Really, why do people keep bringing this up? I think there are signifcant numbers that users that could benefit from Linux without waiting for the computer-challenged...
Since modern Win OSes don't do anything fatal when you do, the issue of not doing it for safety reasons is not there and on laptops in sleep modes you sometimes need it to login. When I'm mobile doing the 3-fingered salute is annoying - I want may laptop to have a Ctl-Alt-Del key!
(Of course, Linux doesn't like you doing Ctrl-Alt-Del, so we'd have to be careful, but Linux users are already more careful...)
Well half the comedians in Hollywood are Canadians (Jim Carrey, Mike Myers, Martin Short, Dan Akroyd, Andrea Martin and a bunch of others I can't think of right now...)
Maybe if you wait a few years until you do need one, you be able to talk to the calculator in any language you'd like....
Re:No G5? Yes, it would be embarassed....
on
Athlon 64 Debuts
·
· Score: 1
...Since it would fail to execute any of Tom's x86-based benchmarks. Can we please do a comparison within an architecture category without people wanting to bench MIPs and z80s and other irrelivent chips?
I wanna see someone bench a G5 against a Power 4. (Could use Linux on each...) There's a comparison IBM does not want to see the light of day
Despite a long-standing and profitable relationship which constrains public friction, Intel and Microsoft have often had battles of varing seriousness on a bunch of topics...
Intel has been / is mad at Microsoft about:
- Constant attempts over the years to generalize their OSes to other processor archectures (NT on Alpha/MIPs, Pocket PC on all sorts of non-Intel (non X-scale) cpus and, of course, x86-64 and the eventual cpu independent version of.Net)
- Blocking Intel on hardware standards and initiatives
- Microsoft dragging it's feet about supporting new hardware features in the OS (eg USB on NT (never really), Hyperthreading (2 years) and Itanium Architecture (Linux had IA64 up and running 3 years before Ms)
-Microsoft's attempt to position Intel cpus as just another processor they support.
Microsoft has been / is mad at Intel about:
- Intel's general support of Linux in general including founding and funding the Open Source Development Lab (where Linus and Andrew are employed now)
- Intel's support of HP in running HP-UX on Itanium and Intel's historic support for Novell Netware, Solaris, Unixware and other Unices
-Support for OS-independent management and other hardware APIs that let other OSes get parity or better with Windows
-Occasionally making end-users aware of the prickly truth that the cost advantage of "Wintel" vs big RISC UNIX is all Intel hardware economics which makes the solution cheaper in spite of the greater cost of the Ms software
-Intel's attempt to position Windows as just another OS they support.
I suspect that the original poster talked about paging, he meant techniques for swaping memory (like Intel's PAE) in and out from the pure 4GB flat address space that a 32-bit cpu can address directly to a larger external pool. It's the reason why many IA32 servers ship with 8 or 16GB of RAM, when on paper, the cpu cannot address the space beyond 4GB.
As you said (and it WAS an imformative post) "32-bit chips can be designed to access any amount of physical ram" -I think he meant something like PAE when I said 'paging'.
If Canada hadn't entered the war with the UK and provided thousands of tons of supplies, ships, sailors and soldiers, there wouldn't have been a free UK left to save when the US finally decided to slink into the war.
(Disclaimer - haven't read the article yet, but in case they don't mention this...) I assume the UK would have have to comply with EU privacy statutes....
MS SQL requires x86 hardware - No Sparc, No POWER, No MIPS. Just crappy x86. Crappy x86...Intel Itanium 2 specifically is the leading TPC-C platform (both 1st (HP-UX/Oracle) and 2nd place (with the dreaded MS-SQL 64-bit version) and Intel cpus taking 8 of the top 10)
There is no 64 bit version of MS SQL. Wrong again. See #2 above
And if your *REALLY* need to scale PostgreSQL - run is on a SUN/SGI/IBM. Wel, aside from the TPC-C Top 10, it's interesting to note that if you trust SGI, their whole next generation is based on Itanium 2 and IBM even sells Itanium systems. Sun, well we they're in their death throes...
Not a bunch of fucking Intel toys. Looks like pretty powerful toys. Perhaps you should play with some so you'll know what you're talking about.
Yes, mother, PNI=Prescott New Instructions
on
AMD64 Preview
·
· Score: 1
If I wasn't redundant and just said, what fraction of/. do you think knows what PNI is?
4) Quick and easy to install -very flexible about DMZ configs
5) Runs nicely on a box I'd need to upgrade (need +10GB HD) to put Astaro on it. (But I might do that at some point)
Re:Intel's response
on
AMD64 Preview
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Prescott with PNI new instructions, 1Mb L2 cache clocking up to 4GHz and beyond, 800MHz front side bus and increased software support for Hyperthreading. (eg. 2.6.x Linux kernels know how to do HT scheduling much more efficiently)
Watch the Xmas benchmarks, that's when it matters...
My WinMP wants lic authority for Ganymede song
on
Goodbye, Galileo
·
· Score: 3, Funny
...does anyone know the URL for the Ganymede Dep't of Intellectual Property?
But what if the person was walking behind you in a crowd. Its the new war-walking rage!
Good idea -don't run personal server or count money or pick nose or uninate or walk naked or engage in loud political/religous monologues or other things you want to do in a secure, stable place, in a crowd of people on the steet.
Look, Bluetooth has about a 10 meter (10 yard) radius if you can't keep intruders out of your house or the cubes right next to you, you have more important worries than your PAN server security
Me, I want a PAN server asap. Great idea.
"Latest Novella"? He wrote a 2nd "Bay of Souls"?
on
Bay of Souls
·
· Score: 1
Could have sworn I read a Robert Stone book called "Bay of Souls" back in May. My book seems rather simliar to the one you describe, except that your's is Stone's 'latest novella' and my one was out FIVE MONTHS AGO.
Seriously, I don't mind people reviewing a book they just found out about but please 'fess up when it's been out for a while and you just noticed.
Thanks for mentioning the Western Canon, though - more people should be aware of it.
This isn't, of course, Stone's best work anyway...
...the world being divided into the hardware camp (that wants to see all sorts of sharing and other technologies exploited to drive sales of high perf goodies - which Intel belongs to) and the software camp (that has electronically reproducable assets like software/music/video which want hardware assistance via DRM - eg Microsoft, Disney etc.)
Virtually all firms fall into one of these two camps - except perhaps, poor schitzophrenic Sony that has one leg in both camps...
Phoenix/AMI would normally fall into the hardware camp, except when you realize that their value-add is highly driven by features the operating system exploits, so pandering to Microsoft's desires makes some sense for them.
Have you ever dealt with a MAINFRAME? Large MAINFRAMES are fucking expensive to run 24x7x365. They require a lot of Air Conditioning (many people spend over $1,000 a month on just AC, that's an expense that is never going away), electrical and a shitload of space.
And he diffrence is what? For most applications, clusters, for all their faults are faster and cheaper than mainframes.
Hmmm (again). I could easily set up a machine where there is only a few executables, and replace/sbin/init with a program that loaded my IPtables policies and went into a "while (1) { sleep 1000; };" loop.
Gee, that's sounds like the kernel is NOT the only file on the machine. Those "few executables" kinda break the premise of running only a kernel- which was the original claim. I still wasn't clear on how you get along without a bootloader, too.
Seriously, as Stallman relentlessly reminds us, an operating system is more than a kernel. You can run a very lean system with not much else, but I don't see how you can run with only the kernel. If you know how, please detail how from a cold startup...
1) Will DRM or other features in the new Office break backward compatibility with earlier Word/Excel/etc formats? In other words, will opening and editing and saving a Word 97 file in the new Word prevent older Word versions (or 3rd party applications) to open that file later?
2) Will Microsoft make any encoding APIs freely available to the public for 3rd party applications to open and use those files?
3) If the answer to 2) is no, will Microsoft license any encoding APIs to 3rd parties and will these be non-discriminatory?
4) If the answer to both 2) and 3) is no, will Microsoft agree not to invoke legal action in the event that 3rd parties reverse engineer any encoding APIs?
5) If the answers to all of 1) through 4) is no, is Microsoft not concerned about US or EU anti-trust authorities ruling that the Office file strategy is anti-competitive?
Slashdot Mirror
Intel has already announced that the Alpha design team that it hired intact from HP is working on the "Tanglewood" Itanium version due in 2006
Still an interesting box....
Really, why do people keep bringing this up? I think there are signifcant numbers that users that could benefit from Linux without waiting for the computer-challenged...
Check out Rhapsody...
Since modern Win OSes don't do anything fatal when you do, the issue of not doing it for safety reasons is not there and on laptops in sleep modes you sometimes need it to login. When I'm mobile doing the 3-fingered salute is annoying - I want may laptop to have a Ctl-Alt-Del key!
(Of course, Linux doesn't like you doing Ctrl-Alt-Del, so we'd have to be careful, but Linux users are already more careful...)
Well half the comedians in Hollywood are Canadians (Jim Carrey, Mike Myers, Martin Short, Dan Akroyd, Andrea Martin and a bunch of others I can't think of right now...)
Maybe if you wait a few years until you do need one, you be able to talk to the calculator in any language you'd like....
...Since it would fail to execute any of Tom's x86-based benchmarks. Can we please do a comparison within an architecture category without people wanting to bench MIPs and z80s and other irrelivent chips?
I wanna see someone bench a G5 against a Power 4. (Could use Linux on each...) There's a comparison IBM does not want to see the light of day
Despite a long-standing and profitable relationship which constrains public friction, Intel and Microsoft have often had battles of varing seriousness on a bunch of topics...
.Net)
Intel has been / is mad at Microsoft about:
- Constant attempts over the years to generalize their OSes to other processor archectures (NT on Alpha/MIPs, Pocket PC on all sorts of non-Intel (non X-scale) cpus and, of course, x86-64 and the eventual cpu independent version of
- Blocking Intel on hardware standards and initiatives
- Microsoft dragging it's feet about supporting new hardware features in the OS (eg USB on NT (never really), Hyperthreading (2 years) and Itanium Architecture (Linux had IA64 up and running 3 years before Ms)
-Microsoft's attempt to position Intel cpus as just another processor they support.
Microsoft has been / is mad at Intel about:
- Intel's general support of Linux in general including founding and funding the Open Source Development Lab (where Linus and Andrew are employed now)
- Intel's support of HP in running HP-UX on Itanium and Intel's historic support for Novell Netware, Solaris, Unixware and other Unices
-Support for OS-independent management and other hardware APIs that let other OSes get parity or better with Windows
-Occasionally making end-users aware of the prickly truth that the cost advantage of "Wintel" vs big RISC UNIX is all Intel hardware economics which makes the solution cheaper in spite of the greater cost of the Ms software
-Intel's attempt to position Windows as just another OS they support.
I suspect that the original poster talked about paging, he meant techniques for swaping memory (like Intel's PAE) in and out from the pure 4GB flat address space that a 32-bit cpu can address directly to a larger external pool. It's the reason why many IA32 servers ship with 8 or 16GB of RAM, when on paper, the cpu cannot address the space beyond 4GB.
As you said (and it WAS an imformative post) "32-bit chips can be designed to access any amount of physical ram" -I think he meant something like PAE when I said 'paging'.
...like Barr is?
Barr is/was part of the seriously wacko, seriously right-wing part of the Republican party that still feels George Bush is too moderate.
If anything could get me rooting for John Ashcroft (a near-impossiblity) it would be attacks by Barr.
If Canada hadn't entered the war with the UK and provided thousands of tons of supplies, ships, sailors and soldiers, there wouldn't have been a free UK left to save when the US finally decided to slink into the war.
(Disclaimer - haven't read the article yet, but in case they don't mention this...) I assume the UK would have have to comply with EU privacy statutes....
MS SQL requires x86 hardware - No Sparc, No POWER, No MIPS. Just crappy x86. ...Intel Itanium 2 specifically is the leading TPC-C platform (both 1st (HP-UX/Oracle) and 2nd place (with the dreaded MS-SQL 64-bit version) and Intel cpus taking 8 of the top 10)
Crappy x86
There is no 64 bit version of MS SQL.
Wrong again. See #2 above
And if your *REALLY* need to scale PostgreSQL - run is on a SUN/SGI/IBM.
Wel, aside from the TPC-C Top 10, it's interesting to note that if you trust SGI, their whole next generation is based on Itanium 2 and IBM even sells Itanium systems. Sun, well we they're in their death throes...
Not a bunch of fucking Intel toys.
Looks like pretty powerful toys. Perhaps you should play with some so you'll know what you're talking about.
If I wasn't redundant and just said, what fraction of /. do you think knows what PNI is?
...Because
1) if you're familiar with Linux it's easy
2) Great web/SSH interface esp. to snort output
3) Works really well
4) Quick and easy to install -very flexible about DMZ configs
5) Runs nicely on a box I'd need to upgrade (need +10GB HD) to put Astaro on it. (But I might do that at some point)
Prescott with PNI new instructions, 1Mb L2 cache clocking up to 4GHz and beyond, 800MHz front side bus and increased software support for Hyperthreading. (eg. 2.6.x Linux kernels know how to do HT scheduling much more efficiently)
Watch the Xmas benchmarks, that's when it matters...
...does anyone know the URL for the Ganymede Dep't of Intellectual Property?
But what if the person was walking behind you in a crowd. Its the new war-walking rage!
Good idea -don't run personal server or count money or pick nose or uninate or walk naked or engage in loud political/religous monologues or other things you want to do in a secure, stable place, in a crowd of people on the steet.
Look, Bluetooth has about a 10 meter (10 yard) radius if you can't keep intruders out of your house or the cubes right next to you, you have more important worries than your PAN server security
Me, I want a PAN server asap. Great idea.
Could have sworn I read a Robert Stone book called "Bay of Souls" back in May. My book seems rather simliar to the one you describe, except that your's is Stone's 'latest novella' and my one was out FIVE MONTHS AGO.
Seriously, I don't mind people reviewing a book they just found out about but please 'fess up when it's been out for a while and you just noticed.
Thanks for mentioning the Western Canon, though - more people should be aware of it.
This isn't, of course, Stone's best work anyway...
...the world being divided into the hardware camp (that wants to see all sorts of sharing and other technologies exploited to drive sales of high perf goodies - which Intel belongs to) and the software camp (that has electronically reproducable assets like software/music/video which want hardware assistance via DRM - eg Microsoft, Disney etc.)
Virtually all firms fall into one of these two camps - except perhaps, poor schitzophrenic Sony that has one leg in both camps...
Phoenix/AMI would normally fall into the hardware camp, except when you realize that their value-add is highly driven by features the operating system exploits, so pandering to Microsoft's desires makes some sense for them.
To paraphrase YOU...
Have you ever dealt with a MAINFRAME? Large MAINFRAMES are fucking expensive to run 24x7x365. They require a lot of Air Conditioning (many people spend over $1,000 a month on just AC, that's an expense that is never going away), electrical and a shitload of space.
And he diffrence is what? For most applications, clusters, for all their faults are faster and cheaper than mainframes.
Hmmm (again). /sbin/init with a program that loaded my IPtables policies and went into a "while (1) { sleep 1000; };" loop.
I could easily set up a machine where there is only a few executables, and replace
Gee, that's sounds like the kernel is NOT the only file on the machine. Those "few executables" kinda break the premise of running only a kernel- which was the original claim. I still wasn't clear on how you get along without a bootloader, too.
Seriously, as Stallman relentlessly reminds us, an operating system is more than a kernel. You can run a very lean system with not much else, but I don't see how you can run with only the kernel. If you know how, please detail how from a cold startup...
1) Will DRM or other features in the new Office break backward compatibility with earlier Word/Excel/etc formats? In other words, will opening and editing and saving a Word 97 file in the new Word prevent older Word versions (or 3rd party applications) to open that file later?
2) Will Microsoft make any encoding APIs freely available to the public for 3rd party applications to open and use those files?
3) If the answer to 2) is no, will Microsoft license any encoding APIs to 3rd parties and will these be non-discriminatory?
4) If the answer to both 2) and 3) is no, will Microsoft agree not to invoke legal action in the event that 3rd parties reverse engineer any encoding APIs?
5) If the answers to all of 1) through 4) is no, is Microsoft not concerned about US or EU anti-trust authorities ruling that the Office file strategy is anti-competitive?