Not true. There's gigabit TokenRing just like there's gigabit Ethernet. What's more, TR has collision avoidance built into the protocol, where Ethernet networks have to be architected in star topologies to avoid collision, because Ethernet responds horribly.
Of course, Ethernet costs so little that you can build an Ethernet in a star topology for less than a TokenRing in a ring topology. "Good enough" wins again.
Re:Important admission from IBM.
on
IBM Wants Linux
·
· Score: 1
Could it be that IBM is waiting till Linux can do all the things AIX can do? When that day comes. won't it be easy for IBM to release the code needed to make a AS/400 kernel?
The problem is really the specificity of the AS/400 SLIC to the hardware. It'd be really damn hard to run Linux as the root system on an AS/400. In fact, they need OS/400 running as a hypervisor OS so that Linux can cope with the hardware oddities needed to support the single address space.
The fault in that assumption is that the book is correct and IBM *wanted* to help the Nazi. The German IBM subsidiary was taken over by the Nazis, so they didn't get to make a choice whether or not to help.
Don't believe everything you read. I'm not saying IBM's innocent, but I'm also not saying they're guilty.
Keep in mind that the Nazis took over IBM Germany. Whether they wanted to help is the issue...they had no choice about it.
Re:all this time fighting microsoft with benchmark
on
IBM Wants Linux
·
· Score: 1
remember that IBM is part of the "we" you're referring to. They've got people contributing to Linux kernel development (e.g., IBM peeps did most of the work getting Linux/390 production ready).
Those who are complaining about "Attack of the Clones" should get a grip. 1) That title fits in with the others (it rates about the same on the lame-o-meter as "Empire Strikes Back" or "Revenge/Return of the Jedi") and 2) It's a MOVIE.
Win9x doesn't restrict access to the winsock API. If MS supplies the raw sockets API, then I guess their logic is that those sockets must be unrestricted also. If they were restricted, Win9x apps written to Winsock wouldn't run.
I just added a "1" in front of the expiration date on all the X10 cookies, and now the expiration date is sometime in 2033. Don't know if it'll work yet, because I haven't gone to a pop under website.
Who is more pathetic....the fool who talks about databases, or the fool who talks about talking about databases? (or the fool who talks about talking about talking about databases)?
Keep in mind that the public image that Microsoft is trying to paint of these open source licenses is that they are a "cancer" that affects everything they touch in an intellectual property sense. What they are apparently trying to do is to prevent their oh-so-valuable intellectual property from being defeated by an open source license.
It's pretty ridiculous, but at least it's consistent.
IBM was doing this exact same thing with DAISY, although the scope seems a bit narrower:
http://www.research.ibm.com/daisy/
It's very interesting that we're just now talking about this stuff. It may get to a point where PC architectures will be able to do something similar to what an AS/400 does....the application is insulated from the hardware completely, and when transported to a new architecture, it automatically translates to run on the new architecture, fully able to exploit the abilities of that architecture.
It's only within the last two or three years that the RS/6000's gained 64-bittedness. Prior to that, PPC chips were dual mode, with the AS/400s using the 64-bit "AS" instruction set and the RS/6000's using the 32-bit native mode.
I see. So companies which dont use Linux are not worthy of a solution? That makes sense since it's companies that do use Linux which have all the problems.
An idiotic statement if I ever heard one. Companies with programmers that breathe oxygen have all the problems. Now I'll suppose you'll suggest that oxygen is a bad thing.
The PowerPC has a 64-bit mode, added for the AS/400, that supports the 64-bit single address space (really cool concept...basically combine your RAM and DASD into a really big virtual memory space, where the program can assume that something is always in memory, and the kernel takes care of making sure that it's in RAM when needed).
I think the impetus for this was their committment to deliver Linux running on the i-series (formerly AS/400). Of course, there's a lot more to bringing Linux to i-series than making it run on the processor (you also have to virtualize primary and secondary memory to map them into a single address space, which takes a bit of doing for OS's that weren't designed that way from the ground up).
Slashdot Mirror
Not true. There's gigabit TokenRing just like there's gigabit Ethernet. What's more, TR has collision avoidance built into the protocol, where Ethernet networks have to be architected in star topologies to avoid collision, because Ethernet responds horribly.
Of course, Ethernet costs so little that you can build an Ethernet in a star topology for less than a TokenRing in a ring topology. "Good enough" wins again.
Could it be that IBM is waiting till Linux can do all the things AIX can do? When that day comes. won't it be easy for IBM to release the code needed to make a AS/400 kernel?
The problem is really the specificity of the AS/400 SLIC to the hardware. It'd be really damn hard to run Linux as the root system on an AS/400. In fact, they need OS/400 running as a hypervisor OS so that Linux can cope with the hardware oddities needed to support the single address space.
The fault in that assumption is that the book is correct and IBM *wanted* to help the Nazi. The German IBM subsidiary was taken over by the Nazis, so they didn't get to make a choice whether or not to help.
Don't believe everything you read. I'm not saying IBM's innocent, but I'm also not saying they're guilty.
Keep in mind that the Nazis took over IBM Germany. Whether they wanted to help is the issue...they had no choice about it.
remember that IBM is part of the "we" you're referring to. They've got people contributing to Linux kernel development (e.g., IBM peeps did most of the work getting Linux/390 production ready).
Those who are complaining about "Attack of the Clones" should get a grip. 1) That title fits in with the others (it rates about the same on the lame-o-meter as "Empire Strikes Back" or "Revenge/Return of the Jedi") and 2) It's a MOVIE.
If that's the case, how do you spoof an IP address in winsock?
Win9x doesn't restrict access to the winsock API. If MS supplies the raw sockets API, then I guess their logic is that those sockets must be unrestricted also. If they were restricted, Win9x apps written to Winsock wouldn't run.
I just added a "1" in front of the expiration date on all the X10 cookies, and now the expiration date is sometime in 2033. Don't know if it'll work yet, because I haven't gone to a pop under website.
Who is more pathetic....the fool who talks about databases, or the fool who talks about talking about databases? (or the fool who talks about talking about talking about databases)?
Keep in mind that the public image that Microsoft is trying to paint of these open source licenses is that they are a "cancer" that affects everything they touch in an intellectual property sense. What they are apparently trying to do is to prevent their oh-so-valuable intellectual property from being defeated by an open source license.
It's pretty ridiculous, but at least it's consistent.
IBM was doing this exact same thing with DAISY, although the scope seems a bit narrower: http://www.research.ibm.com/daisy/ It's very interesting that we're just now talking about this stuff. It may get to a point where PC architectures will be able to do something similar to what an AS/400 does....the application is insulated from the hardware completely, and when transported to a new architecture, it automatically translates to run on the new architecture, fully able to exploit the abilities of that architecture.
It's only within the last two or three years that the RS/6000's gained 64-bittedness. Prior to that, PPC chips were dual mode, with the AS/400s using the 64-bit "AS" instruction set and the RS/6000's using the 32-bit native mode.
You seem to have a real obsession with fallatio, judging by your posts in this thread. Perhaps you're having fantasies about Bill Gates?
2) find a better job where you can use Linux
I see. So companies which dont use Linux are not worthy of a solution? That makes sense since it's companies that do use Linux which have all the problems.
An idiotic statement if I ever heard one. Companies with programmers that breathe oxygen have all the problems. Now I'll suppose you'll suggest that oxygen is a bad thing.
There is no lower bound to the idiots here.
My feeling exactly.
power3 = the other 64-bit PowerPC implementation. Ignore previous comment.
The PowerPC has a 64-bit mode, added for the AS/400, that supports the 64-bit single address space (really cool concept...basically combine your RAM and DASD into a really big virtual memory space, where the program can assume that something is always in memory, and the kernel takes care of making sure that it's in RAM when needed).
I think the impetus for this was their committment to deliver Linux running on the i-series (formerly AS/400). Of course, there's a lot more to bringing Linux to i-series than making it run on the processor (you also have to virtualize primary and secondary memory to map them into a single address space, which takes a bit of doing for OS's that weren't designed that way from the ground up).