have to be using a modular kernel. But I *like* my monolithic kernel! It seems you also need to define X modes for your 3dfx resolutions, which I likewise want to avoid. Oh well, I'm sure that Q3test would be ridiculously slow on this system anyway, so I will stick to Team Fortress on QuakeWorld for now...
--Lenny
//"You can't prove anything about a program written in C or FORTRAN.
It's really just Peek and Poke with some syntactic sugar."