There' s more to this wide world than games.
on
Plex86 Runs DOS
·
· Score: 5
Some people actually use their computers to get work done. As one small example: you'd be amazed how many control systems for industrial machinery are still run on DOS PC's. I run into them all the time.
Often their software was written by a long-since defunct company. Windows port? Hah! This stuff hasn't been rev'ed in atleast a decade. The company died, and the program sources went with it to it's grave. This is among the greatest arguments for open source software. If we had source to these control programs, then we could rewrite it for a Linux machine, or a Be machine or whatever-the-heck we wanted. We could update it to use more modern or more reliable computers. Instead, we're stuck hoping that that old 286 keeps chugging along.
Fortunately, for the most part, those 286 systems *do* keep chugging along. There are plenty of workhorse PC AT's sitting in cabinets, unceremoniously controlling production equipment -- pushing the GNP along. Eventually, they will die, and a replacement will have to be found. But as long as the old, dusty system still runs, why throw money at a replacement?
DOS was so universal for so long, and so much application software was written for it that it will be around for a very, very long time. Infact, DOS may even outlive the x86.
So, with AMD, the naming scheme is Kx, with x being the generation number of the core, like x86 used to be. The numbers following the "K6" line represent revs within a generation. Intel started that trend and AMD followed it.
Things are a bit complicated by the fact that Intel doesn't *have* a new core to compete with the Athlon. Intel hasn't made a new core in years. The IA-64 was supposed to be here by now, but it isn't. In the meantime, Intel has been trying to keep up by rev'ing it's Pentium Pro core, which dates back to ~94. While not inspiring, it's impressive that they've been able to squeeze out as much performance from the aging P6 core as they have.
Another complication is the fact that the Pentium 2 and 3 date back to the Pentium Pro design, *not* the "classic" Pentium design. Further, the Pentium Pro was a completely different core than the Pentium -- not just a Pentium with added frills. This confuses quite a few people.
The industry is complicated, so it takes some effort to follow. Naming is the least of worries when comparing processors.
It was six bucks an hour...Who knew they would be successful? I sure didn't.
Then again, you might argue that one can have a lasting effect without enjoying "success", but I will leave that debate to the Amiga enthusiasts...
I've been following this column for a while. Cringely is an interesting guy, and he has certainly been around the industry. Though periodically his essays strike me as a bit ego-centric, he also can also provide some amazing insight. He really can draw together seperate pieces of tech news in a meaningful fashion.
Also, he's been around long enough that he can pull out interesting industry anecdotes. My favorite was his description of Def Con 1. You know: back when it really was a hacker (pardon: "cracker") convention. Very interesting reading.
In summary, I highly recommend this guys column...
And my 4.0 CD is supposed to be arriving in the mail today. Foo.
Still...who am I to resist the march of technology?
Anyway, I'm dipping my toe in the FreeBSD pool by installing on an old laptop I came by. I've been digging around for information on how FreeBSD handles laptop issues like power management and PCMCIA, but haven't found much yet. The BSD nomads pages are pretty large, but pretty out of date as well.
Anyone out there have any advice or pointers on FreeBSD on (i386) laptops?
Ideally, this should be a browser option, of course.
Actually, I'm surprised that Slashdot hasn't added color customization yet. I can filter stories, I can filter comments, and I can choose my link boxes, but I can't change something fundamental like the color of text?
And _I_ knew it was a hoax after I first read the article. I was really surprised how many people in the comments section took it seriously. Even if people believed it, though, there was no harm done.
How many people really based business decisions off of this? Precisely no one. There was no commercial use for the supposed product, and even if there had been, it was evident that the idea was hacked together by a few fly-by-nighters. It's not like this was tarnishing some trusted brand name.
How much time did you waste on this? A few seconds to read the headline, and if you were more interested, maybe a minute or so to read the full article.
It may surprise you, but many of us consider humor a "legitimate" use of the internet. I like pranks every now and then, as long as there's no damage done. And I don't see any damage here, except possibly for some embarassment for the people who believed it.
And your boy-who-cried-wolf analogy is silly. This is far different than email chain letters about the Good Time Virus. As real news, this might have been interesting, but certainly not alarming. It does nothing to lower our guard. If anything, this puts people *more* on their guard for other, more dangerous hoaxes.
Wait! It just dawned on me! Your *post* is a hoax! I can't believe I fell for it. You naughty, naughty boy, making me type all of these counterpoints to an argument that wasn't even real.
> FreeBSD... The choice of those, who know how to choose...
You sound like a few wine snobs I know.
FreeBSD may have it's technical merits, but I know plenty of people who run it just for the "fringe appeal". These are the people that ran Slackware way back because it seperated them from the crowd.
After the Red Hat IPO, Linux officially arrived and was no longer properly counter-culture. Once big money was involved, Linux became establishment, and that's just not chic. Then the people who ran Linux just to be different had to look for a new system -- luckily for them, the BSD's provide an easy migration. (yes, I know that BSD dates back to before Linux)
I feel some of this effect myself. I confess that part of why I use Debian is to seperate myself from the kids who purchased a RH boxed set at CompUSA, clicked their way through an install and now proudly play Solitaire in Gnome.
In the old days it *did* mean something to hack together a functional system from the disk sets that Slack provided, or that you downloaded by hand. There was a base level of proficiency that was necessary even to become a Linux user. This exclusion is rapidly breaking down in the Linux world, but lives on in the BSD world.
I'm not sure that any of the BSD's want to lower the entry barrier. Arguments of elitism aside, lowering the barrier definately lowers the mean competence of your user base, and I think that's something FreeBSD and the others would rather live without.
It seems to me that a lot of the *BSD users on Slashdot just wait around for good news about their system so that they can triumphantly reveal how superior their tastes are. It gets a little old.
FreeBSD... Because Linux just isn't leet enough anymore.
First, I'm going to agree that writing "native" code for Crusoe doesn't really make sense. Vital pieces of architecture are implemented in low level software, so if you bypass that layer, you are left with an incomplete microprocessor. Plus, your compiler backend would only be useful for that *particular* rev of the Crusoe. That layer of abstraction allows Transmeta to reorganize their architecture far more easily than other chip makers who have to worry about compatibility at the silicon level. I have no doubt that they will be using that advantage.
But I want to ask about another part of your post.
I keep hearing people snicker at gcc, but I haven't heard any solid arguments as to why it's "not that great". How is it inferior to other compilers? Does it not optimize as well? Is it less efficient generating code on certain architectures? Is it not as ANSI compliant as we might like?
My experiences with gcc have always been pleasant, and I use it instead of a vendor's system compiler whenever I can. Perhaps I'm biased since I've encountered way too many Sun's that still use ancient, pre-ANSI C compilers. No doubt, well maintained system are in better shape, but I'm wondering how much better than gcc they really are.
*BSD's developement/release model has been described several times in this discussion, often far better than I am about to do. Read the fine posts?
I've read explanations of this on Slashdot, on freebsd.org and in the FreeBSD manual many, many times, so I feel I've RTFM, but what is really going on is still a bit hazy.
but as it is a snapshot of -CURRENT rather than -STABLE
Ah, here lies the source of my confusion. I was under the impression that CURRENT trees did not make RELEASE's. I thought that RELEASE's were made only from the STABLE tree, and that snapshots of CURRENT were just called CURRENT. So, RELEASE doesn't mean "release quality", it means "we're sticking this on CD-ROM". Thus, one should be cognizant of which tree a RELEASE is from. Now the confusion is lifted.
As for "missing all sorts of.inf files", I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
Yeah, I don't know what the heck that means either, but the FreeBSD installer kept complaining that it couldn't find "foo.inf", or "bar.inf" on my FTP mirror of RELEASE-4.0 . Such files do not exist on ftp.freebsd.org , so I don't know what it is talking about. Very odd. Oh well, in light of this discussion, I will be resorting to 3.5 shortly.
Moral of this story: "Not all RELEASE's are equal", or "Linux users beware".
...which I just downloaded and stayed up all night trying to get onto my f*$^@!# laptop.
My impression is that FreeBSD "Release" is somewhat equivalent to Linux's "Stable", with "Current" tracking the changes from the CD-ROM's. So which # is the current "Release" now? Is it 3.5 or 4.0? Surely there is some distinction that I am missing...
Apparently 4.0 was missing all sorts of.inf files that my install needed, so I'm wondering if it isn't somehow a pre-release or upgrade-only sort of distro at the moment.
It seems like it would be trivial to create Lego-compatible plastic bricks. It's not like there's a whole lot to reverse-engineer there. And at the prices Lego sells at, I'm sure another company could undercut them.
Is there not enough of a market for this? Is there Intellectual Property preventing this?
Given how IP-aware and pro-reverse-engineering this crowd usually is, I'm surprised that I haven't seen anyone else bring it up, yet.
I have to throw in that, as an engineer (though not mechanical), I always thought it peculiar how much programmers enjoy Legos. I understand why engineers are drawn to them, and it's not like the professions are that far removed, but I would expect programmers to be interested in things less *physical*; like poetry, or classical music. Alright, so we've established that programmers like Haiku's, but still...
Atleast for a while, Windowmaker would pop up a window with a smily face and play music if you clicked in some special way on the "about" box.
I never would have known this, if I hadn't been digging through the source, looking for something else. Ah...the joys of open source.
I never have gotten it to trigger, though. I think you have to compile with a special option for all the bells and whistles. I kind of like Easter Eggs, though...
In Frotz for palm, you can just tap an instance in the word on the screen to cut and paste it to the prompt. It's quite convenient. Also, if you tap on the middle, right of the screen, it pops up a list of commands for you to choose from. There's very seldom need to actually draw out words with Graffiti.
When I discovered this feature of PalmFrotz, the thing went from being Cool to being Amazing. No Palm should be without one!
Why? Because I was trying to remind everyone of the intended audience of Linus's comments and code? That's just a historical consideration that I don't want lost in the noise.
Of course I program...lately it's been all ASM test code for 8051 microcontrollers. "Bare metal" stuff, I guess. You seem to be a programmer, but if your sig is true, then you can't possibly be a "real programmer". Ah...debating sigs on Slashdot on Saturday morning. I guess I'm not a "real programmer", either...
Look, I understand your point just fine, and I've certainly felt it myself. However, I don't think Linus's comment supports your case. This wasn't "production quality" code... it was very much a work in progress. And I know you weren't trying to besmirch Linus. Hell, Linus doesn't need defending. It's RMS that needs defending, and I find myself doing it regularly...
I really just think it's important to keep in mind who the intended audience of the original code really was. I feel it's an important historical consideration for the Free Software movement.
I realize fully that hard core hackers tinker. I don't claim to be hardcore, but one of the things about my job that I love the most is replacing crappy, poorly done code that I've inherited from other engineers...most of whom don't like to code as much as I. But there was probably a hell of a lot to tinker with in the kernel just to get it to run on new systems back then. Getting it to run was the most important -- then the programmer can dive in and make it better.
I'm pretty sure that Linus isn't implying that this code will *never* need to be changed in subsequent versions. Rather, these are comments intended for the original small circle of people who downloaded Linux v0.1 (the first public release).
Those guys were all hard-core hackers too. They didn't just download, untar and make, they got into the guts and tweaked, often to customize the kernel for *their* hardware. Remember the comment about > 8 MB of memory? Linux 0.1 was written for *Linus's* 386. Not i386. He was hacking on the only box he had, and he expected that others would have to tweak the kernel to get it to work well on their boxes.
With this on everyone's minds, Linus put in this comment saying that he felt this portion of code was better tuned and more scalable than most of the kernel, and so users of v0.1 probably wouldn't need to get their hands dirty in it.
Recall back then this stuff was all for the personal use of a few hackers. When they tweaked the kernel for their particular hardware, they would submit those tweaks to be folded into Linus's code and only *then* did Linux start to expand from "only running on Linus's PC".
First of all, I respect RMS. Secondly, RMS likes Linux just fine. HURD was meant to be an innovative kernel with lots of nifty features, but he has stated that his *primary* goal was to have a Free Software kernel to use for GNU. The nifty-newness of HURD was always secondary. Since Linux fills the need of GNU's kernel, the development of HURD has essentially halted. HURD would be nice, but it isn't here. Linux is, and he is fairly content with it.
RMS would not decided on using HURD for GNU until HURD was usable. GNU is a project to create *useful* free software. The code is not worth a damn if nobody uses it. He wants to give computer users a *valid* alternative to using proprietary code, and thus is pragmatic insofar as functionality. He is resolutely *not* pragmatic when it comes to licensing, to user's freedom.
However, if RMS went mad and asked Debian to remove Linux from the distribution, it wouldn't get him very far. A few might be loyal enough and short-sighted enough to obey. They would splinter off of Debian, and fold back into FSF. Meanwhile, Debian would continue, with a severed connection back to FSF, and less a few long-hairs.
I don't like RMS bashing. He is not someone I would take home to show Mom and Dad, but he is highly principled and one hell of a hacker. Infact, to many he is the Last True Hacker. He forms the link back to the old days at MIT AI labs. The spirit of AI labs... the openness and cooperation is what RMS is trying to recreate in opposition to the commercial, proprietary trends that the industry has experienced since those early days.
The more I see the antics of the Debian folks, the more it seems that they're pretty much just a shill for the prohibitively uncompromising antics of the Free Software Foundation
Debian would be the first to admit that they are noncompromising. They have a social contract that they are quite proud of. Further, they do have close ties with the FSF. They are very open about all of this. It defines who they are.
Debian should remove Linux from their distribution and replace it with HURD.
Yeah, because Linux isn't free software, so it goes against their whole philosophy to use it. Infact, Debian's purity is obviously polluting the Linux kernel by being involved with it. Wait...Linux is GPL. Linux is not FSF, but it is definately free software. Incidentally, there is a version of Debian built around HURD, but it's not very usable yet. Still, use it if you like.
It's either that, or it's time to get off the high horse and include things that make Linux a useful operating system.
Why on earth would they do that? If they included proprietary packages, then Debian would be Just Another Linux Distro, as opposed to being the bastion of purity that they want to be. I don't think you truly understand what Debian is about. Further, the argument is that there is no longer a need to use non-free. Most everything there has been reimplemented in a free manner.
You may not be sympathetic to Debian's cause, but if you're not interested, then there is no reason that it should affect you. This little debate is internal to Debian. The rest only know about it because someone posted it to slashdot.
Personally, I think that Debian should deprecate non-free and remove the directory from us.debian.org . If it is only hosted on secondary servers, it emphasizes the fact that those packages are a not part of the main distribution. Then they can start removing packages at first feasibility. For instance, now that OpenSSH supports ssh2, there is no real reason to keep around the non-free version of ssh. However, I really don't think that Mozilla is up to replacing Netscape... just yet.
I think that this change is very much in keeping with Debian's goals, but I also think it should be taken a bit slowly.
Alright, I take massive issue with that. I won't pick at the possessive here, I'll just assume you meant "open source" or "free software" 's greatest achievement.
But in the case of open source, I would say that the original BSD is the crowning achievement. Berkeley pretty much built what we have today as the internet. It was original and forward thinking -- not a copy. What of the internet itself? It pretty much sprung from the same community.
What about Apache, and PERL? Apache grew out of NCSA, and PERL (sort of) grew out of sed and awk, but it's not as if they were knock-offs of other products.
When it comes to free software, I would have to say that gcc takes the crown. Writing a C compiler isn't the most original thing in the world, but gcc is among the most standards-compliant compilers in existence, and as a result we enjoy a new level of portability. It was a rude surprise for me when I went from Linux / Solaris with gcc to Solaris / IRIX with stock system compilers. Suddenly my ANSI C code just plain broke.
Linux the kernel, nice as it is, is certainly derivative. The desktops are most certainly derivative (and I'd say KDE is more of an achievement than GNOME). Apps like GIMP, KWord, and Evolution are undeniably free software knock-offs of existing, commercial packages. But there are definately innovative> pieces of free software as well. They don't spring up very often, but they are glorious when they do. Innovation in any field is a precious quantity, please don't disregard the innovation that is there.
Processors with embedded RAM's have been under research for some time. Check out the IRAM project at Berkeley and the PIM project at University of Michigan and elsewhere. Despite all of the research, though, Processor-in-memory hasn't made it into general use yet.
There are many problems with implementing a system like this in practice. The fabrication process used for DRAM's is completely different from that used for logic. In general, for DRAM you want a *high* capacitance process so that the wells holding your bits don't discharge very quickly -- that way you can refresh less often. In logic you want *low* capacitance so that your gates can switch quickly (high capacitance -> high RC time constant -> slow rise/fall time on gates -> slow clock speed).
Fabricating both with the same set of masks doesn't work particularly well, so you really have to compromise -- you'll basically be making a processor with a RAM process, or vice-versa. Alternately, you could use SRAM, which is nice and fast and is built with a logic process, but is 1/6th the storage density of DRAM. This is why SRAM is used for caches and DRAM is used for main memory.
Having the memory on the same die as the processor definately gives a bandwidth and latency advantage. For instance, when you are on the same die, you can essentially lay as many data lines as you like so that you can make your memory interface as wide as you like.
But another large advantage is the power-savings. Processors consume a great deal of their power in the buffers driving external signals. Basically, driving signals to external devices going through etch is power-expensive, and introduces capacitances that kill some of your speed. Keeping things on die, no such buffers are needed, and a great deal of power is saved.
The first commercial application of the processor-in-memory concept that I am aware of is Neomagic's video cards. They went with PIM not for bandwidth, but for power-conservation, and chip reduction. These characteristics are extremely appealing to portable computing, and thus Neomagic now pretty much owns the laptop market.
In a limited application, such as a 2D graphics card, this is feasible because the card only needs perhaps 4 MB of memory. Placing an entire workstation's main memory (say, 128 MB) on a single die *with* a processor would lead to a ridiculously massive die. Big dies are expensive, lead to low yield and increase design problems with clock skew. Thus, having 128 MB of DRAM slapped onto the same die as your 21264 isn't going to happen in the near future.
Placing a small (4-8 MB) amount of memory on-die, and leaving the rest external is possible, but leads to non-uniform access memory, which complicates software optimization and general performance tuning greatly. It is generally considered undesirable.
Another approach is to build systems around interconnected collections of little processors, each with modest computing power and a small amount (say 8 MB) of memory. Thus, you are essentially building a mini-cluster, where each node is a single chip. This, too, leads to a NUMA situation, but it is more interesting, and many people are pushing it.
PIM's are going to be used more and more, and the massive hunger for bandwidth in 3D-gaming cards very well may drive it to market acceptance. The power consumption adavantages will continue to appeal to portable and embedded markets as well. However, general purpose processors based on this design are unlikely in the near future. This style of design doesn't mesh well with current workstation-type architectures.
A bit of a tangent, but I hope it was informative... --Lenny
Flywheels are still big/expensive...
on
Silicon Hell
·
· Score: 2
They will only very slowly make their way into the market. There was a company trying to make an electric car that used flywheels for storage, instead of dry cells. I don't think anything ever came of it.
Right now, there are companies working on using flywheels as UPS's, but only for very large-scale installations. For instance, currently telco central offices have massive racks of batteries as backup. These exist purely to power the telephone switches for the 30+ seconds that it takes to fire up the diesel generator in the case of a power outage.
When you are talking about replacing *rooms* of batteries with one, big flywheel, then it is economical -- and certainly more environmentally friendly. The economics of PC UPS's aren't there yet. These things may eventually wind up in being used in such small-scale systems, but I can't see it happening for a long time.
What an excellent idea! Why didn't *my* company think of it first! Forget that that piddly 1 GHz crap, why don't we just jump straight to 10? I'll get right on it...
Are you really trying to tell me that you were content with your 100 MHz Pentium Classic right up until a month or so ago when that 1 GHz chips came out? All of those small jumps in the middle there didn't mean a thing, I suppose.
While it's true that the steps that companies increment their clock in should be increasing (they should now be releasing in 50-100 MHz steps, not 33 MHz steps), the percentages should scale. 1.5 GHz : 1 GHz:: 150 MHz : 100 MHz. (I think I got that notation right).
Now, I *do* think that the race to 1 GHz was kind of silly, but hey! It was marketing. Faster is better, but clock isn't everything. Intel hasn't released a new core since 1996, and you can really feel it. Coppermine and others are slight improvements, but they really need to get their new architecture (IA-64) out the door. Athlon is still eating their lunch.
Debian in Orbit on Space Shuttle! http://www.debian.org/News/1997/19970708b
Debian Rides Space Shuttle!! http://www.educ.umu.se/~bjorn/mhonarc-files/debian -announce/msg00043.html
Most on-board computers are still about 20-25 years behind today's bleeding edge
This I realize. I wasn't trying to imply that all of the space shuttle's computers are running Linux. They have, however, used linux on some of their experimental computers, as the above articles mention.
What you really heard was probably that NASA's ground control has been switching to Linux en masse.
Nope, I remember what I heard, and a 5 second search on Google will back me up. I recall the news stories from the time, and it was quite a big deal for the community. Back in 1997, Linux was still pretty starved for mainstream acceptance, so NASA adopting Debian in even a very limited capacity was cause for celebration.
Actually, it's funny to think back to those days. Headlines would read things like "Mid-sized company X says something vaguely positive about Linux", or "Small government agency uses Linux in a few of their firewalls". These days we have headlines like "SGI donating their ultra-high-end journalling filesystem to Linux...to release under GPL". My how things have changed...
Slashdot Mirror
Some people actually use their computers to get work done. As one small example: you'd be amazed how many control systems for industrial machinery are still run on DOS PC's. I run into them all the time.
Often their software was written by a long-since defunct company. Windows port? Hah! This stuff hasn't been rev'ed in atleast a decade. The company died, and the program sources went with it to it's grave. This is among the greatest arguments for open source software. If we had source to these control programs, then we could rewrite it for a Linux machine, or a Be machine or whatever-the-heck we wanted. We could update it to use more modern or more reliable computers. Instead, we're stuck hoping that that old 286 keeps chugging along.
Fortunately, for the most part, those 286 systems *do* keep chugging along. There are plenty of workhorse PC AT's sitting in cabinets, unceremoniously controlling production equipment -- pushing the GNP along. Eventually, they will die, and a replacement will have to be found. But as long as the old, dusty system still runs, why throw money at a replacement?
DOS was so universal for so long, and so much application software was written for it that it will be around for a very, very long time. Infact, DOS may even outlive the x86.
--Lenny
Actually, AMD's naming scheme follows Intel's, but is a bit more consistent. A quick run-down of roughly comparable chips:
AMD Intel
K5 ~ Pentium (aka P5)
K6 ~ Pentium Pro (aka P6)
K6-2 ~ Pentium 2 (second rev of P6)
K6-3 ~ Pentium 3 (third rev of P6)
K7 ~
K8 ~ Merced (first IA-64)
So, with AMD, the naming scheme is Kx, with x being the generation number of the core, like x86 used to be. The numbers following the "K6" line represent revs within a generation. Intel started that trend and AMD followed it.
Things are a bit complicated by the fact that Intel doesn't *have* a new core to compete with the Athlon. Intel hasn't made a new core in years. The IA-64 was supposed to be here by now, but it isn't. In the meantime, Intel has been trying to keep up by rev'ing it's Pentium Pro core, which dates back to ~94. While not inspiring, it's impressive that they've been able to squeeze out as much performance from the aging P6 core as they have.
Another complication is the fact that the Pentium 2 and 3 date back to the Pentium Pro design, *not* the "classic" Pentium design. Further, the Pentium Pro was a completely different core than the Pentium -- not just a Pentium with added frills. This confuses quite a few people.
The industry is complicated, so it takes some effort to follow. Naming is the least of worries when comparing processors.
hope I shed some light,
--Lenny
He actually answers this very question in his article this week.
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pu lpit/pulpit20000727.html
The answer is no. To quote:
It was six bucks an hour...Who knew they would be successful? I sure didn't.
Then again, you might argue that one can have a lasting effect without enjoying "success", but I will leave that debate to the Amiga enthusiasts...
I've been following this column for a while. Cringely is an interesting guy, and he has certainly been around the industry. Though periodically his essays strike me as a bit ego-centric, he also can also provide some amazing insight. He really can draw together seperate pieces of tech news in a meaningful fashion.
Also, he's been around long enough that he can pull out interesting industry anecdotes. My favorite was his description of Def Con 1. You know: back when it really was a hacker (pardon: "cracker") convention. Very interesting reading.
In summary, I highly recommend this guys column...
--Lenny
And my 4.0 CD is supposed to be arriving in the mail today. Foo.
Still...who am I to resist the march of technology?
Anyway, I'm dipping my toe in the FreeBSD pool by installing on an old laptop I came by. I've been digging around for information on how FreeBSD handles laptop issues like power management and PCMCIA, but haven't found much yet. The BSD nomads pages are pretty large, but pretty out of date as well.
Anyone out there have any advice or pointers on FreeBSD on (i386) laptops?
--Lenny
I like white text on a black background.
I think it's easier to read.
Ideally, this should be a browser option, of course.
Actually, I'm surprised that Slashdot hasn't added color customization yet. I can filter stories, I can filter comments, and I can choose my link boxes, but I can't change something fundamental like the color of text?
--Lenny
And _I_ knew it was a hoax after I first read the article. I was really surprised how many people in the comments section took it seriously. Even if people believed it, though, there was no harm done.
How many people really based business decisions off of this? Precisely no one. There was no commercial use for the supposed product, and even if there had been, it was evident that the idea was hacked together by a few fly-by-nighters. It's not like this was tarnishing some trusted brand name.
How much time did you waste on this? A few seconds to read the headline, and if you were more interested, maybe a minute or so to read the full article.
It may surprise you, but many of us consider humor a "legitimate" use of the internet. I like pranks every now and then, as long as there's no damage done. And I don't see any damage here, except possibly for some embarassment for the people who believed it.
And your boy-who-cried-wolf analogy is silly. This is far different than email chain letters about the Good Time Virus. As real news, this might have been interesting, but certainly not alarming. It does nothing to lower our guard. If anything, this puts people *more* on their guard for other, more dangerous hoaxes.
Wait! It just dawned on me! Your *post* is a hoax! I can't believe I fell for it. You naughty, naughty boy, making me type all of these counterpoints to an argument that wasn't even real.
Oh, my face is red...
--Lenny
> FreeBSD... The choice of those, who know how to choose...
You sound like a few wine snobs I know.
FreeBSD may have it's technical merits, but I know plenty of people who run it just for the "fringe appeal". These are the people that ran Slackware way back because it seperated them from the crowd.
After the Red Hat IPO, Linux officially arrived and was no longer properly counter-culture. Once big money was involved, Linux became establishment, and that's just not chic. Then the people who ran Linux just to be different had to look for a new system -- luckily for them, the BSD's provide an easy migration. (yes, I know that BSD dates back to before Linux)
I feel some of this effect myself. I confess that part of why I use Debian is to seperate myself from the kids who purchased a RH boxed set at CompUSA, clicked their way through an install and now proudly play Solitaire in Gnome.
In the old days it *did* mean something to hack together a functional system from the disk sets that Slack provided, or that you downloaded by hand. There was a base level of proficiency that was necessary even to become a Linux user. This exclusion is rapidly breaking down in the Linux world, but lives on in the BSD world.
I'm not sure that any of the BSD's want to lower the entry barrier. Arguments of elitism aside, lowering the barrier definately lowers the mean competence of your user base, and I think that's something FreeBSD and the others would rather live without.
It seems to me that a lot of the *BSD users on Slashdot just wait around for good news about their system so that they can triumphantly reveal how superior their tastes are. It gets a little old.
FreeBSD... Because Linux just isn't leet enough anymore.
--Lenny
First, I'm going to agree that writing "native" code for Crusoe doesn't really make sense. Vital pieces of architecture are implemented in low level software, so if you bypass that layer, you are left with an incomplete microprocessor. Plus, your compiler backend would only be useful for that *particular* rev of the Crusoe. That layer of abstraction allows Transmeta to reorganize their architecture far more easily than other chip makers who have to worry about compatibility at the silicon level. I have no doubt that they will be using that advantage.
But I want to ask about another part of your post.
I keep hearing people snicker at gcc, but I haven't heard any solid arguments as to why it's "not that great". How is it inferior to other compilers? Does it not optimize as well? Is it less efficient generating code on certain architectures? Is it not as ANSI compliant as we might like?
My experiences with gcc have always been pleasant, and I use it instead of a vendor's system compiler whenever I can. Perhaps I'm biased since I've encountered way too many Sun's that still use ancient, pre-ANSI C compilers. No doubt, well maintained system are in better shape, but I'm wondering how much better than gcc they really are.
Please fill me in.
--Lenny
*BSD's developement/release model has been described several times in this discussion, often far better than I am about to do. Read the fine posts?
.inf files", I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
I've read explanations of this on Slashdot, on freebsd.org and in the FreeBSD manual many, many times, so I feel I've RTFM, but what is really going on is still a bit hazy.
but as it is a snapshot of -CURRENT rather than -STABLE
Ah, here lies the source of my confusion. I was under the impression that CURRENT trees did not make RELEASE's. I thought that RELEASE's were made only from the STABLE tree, and that snapshots of CURRENT were just called CURRENT. So, RELEASE doesn't mean "release quality", it means "we're sticking this on CD-ROM". Thus, one should be cognizant of which tree a RELEASE is from. Now the confusion is lifted.
As for "missing all sorts of
Yeah, I don't know what the heck that means either, but the FreeBSD installer kept complaining that it couldn't find "foo.inf", or "bar.inf" on my FTP mirror of RELEASE-4.0 . Such files do not exist on ftp.freebsd.org , so I don't know what it is talking about. Very odd. Oh well, in light of this discussion, I will be resorting to 3.5 shortly.
Moral of this story: "Not all RELEASE's are equal", or "Linux users beware".
--Lenny
...which I just downloaded and stayed up all night trying to get onto my f*$^@!# laptop.
.inf files that my install needed, so I'm wondering if it isn't somehow a pre-release or upgrade-only sort of distro at the moment.
My impression is that FreeBSD "Release" is somewhat equivalent to Linux's "Stable", with "Current" tracking the changes from the CD-ROM's. So which # is the current "Release" now? Is it 3.5 or 4.0? Surely there is some distinction that I am missing...
Apparently 4.0 was missing all sorts of
Any FreeBSD users in the audience?
--Lenny
It seems like it would be trivial to create Lego-compatible plastic bricks. It's not like there's a whole lot to reverse-engineer there. And at the prices Lego sells at, I'm sure another company could undercut them.
Is there not enough of a market for this? Is there Intellectual Property preventing this?
Given how IP-aware and pro-reverse-engineering this crowd usually is, I'm surprised that I haven't seen anyone else bring it up, yet.
I have to throw in that, as an engineer (though not mechanical), I always thought it peculiar how much programmers enjoy Legos. I understand why engineers are drawn to them, and it's not like the professions are that far removed, but I would expect programmers to be interested in things less *physical*; like poetry, or classical music. Alright, so we've established that programmers like Haiku's, but still...
--Lenny
Atleast for a while, Windowmaker would pop up a window with a smily face and play music if you clicked in some special way on the "about" box.
I never would have known this, if I hadn't been digging through the source, looking for something else. Ah...the joys of open source.
I never have gotten it to trigger, though. I think you have to compile with a special option for all the bells and whistles. I kind of like Easter Eggs, though...
--Lenny
In Frotz for palm, you can just tap an instance in the word on the screen to cut and paste it to the prompt. It's quite convenient. Also, if you tap on the middle, right of the screen, it pops up a list of commands for you to choose from. There's very seldom need to actually draw out words with Graffiti.
When I discovered this feature of PalmFrotz, the thing went from being Cool to being Amazing. No Palm should be without one!
--Lenny, a Zork geek from way back...
You talk like you haven't written code before
... it was very much a work in progress. And I know you weren't trying to besmirch Linus. Hell, Linus doesn't need defending. It's RMS that needs defending, and I find myself doing it regularly...
Why? Because I was trying to remind everyone of the intended audience of Linus's comments and code? That's just a historical consideration that I don't want lost in the noise.
Of course I program...lately it's been all ASM test code for 8051 microcontrollers. "Bare metal" stuff, I guess. You seem to be a programmer, but if your sig is true, then you can't possibly be a "real programmer". Ah...debating sigs on Slashdot on Saturday morning. I guess I'm not a "real programmer", either...
Look, I understand your point just fine, and I've certainly felt it myself. However, I don't think Linus's comment supports your case. This wasn't "production quality" code
I really just think it's important to keep in mind who the intended audience of the original code really was. I feel it's an important historical consideration for the Free Software movement.
I realize fully that hard core hackers tinker. I don't claim to be hardcore, but one of the things about my job that I love the most is replacing crappy, poorly done code that I've inherited from other engineers...most of whom don't like to code as much as I. But there was probably a hell of a lot to tinker with in the kernel just to get it to run on new systems back then. Getting it to run was the most important -- then the programmer can dive in and make it better.
--Lenny
Man, this was 1991. Smileys weren't cliche then, and teenage girls certainly didn't hang out on alt.cuddle back then.
/me should have picked a better example.
You know what? Bell bottoms look dumb today, too.
Alright, alright...so they looked dumb *back then* too.
--Lenny
I'm pretty sure that Linus isn't implying that this code will *never* need to be changed in subsequent versions. Rather, these are comments intended for the original small circle of people who downloaded Linux v0.1 (the first public release).
Those guys were all hard-core hackers too. They didn't just download, untar and make, they got into the guts and tweaked, often to customize the kernel for *their* hardware. Remember the comment about > 8 MB of memory? Linux 0.1 was written for *Linus's* 386. Not i386. He was hacking on the only box he had, and he expected that others would have to tweak the kernel to get it to work well on their boxes.
With this on everyone's minds, Linus put in this comment saying that he felt this portion of code was better tuned and more scalable than most of the kernel, and so users of v0.1 probably wouldn't need to get their hands dirty in it.
Recall back then this stuff was all for the personal use of a few hackers. When they tweaked the kernel for their particular hardware, they would submit those tweaks to be folded into Linus's code and only *then* did Linux start to expand from "only running on Linus's PC".
--Lenny
First of all, I respect RMS. Secondly, RMS likes Linux just fine. HURD was meant to be an innovative kernel with lots of nifty features, but he has stated that his *primary* goal was to have a Free Software kernel to use for GNU. The nifty-newness of HURD was always secondary. Since Linux fills the need of GNU's kernel, the development of HURD has essentially halted. HURD would be nice, but it isn't here. Linux is, and he is fairly content with it.
... the openness and cooperation is what RMS is trying to recreate in opposition to the commercial, proprietary trends that the industry has experienced since those early days.
RMS would not decided on using HURD for GNU until HURD was usable. GNU is a project to create *useful* free software. The code is not worth a damn if nobody uses it. He wants to give computer users a *valid* alternative to using proprietary code, and thus is pragmatic insofar as functionality. He is resolutely *not* pragmatic when it comes to licensing, to user's freedom.
However, if RMS went mad and asked Debian to remove Linux from the distribution, it wouldn't get him very far. A few might be loyal enough and short-sighted enough to obey. They would splinter off of Debian, and fold back into FSF. Meanwhile, Debian would continue, with a severed connection back to FSF, and less a few long-hairs.
I don't like RMS bashing. He is not someone I would take home to show Mom and Dad, but he is highly principled and one hell of a hacker. Infact, to many he is the Last True Hacker. He forms the link back to the old days at MIT AI labs. The spirit of AI labs
--Lenny
The more I see the antics of the Debian folks, the more it seems that they're pretty much just a shill for the prohibitively uncompromising antics of the Free Software Foundation
... just yet.
Debian would be the first to admit that they are noncompromising. They have a social contract that they are quite proud of. Further, they do have close ties with the FSF. They are very open about all of this. It defines who they are.
Debian should remove Linux from their distribution and replace it with HURD.
Yeah, because Linux isn't free software, so it goes against their whole philosophy to use it. Infact, Debian's purity is obviously polluting the Linux kernel by being involved with it. Wait...Linux is GPL. Linux is not FSF, but it is definately free software. Incidentally, there is a version of Debian built around HURD, but it's not very usable yet. Still, use it if you like.
It's either that, or it's time to get off the high horse and include things that make Linux a useful operating system.
Why on earth would they do that? If they included proprietary packages, then Debian would be Just Another Linux Distro, as opposed to being the bastion of purity that they want to be. I don't think you truly understand what Debian is about. Further, the argument is that there is no longer a need to use non-free. Most everything there has been reimplemented in a free manner.
You may not be sympathetic to Debian's cause, but if you're not interested, then there is no reason that it should affect you. This little debate is internal to Debian. The rest only know about it because someone posted it to slashdot.
Personally, I think that Debian should deprecate non-free and remove the directory from us.debian.org . If it is only hosted on secondary servers, it emphasizes the fact that those packages are a not part of the main distribution. Then they can start removing packages at first feasibility. For instance, now that OpenSSH supports ssh2, there is no real reason to keep around the non-free version of ssh. However, I really don't think that Mozilla is up to replacing Netscape
I think that this change is very much in keeping with Debian's goals, but I also think it should be taken a bit slowly.
--Lenny
Linux's supposed crowning achievement -- GNOME
Alright, I take massive issue with that. I won't pick at the possessive here, I'll just assume you meant "open source" or "free software" 's greatest achievement.
But in the case of open source, I would say that the original BSD is the crowning achievement. Berkeley pretty much built what we have today as the internet. It was original and forward thinking -- not a copy. What of the internet itself? It pretty much sprung from the same community.
What about Apache, and PERL? Apache grew out of NCSA, and PERL (sort of) grew out of sed and awk, but it's not as if they were knock-offs of other products.
When it comes to free software, I would have to say that gcc takes the crown. Writing a C compiler isn't the most original thing in the world, but gcc is among the most standards-compliant compilers in existence, and as a result we enjoy a new level of portability. It was a rude surprise for me when I went from Linux / Solaris with gcc to Solaris / IRIX with stock system compilers. Suddenly my ANSI C code just plain broke.
Linux the kernel, nice as it is, is certainly derivative. The desktops are most certainly derivative (and I'd say KDE is more of an achievement than GNOME). Apps like GIMP, KWord, and Evolution are undeniably free software knock-offs of existing, commercial packages. But there are definately innovative> pieces of free software as well. They don't spring up very often, but they are glorious when they do. Innovation in any field is a precious quantity, please don't disregard the innovation that is there.
Sorry, I just couldn't let this one slip by...
--Lenny
Processors with embedded RAM's have been under research for some time. Check out the IRAM project at Berkeley and the PIM project at University of Michigan and elsewhere. Despite all of the research, though, Processor-in-memory hasn't made it into general use yet.
There are many problems with implementing a system like this in practice. The fabrication process used for DRAM's is completely different from that used for logic. In general, for DRAM you want a *high* capacitance process so that the wells holding your bits don't discharge very quickly -- that way you can refresh less often. In logic you want *low* capacitance so that your gates can switch quickly (high capacitance -> high RC time constant -> slow rise/fall time on gates -> slow clock speed).
Fabricating both with the same set of masks doesn't work particularly well, so you really have to compromise -- you'll basically be making a processor with a RAM process, or vice-versa. Alternately, you could use SRAM, which is nice and fast and is built with a logic process, but is 1/6th the storage density of DRAM. This is why SRAM is used for caches and DRAM is used for main memory.
Having the memory on the same die as the processor definately gives a bandwidth and latency advantage. For instance, when you are on the same die, you can essentially lay as many data lines as you like so that you can make your memory interface as wide as you like.
But another large advantage is the power-savings. Processors consume a great deal of their power in the buffers driving external signals. Basically, driving signals to external devices going through etch is power-expensive, and introduces capacitances that kill some of your speed. Keeping things on die, no such buffers are needed, and a great deal of power is saved.
The first commercial application of the processor-in-memory concept that I am aware of is Neomagic's video cards. They went with PIM not for bandwidth, but for power-conservation, and chip reduction. These characteristics are extremely appealing to portable computing, and thus Neomagic now pretty much owns the laptop market.
In a limited application, such as a 2D graphics card, this is feasible because the card only needs perhaps 4 MB of memory. Placing an entire workstation's main memory (say, 128 MB) on a single die *with* a processor would lead to a ridiculously massive die. Big dies are expensive, lead to low yield and increase design problems with clock skew. Thus, having 128 MB of DRAM slapped onto the same die as your 21264 isn't going to happen in the near future.
Placing a small (4-8 MB) amount of memory on-die, and leaving the rest external is possible, but leads to non-uniform access memory, which complicates software optimization and general performance tuning greatly. It is generally considered undesirable.
Another approach is to build systems around interconnected collections of little processors, each with modest computing power and a small amount (say 8 MB) of memory. Thus, you are essentially building a mini-cluster, where each node is a single chip. This, too, leads to a NUMA situation, but it is more interesting, and many people are pushing it.
PIM's are going to be used more and more, and the massive hunger for bandwidth in 3D-gaming cards very well may drive it to market acceptance. The power consumption adavantages will continue to appeal to portable and embedded markets as well. However, general purpose processors based on this design are unlikely in the near future. This style of design doesn't mesh well with current workstation-type architectures.
A bit of a tangent, but I hope it was informative...
--Lenny
They will only very slowly make their way into the market. There was a company trying to make an electric car that used flywheels for storage, instead of dry cells. I don't think anything ever came of it.
Right now, there are companies working on using flywheels as UPS's, but only for very large-scale installations. For instance, currently telco central offices have massive racks of batteries as backup. These exist purely to power the telephone switches for the 30+ seconds that it takes to fire up the diesel generator in the case of a power outage.
When you are talking about replacing *rooms* of batteries with one, big flywheel, then it is economical -- and certainly more environmentally friendly. The economics of PC UPS's aren't there yet. These things may eventually wind up in being used in such small-scale systems, but I can't see it happening for a long time.
flywheels *are* kind of neat, though...
--Lenny
> The next step is 10Ghz, not 1.1Ghz
:: 150 MHz : 100 MHz. (I think I got that notation right).
What an excellent idea! Why didn't *my* company think of it first! Forget that that piddly 1 GHz crap, why don't we just jump straight to 10? I'll get right on it...
Are you really trying to tell me that you were content with your 100 MHz Pentium Classic right up until a month or so ago when that 1 GHz chips came out? All of those small jumps in the middle there didn't mean a thing, I suppose.
While it's true that the steps that companies increment their clock in should be increasing (they should now be releasing in 50-100 MHz steps, not 33 MHz steps), the percentages should scale. 1.5 GHz : 1 GHz
Now, I *do* think that the race to 1 GHz was kind of silly, but hey! It was marketing. Faster is better, but clock isn't everything. Intel hasn't released a new core since 1996, and you can really feel it. Coppermine and others are slight improvements, but they really need to get their new architecture (IA-64) out the door. Athlon is still eating their lunch.
just a disgruntled computer architect,
--Lenny
You're pretty much wrong.
n -announce/msg00043.html
Nope. I'm right. Check out:
Debian in Orbit on Space Shuttle!
http://www.debian.org/News/1997/19970708b
Debian Rides Space Shuttle!!
http://www.educ.umu.se/~bjorn/mhonarc-files/debia
Most on-board computers are still about 20-25 years behind today's bleeding edge
This I realize. I wasn't trying to imply that all of the space shuttle's computers are running Linux. They have, however, used linux on some of their experimental computers, as the above articles mention.
What you really heard was probably that NASA's ground control has been switching to Linux en masse.
Nope, I remember what I heard, and a 5 second search on Google will back me up. I recall the news stories from the time, and it was quite a big deal for the community. Back in 1997, Linux was still pretty starved for mainstream acceptance, so NASA adopting Debian in even a very limited capacity was cause for celebration.
Actually, it's funny to think back to those days. Headlines would read things like "Mid-sized company X says something vaguely positive about Linux", or "Small government agency uses Linux in a few of their firewalls". These days we have headlines like "SGI donating their ultra-high-end journalling filesystem to Linux...to release under GPL". My how things have changed...
--Lenny
or haven't you heard? That was a bid deal back in the old days (~1997) when almost no one had heard of Linux.
--Lenny
Bowie, why did you shove this in a comment under a completely unrelated story? That's just bizarre, and perhaps unappropriate.
Enough people like propaganda that I'm sure Malda would be willing to make it a Slashdot story.
I like Propaganda, btw, and I might buy a T-shirt, but 100:1 seems kind of high. Dunno. How many shirts does copyleft push?
--Lenny