To show the world that throwing hardware at a problem like Oracle contributes to the solution FAR more that the software on the box.
One would think that Oracle has been written in such a way that makes what OS it runs on moot. Based on this, since I have become used to seeing Linux compete with and exceed Windows performance at even Window's own core technologies, e.g. SMB/CIFS, "length-measuring" (you know what I'm getting at here) with Oracle might not be the PR this kind of story is meant to attract.
Also, run this benchmark for a year, sustained. Uptime at the end of a year would be far more interesting that this peak crap - 100-150 CIOs at Fortune 500 companies might care about that, but they are probably more interested in *nix being able to stay up on the order of years and not having to reboot for anything but a kernel patch [with kernel modules even being hot-fixable].
Windows is not interesting to me. Its not penetrating the back end, even though Microsoft marketing pretends it can. Its been thrown around as a workgroup server, but cant be a serious directory or DNS server. Its polluted the world with ASP. Even.NET will show up all over, not a bad thing, but this kind of technology isn't the "get you to the moon and back" kind, and we know this. I would like to see the rest of the supported Oracle platforms/OS compete, Sun/SPARC/Solaris, Itanium/Linux, PA-Superdome/HPUX, UniTrash[UniSys lol]/Linux, NEC, etc.
Also, Microsoft pays no dividends (MSFT), and has a monopoly (most PCs shit with some Windows OS). They rely on "doing better next time" to make the share price go up (it hasn't done very well since they completed the monopoly). They have to penetrate the back end (which I think they will fail unless they accept Windows is not suitable for an OS for everything, and that Microsoft could be selling its wares on other platforms - probably with some success - reference, Apple's only useful apps are IE and Office X - or at least a huge common denominator) to make more money than last quarter. Being in control of a monopoly and not paying dividends and losing drastic cash on XBoX and alienating users with oppressive licensing schemes and protections might be the beginning of their end. We will have to see how.NET fares against Java.
Oh well, hope the guy who needs a 32 way Intel box enjoys it. I would just be ill watching big iron like that boot off a PC BIOS. SRM or Openrom would be nice..
OpenBSD. I do not favor this, but a patch requires a diff on your local CVS, and that you only recompile the portion affected. No need to recompile everything. OpenBSD's monolithic approach to things is not my cup of tea, personally, and I would use FreeBSD in place of OpenBSD wherever it may be found.
Gentoo: I attempted to get this to work, and it failed, but I got the sense this was similar to FreeBSD, in that a portion or package could be 'emerged.'
Debian: I find this distribution to be difficult, but once working, upgrades are easy to accomplish by apt. The problem here is that Debian has a tendency to not let anything into -STABLE - sometimes on the order of months to years after its needed.
FreeBSD: My current favored system. The core OS is small enough recompile for a one off/test solution. It has a robust sense of packages. Its ports collection make everything and anything installable, packaged and remove-able - quite easily. The system is extensible and scriptable, the build is easy to invoke. cvsup supfile [*default host=cvsup3.freebsd.org;*default base=/usr;*default prefix=/usr;*default release=cvs;*default tag=RELENG_4;*default delete use-rel-suffix ; src-all], make world ; make kernel ; mergemaster -p if needed. Binary packages are also available, and this operating system can be synched up with -STABLE, source-ily or binar-ily. This system is commercially viable[JUNOS on gigantic M160 Juniper routers are FreeBSD, and I have an M10 at work that is my playground, again, FreeBSD], robust, maintainable by source or binary. FreeBSD has a great regard for coherency, real documentation and contrary to the typical FreeBSD is dying troll, the are hardly any features that Linux and FreeBSD don't have in common, with a number of the better and more important drivers and subsystems in Linux being ports of a FreeBSD endeavor, eg, SCSI, AIC7XXX, USB support, etc. I find Free BSD to be easier to maintain either bleeding edge or bleeding stable, and ports makes it laughably easy to break ranks and auto-magically place the stuff you want in a packaged manner in your system with autodeps. RedHat is notably resistant to tinkering, this is why I like FreeBSD. Unfortunately, the penguin has sucked up a lot of the attention, so certain things like Java directly from Sun are behind the curve. (e.g. JRE 1.1.8). FreeBSD does run Linux binaries - but this isn't a robust solution, but it's a meta-hack. I also like 'portupgrade' which really puts the ease of keeping ports up to the stable minute in high gear. The soft update filesystem is a big plus when compared to EXT2/EXT3/Reiser.
RedHat: What can you say, the status quo of GNU these days. Not good, not bad. If you need someone to "worry" about *everything* for you, and you leave you system well enough alone and have no desire for things similar to FreeBSD ports, its good. I do not agree with RedHat on the sloppy kernel patching, awful system compiler offerings, strange mangling of glibc, gcc, and the kernel, and 1500 versions of the kernel for 6.2, 7.0, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3 and Advanced Server. How can a good job be done with so many forks and branches? I also got upset with a situation like this: HP Openmail has new glibc minim requirement. Openmail runs perfect on RH 6.2 Now I have to get a new glibc for 6.2 (the same version of higher in 7.1). How do I do that without bringing the system down or upgrading it? (I bought openmail BUNDLED officially with redhat, and they dropped the ball on me. Thanks RH] Is RedHat revolting to me? No. Do I wish they did certain things differently? Yes. JFS and XFS are not supported at install by RedHat, which annoying.
Also RedHat blocks up2date-ers and tries to extort money from you so you can get your security updates. I find this practice revolting. I never download from RedHat ftp, I have to use speakeasy.rpmfind.net. I did "buy" the RedHat server that came with my Dell 1550. So I get slow ftp access and have to use an unofficial mirror, and I get no up2date priority. They say "If you want to be secure now, PAY UP." Even Microsoft offers fast and free access to updates. Not that that company is honest or honorable, but I want to take a cheap shot at RedHat and point out when a said nemesis is more honest about something, is should speak a volume about that behavior of extortion.
There is also Solaris, which is to me the no-compromise solution in maintainability. Its not everything you want, you don't get a desktop environment out of it, but in terms of commercial viability, this is probably one of the best supported environments out there. I think the thing is arcane, a strange mix of BSD-ness and SYS V-ness. It got a slow package manager, etc. But it has volumes of tracking, documentation and coherency. I am greatly disappointed by Solaris X86 having been deprecated to only the LX50 Cobalt. I do think this platform has immense value, often from the standpoint tat script kiddie assembly for x86 wont run here;p.
Cobalt: This platform revolts me. It is a horrible bastardization of RedHat, which is why I do not fully deprecate RedHat. RedHat to me is far superior to this horror show. I have to maintain a cobalt, and there are a number of reasons I don't like this operating system.
My current viable OS choices are FreeBSD, Solaris and RedHat from the x86/SPARC perspectives. I have not enough time or experience to consider AXP or PPC's OS choices. I also use NetBSD on ancient SPARCs and much prefer this to OpenBSD.
Yeah, but the EU is full tilt in the other direction . Look at the EU's GDP, collectively or individually. Also note the Japan works 6 days a week, long hours, and has a GDP that is one third lower than USA. I'm not saying 15 hours days is intelligent or respectable, but if one isn't smart enough to go find work elsewhere, then why does Uncle Sam have to come in and beat down the "evil oppressors"? The EU's government a foul country club, a quagmire of racist, ageist, elitist ineffective self serving leadership (look at former eastern block countries, Romania, and Turkey getting the fat snub from the EU - where simple the stable Euro replacing their respective currencies at a fair exchange rate would vastly improve the quality o life there.) You do not want a cabal of idiots running your life - you want people like yourself collectively running your life in a distributed way.. Politics in the US are just as assholic, but here the government, until recently has kept itself largely out of private affairs when compared to other "1st world-ish" countries. Look, you want it, pie in the sky. If civil rights, racism or law breaking keeps you from getting there, then make a stink. if you are too stupid, lazy or fetal (and lets admit, there are a lot of baby mommy apron string types out there, most of the rest of the world has to dig in dumpsters for food, and here we have coders whining about fool bosses who got a degree from some fool factory MBA school.) to get out of a bad situation and create opportunity for yourself or find a better opportunity, I simply don't care. If you feel you've reached the end of the line in the 1st world, HAHAHAHAHAHA. Good luck finding a job if you aren't ROYALTY or related to someone in the government in, well most of the world's population lives like that..
Here is another problem, invite a team of socialists (not the party, in the line of thinking) to regulate your businesses. They don't need to make money, they just exist to feed off of others like leeches. They aren't chartered to create new wealth, jobs or revenue, just to harass others while doing so. I stagger when I think of the rapid rate of "progress" here in the 1st world, particularly the US. People who live in the confines of safe homes and television sets forget a mere 50 - 100 years separates us from what we would consider to be a painful, suffering existence. or normal daily life "back then." The sad part is that most of the world's population, while now by percentage is better fed, medicated and accounted for than ever before, is living in conditions most 1st worlders have no damn concept of.
So this is where I come to the point that sure, the system needs regulation. We need thoughtful people to put some rules down. But no ONE person is smart enough to figure it all out. Sorry, I don't see any son of God archetypes floating around and knowing the answers to everything. I mean, even Einstein was in the communist party, so there goes one of the "smartest men EVER" as a viable societal leader. The way the world best works is people vote. They vote with their wallets. Every day. That, unfortunately, is the ultimate strap on for everyone. Believe it or not. The root religion for humans is greed. And the difference with the 1st worlds and particularly the US, is that it's the accepted vice/religion. Others try and cover it up, or suppress it, or claim for the good of the people but its all a crock. Even squirrels hoard nuts for the winter. We don't have enough power/money/technology yet to set up a Star Trek like utopia. Maybe someday, but until technology makes more things moot (like maybe when fossil fuels are considered dirty, expensive, and not viable) we can have a socialist attitude. But in a world where there isn't enough to go around, forget it. Back to your vote. I vote. People who don't vote vote. People strapped to a life support machine vote. If you come out with something good, people vote by buying it. If its bad, people vote by not. The market is a powerful and sobering reality. CRAP does not fly. Naturally you need accountability for recourses against fraud, but overall, the market is unpredictable, chaotic, fairly and seemingly uncontrollable/manipulate-able (its so nebulous and huge, like the universe). Boeing's are the best planes. Socialists try and keep Scare Bus in business by subsidizing, yes, Britain, France and Germany fork over cash to keep them in business. But they are CRAP. I don't want them, I personally REFUSE to fly on them and write to airlines here and tell them so, airlines don't really want them unless they are on fire sale. The other day I read that a jets front landing gear snapped off, the rudders and engines sheared off the flight 583, (even if it was blown up, that was pretty absurd), an A319 crashed itself into the ground at a Paris Airshow, lots of computer problems, recently one ran out of gas because the gauge was broken. The idea is this. Because companies, and people, aren't affecting Airbus's business model and we have fools subsidizing them, an unsafe, undesirable product continues to plague humanity. I've read all the reports of every major airline mishap involving jet powered passenger aircraft the 777 is backordered to kingdom come and, like the B-52, I would suspect to see them flying 100 years from now, it is the most beautiful plane I have ever seen.
Off of Airplanes and back to your crap boss. Leave. Go home. Suddenly leave. Stick it to him. Or ask to be laid off, because you want unemployment, but you can no longer stand the working conditions. If he fires you for saying that, GOOD. Now you get unemployment - because he cant fire you for saying that. Why the hell are you telling Slashdot. The power to vote is yours. Spend all day on the phone with a good recruiter (these are hard as hell to fine, you'll know when you get one), user resume rabbit, monster, hot jobs, beat the pavement, ask friends, call up old professions, do everything and anything to change the quality of your life for the better. The world owes no one a living, people who think otherwise invariably take from other what is rightfully theirs (communists, generally, who stifle innovation for the greater good and prevent entrepreneurs from improving the quality of our lives). Be self empowered, try hard, get out of bad situations. There are probably a billion people who would die for the chance to work in a clean, unpolluted city, in a clean environment for 15 hours a day. Its all relative. Here, now, you may have come to expect such things which you would think would go without saying, but in reality, it's a bump in the road. Get over it. Get out and do something about it. if you cant make a difference for everyone, for the "greater good," get out on the street and beat the pavement and go looking for someone else to help "Just Do It!" one day at a time. No one should regulate your bosses unfair practices, that would cost everyone money (like a large ineffective department of labor here in the US, that only creates jobs within itself). Your boss would be fired if everyone walked out on him. That's a free market, and if even the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" caught the drift, you should too.
Only thing I have to say in closing, is that a society needs to be FREE, before it can be economically free and a have a free market. There are scumbags and troglodytes in the US, of late, that piss on the Constitution, erode it, and care only to have the free market, and a free economy, but at the expense of the people's freedom. All I have to say to those would be suppressors of the sacred freedom that Constitution laid forth (and which has yet to be fully actualized), is that you deserve to DIE, but I will vote, if this becomes like Germany in the 1930's. I will vote by leaving this place and doing expatriate work elsewhere. If the society is not FREE, the US's vast lead will erode into dust. As it should, because the tenants of the constitution, the ideals of Jefferson and Madison were eroded and trivialized, and will we have left now is a bunch of greed without freedom, and that system is just doomed to fail. Death to the treasonous politicians who undermine my rights to the root document which has the potential to salvage those who are oppressed! ALL politics are local, all governments that tend toward centralized power are corrupts and screw the little guy. All you can do to change things is to change your surroundings to your liking, and you cant worry about the big stuff because they took your freedom away to say much about it anyway. Sometimes an abstraction of the mob is better than the mob, sometimes it isn't. You have to live with the fact you don't get to launch "our" nukes. The system here in the US is far from perfect, but in the words of Winston Churchill;
I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals. - Sir Winston Churchill
It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. - Sir Winston Churchill (This quote has been paraphrased many times, so be careful;p)
"A monarchy is a merchantman which sails well, but will sometimes strike on a rock, and go to the bottom; a republic is a raft which will never sink, but then your feet are always in the water." -- Fisher Ames.
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard." -- H. L. Mencken.
"Democracy: The substitution of election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few." -- George Bernard Shaw.
"The reason there are two senators for each state is so that one can be the designated driver." -- Jay Leno.
Notice that most of the nasty things said above are about government, its hard to find quips, hacks and flames on scientists, inventors, great innovators. (Except those who are false Idols, like the lawbreaking Bill Gates, and his evil henchman such as Ballmer - the real innovator in that company, Allen, left in disgust.).
The cpu still looks like the most expensive thing in that picture - by far. And considering the backside cache is half speed on those, I don't see the big deal. Also considering you find P3-866 chips (with full speed cache and superior SPEC-CPU-2000 numbers) practically in the trash, I dont see why $300 is fair.
The real cost may have to do with the fact they have to reverse engineer firmware updates put out by apple to block people from updating, like the infamous BW Yosemete G3 - I'm half beig snarky and speculative, but I have a G3 BW REV 1 right here, and I don't use it much, expensive to upgrade, slow, broken CMD 640 that won't take a slave, no AGP, no SCSI. Its sitting next to a PC thats 6 months older with none of the said problems, more memory, onboard 7895 SCSI, dual IDE channels that work, etc.
I was rather disappointed to learn that there is little markup on those, but Sonnett has to charge, I have yet to meet many tech savvy mac users (or Mac users that function technically in any capacity), so I can imagine the tinkerer-upgrader-gamer market for Macs being exceedingly small.
What you are paying for is something that won't sell in incredibly high volume.
And to answer the root of this ridiculous thread, I would have to say, heck no, the Mot CPU won't work. If it does, post a webpage HOWTO. I won't be holding my breath.
Yeah well... The Japanese economy is sad. Your future is uncertain; you are likely to be unemployed. The Japanese cost of living makes San Francisco look cheap (even New York) - $30 is probably a far greater percentage of your disposable income than mine. And judging on the last time there was an earthquake, your government acted completely defunct. Taxes are high and Japan is going through a cultural crisis. And most Japanese work on Saturday - but get less done (your GDP is lower ($36,200 USA vs. Japan $24,900) and we work 5 days a week). Your country lends money to countries who get better economic ratings than you. Japan's Economy: Now Rated Below Botswana Monday, July 8, 2002.
You know, there is a lot more to life than DSL. Unlike Japan, we have a *huge* country and a gigantic and fascinatingly well working infrastructure (in part due to Japanese Americans, Japanese engineering and equipment, credit is most certainly due).
You know, there are central offices here in the US that are 100s of miles from certain customers. In Japan, there is barely a square mile left that is undeveloped, so suffice to say, it should be rather easy to implement high speed internet cheaply. And speaking on environments, your fishermen are repeatedly caught killing near-extinct whale species, kill seals for their penises which are considered a delicacy, and have no renewable resources left on your Island of Japan. Looks like Nabunaga's ambition went a tad too far.
Think. The USA is not a poster child for how things should be run, but socialist tendencies (like DIRT! CHEAP! INTERNET! FOR! EVERYONE!) seem to far further from the ideal we all try to work towards.
US/Japan infrastructure: US Telephones 194 million (1997) / Japan Telephones - 60.381 million (1997) US Telephones cellular: 69.209 million (1998) / Japan Telephones - cellular: 63.88 million (2000) US Radio stations: AM 4,762, FM 5,542 (1998) / Japan Radio stations: AM 190, FM 88 (1999) US Highways: total: 6,370,031 km / Japan Highways: total: 1,152,207 km US Waterways: 41,009 km / Japan Waterways: 1,770 km US Airports - with paved runways: total: 5,174 / Japan Airports - with paved runways: total: 142 US Internet Service Providers (ISPs): 7,800 (2000 est.) / Japan ISPS 73 (2000) US INTERNET USERS Internet users: 148 million (2000) / JAPAN INTERNET USERS Internet users: 27.06 million (2000)
So, I think the US has a slight idea about infrastructure, and how to provide every opportunity to do well for yourself and your business.. And most of the figures, even when divided by 2.1 or so to account for the population discrepancy, well, leaves Japan in the dust. US Population: 278,058,881 (July 2001 est.) / Japan Population: 126,771,662 (July 2001 est.)
By comparison, Japan's ledger sheet is not so simple or impressive. Japan's $4.2 trillion economy may be slowly shrugging off its third recession in a decade, but there are still fundamental issues.
Japan's total debt to GDP is triple the American level. That is the highest any major industrialized country has faced in the last half century.
Japan's economy shrunk by 1.3 percent last year. Meanwhile, the average age has crept up to 41, the highest in the world.
Japan has $5 trillion in primary government debt, $3.7 trillion of which is bonds.
Japanese companies continue to eliminate jobs, helping push the unemployment rate to a near-record 5.4 percent in May. With their jobs in jeopardy, Japanese are spending less on cars, homes and other expensive items.
Thirteen percent of Japan's general expenditures go to social security payments and a whopping 20 percent to debt service.
Its long been HPs and other inkjet people to give away printers and make killings on ink.
I was faced with replacing an older Canon's bubble jer inkwells, at $40 a pop. I bought a new DJ932C instead (~$110). I tried telling everyone that everytime it runs out of ink to throw out the printer and get a new one. (to discourage losing mone on the printer and making 10000% on ink)
But alas, the vile trap was set, and now we have replaced the ink 5 or 6 times.
Laser is always cheaper, unless its home printing. SHould have bought a 4050C or something from the Excite auction;p
I can still hum most of the music perfectly for almost all the NES games, and the first wave of SNES games. The games today, except things like Hitman or GTA 1,2,3 have minimal replay value. Games that are fun to replay is how much murder can you get away with before you get nailed! Like in any of the games, you could get bigger, better and faster if you were more sklling.
I remember wall jumping (the door wall ball unball warp trick) in Metroid to get the varia early, or killing lots of things to get the strength arrows faster in KID ICARUS! All neat little tweaks to twink out earlier.
EGG PLANT WIZARDS! AHAHAHAAAAAAAAA! Those freaks. The best. You had to find the hospital, and you best have a map. Remember you could negotiate the merchants in KID ICARUS with the second controller? Remember the map, torch and pencil? hehehe. The barrels, potions and feathers?
Fewer IT jobs were advertised last quarter than a year ago but programmers with key software skills are still very much in demand.
That's the conclusion of a study of the UK IT recruitment market by CWJobs, The Register's recruitment partner.
CWJobs compiled a very big list of all the software skills asked for in job ads, published online and in print IT rags, and the broadsheet nationals, in Q1.
Experience in C++ (mentioned in almost 24,844 ads in Q1 2002), SQL (23,134), Unix (21,079) and C (20,532) were highly prized.
Requirement for C skills is holding up but mentions of other once sought-after skills was down 50 per cent from Q1 2001. This reflects an overall slowdown in the IT sector, CWJobs reckons.
Oracle, Win NT, Visual Basic and Java were each mentioned in more than 10,000 ads. However, demand for Java skills has slipped markedly from 40,681 mentions in Q1 2001 to 14,566, a decline of 64 per cent.
The number of jobs advertised last quarter is lower than that advertised in Q4 2001, but this may be affected by seasonal factors in the job market.
Online ads account for the vast majority of ads in Q1, reflecting a long-term trend in the UK IT jobs market. Which is nice. For CWJobs. For Computer Weekly, from whence it spawned, it's crap.
I second vsync's notion that those who use higher level languages can never use them properly because they do not know what these higher level languages *DO* for them
I have run into it time and time again. Decades have gone by and still the most rigorous CS departments do some of the very same things. Like, write a language and a compiler for that language. People who know how to write their own language and then a compiler for that made up language often find it very easy to pick up new things.
I can't believe for a moment that one learns "lame ANIS C," for real, then goes on to find Java difficult to master. I mean, by no means is it simple, and the strategy for using that is different, but Jesus - grab a few books and crank out some code if you want a Java job.
If I had to assign aspiring students to do something it would be this: Write a patch for a Linux kernel (or any Open kernel), write a user land utility to interface with whatever you patched into the kernel, the write a daemon to interface with the kernel hack you just wrote and then manage that daemon remotely from the said user land utility. Man, if every "programmer" did that as an exercise, we would reduce sucktitude 90%.
Then try to control the said daemon from a Java project - just for fun, to learn it.
One thing about "LAME C" versus C++ or Java, at least C doesn't change forms every 5 minutes. Much less with C++ now, but Java has had a myriad of APIs since its birth and it really get annoying after a while.
Good luck man, because if your C didn't teach you C well enough (as exemplified by referring to it as 'Lame,' you need to take it upon yourself to make sure you know systems, bottom to top, because when and if you do learn Java, chances are you wont be very good at using it. For all the rigors or my own education, most of your usefulness in corporate America will come from things you taught yourself or pickup from a mentor. School apparently doesn't do much for your starting salary, as freshly gradated students usually get paid less than everyone else. It's experience and aptitude that changes that - not "I TEWK A KEWL KLASS A THE UNIVEHRCITY AND TEHY TEECHED ME JAVA AND MI SI BETTAR!"
In more way than one! Be sure to honor OpenSSH and the new OpenBSD 3.1 that is coming (I GOT MY TRACKING NUMBER from CanadaPOST;P its coming!) by visiting the OPENBSD SONG PAGE. (MP3 and OGG files available!)
"Systemagic" BSD fight buffer reign Flowing blood in circuit vein Quagmire, Hellfire, RAMhead Count Puffy rip attacker out
Crackin' ze bathroom, Crackin' ze vault Tale of the script, HEY! Secure by default
Can't fight the Systemagic Über tragic Can't fight the Systemagic
Sexty second, black cat struck Breeding worm of crypto-suck Hot rod box unt hunting wake Vampire omellete, kitten cake
Crackin' ze boardroom, Crackin' ze vault Rippin' ze bat, HEY! Secure by default
Chorus
Cybersluts vit undead guts Transyl-viral coffin muck Penguin lurking under bed Puffy hoompa on your head
Crackin' ze bedroom, Crackin' ze vault Crackin' ze whip, HEY! Secure by default Crackin' ze bedroom, Crackin' ze vault Crackin' ze whip, HEY! Secure by default
Chorus
This song is great, and its free!.
Produced & Directed by Ty Semaka and Ian Knox. Written, Arranged and Performed by Ty Semaka (vocals, lyrics), Ian Knox (bass, drum programming), and Sean Desmond (guitar). Recorded & Mixed at Ruffmix Audio Productions (Calgary) by Kelly Mihalicz. Mastered by Jonathan Lewis.
1) We compiled something here with 2.96 (C) it did not work. We compiled with 3.0.1 and it did. Since I cannot release our source code to the public as it isn't my property, you won't be seeing. We now use ICC because of the performance boost (that is considerable.) If RedHat took it upon itself to actually optimize the compiler, rather than what they have done, maybe I would use it.
2) I'm not inclined to believe what he says due to where he works - kind of simple.
3) Yes it is. As I am the one using the software, anything I say should be considered. Your snarky attitude will not help gain industry support for GNU. It's kind of amusing how large companies have to sugar coat this stuff because people like you won't even listen to someone's opinion. (Case in point: The fact Cobalt exists is a testament to customer requirements not being thoroughly evaluated by the likes of RedHat, there should have been NO room in the market for boxes like that.)
4) I believe what I see. I also want a choice. RedHat can compile anything it wants to with whatever compiler it wants to. I want to grab SRC RPMS or source packages and compile with what I want to.
5) Been around long enough, and Bero's site hasn't been updated in ages, that site was there before GCC 3 came along. He added a few uninspiring things about GCC 3 when it came along. Its funny, when that little tirade began it was RH-SECKR3T compiler vs. 2.91.66 and 2.95. It's like he did a replace with VI wherever there was 2.95 he put 3.01. I'm not inclined to believe the compiler hasn't been "fixed," because I don't consider the people working on GCC retarded, as you seem to.
While I don't claim to be an expert, or much of a contributor, lets just say this and a few other things makes me more interested in SuSE, Gentoo, Debian and Mandrake. Competition is good.
RedHat, prepare to lose market share. Shitting on people wit valid complaints and going against the grain doesn't win you friends or customers.
Thanks for trying to police my thought. As I had seen those pages before, and read them in their entirety, you have done nothing whatsoever to disarm my thinking about the RedHat compilers. I will continue to avoid them. You are way too evangelical, holding this Bero URL, a man with stock in the company being criticized, and holding it as gospel. It isn't.
While I may not be able to say QED, I have personally seen evidence that leads me to believe there is something going on. I was merely pointing out that if Gentoo can compile essentially all of GNU with a "broken" and "heinous" compiler (with regards to 2.95.3), and producing a working dist (I have evidence, not proof that this is true as well), why RedHat chose to continue with his particular compiler.
I like RedHat, I aprecate them and wish them the best, but no one is without faults. Criticism can be constructive - and at this point, even if they are correct, the crap that has been said about 2.96 would have me running away from it to make the customers happy, or at least give them alternatives to suit their bias.
If a discussion of a feature in a distribution that's being announced isn't relevant to you and you refer to it as a troll, I'm sorry, Mr. Orwellian thought police brave new world prefect. You will not suppress me or my opinions or my experiences simply by trying to pass off an argument as a troll.
I think that there is a complex sex going on between Intel, Microsoft and being more supportive of OSS endeavors. Obviously with AMD's shocking support of Redmond a few weeks back in the hearings against the 9 states and MFST, in addition to MSFT's Opteron support, one would think that embracing the x86 OSS/GNU/*BSD community would be favorable at this point.
In addition to the C and C++ front-end, i do believe Intel supports Fortran with another compiler. They should round out front end support with Ada, and objective C, other than that - I have no complaints.
In addition to that, the license is rather ridiculous, particularly in reference to the runtime restrictions, which seem to indicate that for IA-64 its very permissive and free, and for IA-32 it is not. This internal self competition is ridiculous, Itanic is ridiculous.
As far as sharing the intellect behind optimizing ICC, I'm sure Intel doesn't make anything off of either the ICC for Win or Lin, and probably several orders of magnitude less on the Lin compiler than the Win stuff, so opening up the Lin stuff wouldn't hurt them financially. The only problem is, ICC makes AMD faster too. If the secret sauce was revealed maybe the GCC team would end up modifying it such that AMD chips do better because of it.
Who knows. Open for OSS/*BSD/Lin makes more sense, and companies have to find that out the hard way. Its all a credibility issue.
If I was Intel, I would try and make GCC as fast and nasty as possible to combat the VisualIdiot.NET stuff - every little bit counts. Intel will make bread anyway the cookie crumbles.
The difference isn't as small as you say. We saw an immediate 15% gain in our production C code, and that was on a Pentium 3, the Pentium 4 test machine gained quite a bit more from ICC. In certain cases, others have claimed two or three times performance for their respective program.
I believe in 'may the best man win,' Intel's compiler is certainly worth buying, and if your production code needs the speed boost the be more competitive, then there is no choice - it must be done the best way.
This isn't about licensing, who makes, if its open or not, its about a meritocracy voting on what's the best way to see performance on a given platform.
I would love for Gentoo to allow the use of ICC to compile the whole distribution. It not possible for certain things, but I'd like to see it done.
Hey, if LEO is what the requirement is, then just get is there. I agree - SV is ugly but it works. This fancy schmancy stuff isn't paying off, as RUS sends stuff into space all the time, most recently for Direct TV:
Russian rockets idle Òåêñò: Ivan Ivanov [ http://www.gazeta.ru/2002/05/08/USbetrayalle.shtml ]
Russia's heavy-lift Proton-K rocket successfully took off from the Baikanur cosmodrome in Kazakhstan on its second commercial flight carrying the US communications satellite DirecTV-5. The second commercial Proton-K flight may well, however, be the Russian rocket's swan song, since the ILS launch service provider, which exercises the exclusive right to use the Proton carrier, has expressed a preference for American rockets.
The Proton-K carrier was to take off from the Baikonur launch pad at 2100 Moscow time on May 6. However, owing to technical problems the launch was cancelled only two minutes before the scheduled blastoff. The launch was put back 24 hours, and at 2110 on May 7 the rocket successfully blasted off into space. Several minutes later the US DirecTV-5 satellite was safely positioned in its orbit.
According to RIA-Novosti reports, the orbit parameters are of a maximum distance of 245km from Earth and a minimum of 198km. Russian Space Force's experts said that once placed into the orbit, the satellite will then move into the interim orbit, and later into the target orbit - the so-called high elliptic and circular orbits with altitudes ranging from 700 to 40,000 km. In line with the experts' estimates, the satellite will hit the target orbit at 0332 Moscow time on May 8.
In comments for RIA, a Space Force specialist noted that the 4.3-ton DirecTV-5 communications satellite is designated to provide digital television services to customers in North American. Its payload amounts to 48 powerful transponders. The satellite will be taken to a geostationary orbit where it is expected to work for no less than 15 years. The device is meant solely for telecommunications and will not be used for military purposes.
International Launch Services is a joint venture of Lockheed Martin Corp. in the United States, with Russian companies Khrunichev State Research and Production Space Center, and Rocket Space Corporation Energia. The company was formed in 1995 to provide launch services for the American Atlas and the Russian Proton vehicles for customers worldwide.
Tuesday's launch was Proton's second commercial flight this year. In December last year, director general of Khrunichev Alexander Medvedev optimistically said that in 2002 his company planned to launch at least 9 commercial flights jointly with the ILS. In addition to that, the Khrunichev Centre planned to carry into space the European astrophysical observatory Integral, Russian communication satellites Express A-4 and Louch, three navigation satellites for GLONASS system, and several military satellites. (Note: GLONASS -Global Navigation Satellite System- is a satellite based radio navigation system which provides an unlimited number of users with all-weather 3D positioning, velocity measuring and timing anywhere in the world or near-Earth space). Altogether, Khrunichev planned to carry out 15 Proton launches this year. That would set a new record for the number of Proton flights, with the current record of 14 flights being set in 2000.
But in the first four months of the current year Proton has been launched only twice. In April, the Russian rocket travelled into space with the communication satellite Intelsat-903 and the DirecTV device on its second flight. To all appearances, the 2000 record will remain unbroken in 2002, since the ILS failed to secure the planned number of orders for Proton.
It is expected that by the end of the year Proton will have placed only two more commercial devices into orbit - the US EchostarVIII (launch scheduled for June 16) and the European Astra-1K (August 16). The launch of the US communications device GE-12, earlier planned for the 4th quarter of 2002, has been postponed till 2003.
Four more satellites will be travelling into space in the near future, but not on board Proton. Only one of those has ''flown the nest'' from Proton to other launch service providers: the owners of AtlanticBird-1 have decided against using Proton and are instead considering Europe's Ariane or the US's Delta-IV as alternatives.
As for the other three satellites, ILS has decided not to launch those on board the Russian carrier, but on board the US rocket. Asiasat-4 is to travel into space on board Atlas IIIA in June, while European HotBird-6 and Canadian Nimiq-2 will be on board Atlas V, the new carrier of Lockheed Martin, in July and October respectively. As a result, the Russians will not receive the $340 million revenue it had forecast.
By jumping ship to other carriers it seems that ILS has made a conscious decision to give up cooperation with Russia altogether. As long as Lockheed Martin only had the Atlas II carrier, which was not exactly renowned for its lifting capacity, the ILS used Proton carriers to launch commercial satellites into space, which allowed it to retain its market share. But as soon as the US company learned to produce the more powerful Atlas III and Atlas V launchers, ILS started to award contracts primarily to them.
The future now looks bleak for Proton. Paradoxically, the producer of Proton, the Khrunichev Centre, under their agreement with the founders of ILS, does not have the right to enter into contracts with foreign customers. Moreover, ILS has the same exclusive right for the use of another Russian rocket Angara, also developed by Khrunichev, therefore, the same sad fate is likely to befall that carrier, too. Thus, it seems, the Americans, who have retained their market share with the help of Proton, are set to seal the fate of the Russian rockets.
As a reply to myself, I'd like to point out to all the Zealots who support the broken 2.96, why does GENTOO completely compile from SOURCE, and support all the major packages RH-7.3 does using, the OH GOD, 2.95.3 COMPILER?!?!?!!?!!!!! I can't believe the FUD that gets spread about this compiler war that doesnt exist, only in RedHat's mind.
Gentoo Linux 1.1a
Gentoo Linux 1.1a features Linux 2.4.18+ and a modern GNU development environment (glibc-2.2.5, gcc 2.95.3), XFS, ReiserFS, ext3, LVM, ALSA, pcmcia-cs support, "vanilla" (stock) kernel compatibility for those who prefer unpatched kernels, Xfree86 4.2, OpenGL, KDE 3.0 and GNOME 1.4/2.0, tcp-wrappers, xinetd, iptables and Linux QoS tools, modern qmail (with optional mysql and LDAP support), postfix and exim MTAs, GRUB boot loader (LILO is still available if you need it), 1500+ up-to-date ebuild scripts of your favorite apps, an innovative dependency-based startup script design, and of course Portage, a completely open design and a great developer and user community.
Sounds like RedHat minus the cruft and haphazard stuff. Funny how everything INCLUDING KDE 3.0 compiles.
As a reply to myself, I'd like to point out to all the Zealots who support the broken 2.96, why does GENTOO completely compile from SOURCE, and support all the major packages RH-7.3 does using, the OH GOD, 2.95.3 COMPILER?!?!?!!?!!!!! I can't believe the FUD that gets spread about this compiler war that doesnt exist, only in RedHat's mind.
Gentoo Linux 1.1a
Gentoo Linux 1.1a features Linux 2.4.18+ and a modern GNU development environment (glibc-2.2.5, gcc 2.95.3), XFS, ReiserFS, ext3, LVM, ALSA, pcmcia-cs support, "vanilla" (stock) kernel compatibility for those who prefer unpatched kernels, Xfree86 4.2, OpenGL, KDE 3.0 and GNOME 1.4/2.0, tcp-wrappers, xinetd, iptables and Linux QoS tools, modern qmail (with optional mysql and LDAP support), postfix and exim MTAs, GRUB boot loader (LILO is still available if you need it), 1500+ up-to-date ebuild scripts of your favorite apps, an innovative dependency-based startup script design, and of course Portage, a completely open design and a great developer and user community.
RedHat develops for RedHat, no one out there develops OSS stuff for RedHat, more like GNU/Linux.
So, for RedHat internally, RedHat can use RedHat compilers.
For everyone else, there is GNU.
I have never used RH compiler for anything that I have done, and have compiler.SRC RPMS with the RELEASE compiler of my choice with no problems.
If I was actively developing, I would probably use Debian, or something far more conservative that what RedHat is right now.
This seems to be coming down to an interesting point in my mind; is this a server or a kiddie's workstation? Seems to me the motivation behind this deviance from release was to compile KDE, and arguably there were problems in KDE, because I never saw something like mozilla not compile, or any other convoluted and hairy C++ projects.
I think empirically coming up with opinions based on actually using a system is a valid way of doing things. Being "strategic" is not really imperative for RedHat's survival with regard to B2C. Most people who use RedHat still get driver RPMS in binary form from the vendor, don't compile anything and are GNU-impaired.. They do what MSFT has done, Dell is going to gleefully take and use your newest version. You don't really have to research your B2C commerce when you brokered large B2B deals. I would imagine that if RedHat was still more a B2C company, they would take this seriously.
About developers, they can read. If something calls for a compiler, you have to go install it anyway. You can compile with runtime specificity anyways, so more than one GNU compiler is easy. Case in point the 2.5 kernel. Boy, if I was a kernel hacker it would sure be nice to not have to go and install 2.95.3 RELEASE in usr/local.
The goal of RedHat is to make B2C customers happy, within reason. By the way, kgcc is still there in 7.3, and 90% of vendor supplied drivers, such as the e100 driver, check for kgcc and use it, because 2.96 is broken. I have all the updates, and the latest and greatest, and I can not for the life of my find valid reasons why RH avoids even putting in gcc3, like they did in 7.2 (that was a kluge by the way, it was a CVS checkout and not a release)
By the way, I don't think it's a good idea to comment about things, particularly kgcc, when its there in 7.3. That's like spreading FUD directly. I will proceed to show the audience that its still there, to date.
[root@rh73 root]# uname -a Linux rh73 2.4.18-3 #1 Thu Apr 18 07:37:53 EDT 2002 i686 unknown [root@rh73 root]# cat/etc/redhat-release Red Hat Linux release 7.3 (Valhalla) [root@rh73 root]# rpm -qa | grep cc gcc-java-2.96-110 gcc-g77-2.96-110 gcc-2.96- 110 gcc-c++-2.96-110 gcc-chill-2.96-110 gcc-obj c-2.96-110
And there you have it. So much for ONE compiler. EGCS 1.1.2 *AND* 2.96-110.
Like I said, I'm not RedHat's enemy, but it would be nice if they explained to people why (and did this with updated information and not the same old same old), and listened to my requirements, which are shared by everyone I know, particularly the OSS developers I know, who liked to use "matched sets" when possible.
Also, reader's note. In RedHat 7.2, Full Install, egcs 1.1.2, 2.96 and gcc 3.01(CVS) was included. That's 3 compilers.
You could have egcs 1.1.2 (for kernel-2.4 only), gcc 2.95.3(+CVS-stable if you are really picky) (this is what kernel 2.5 wants) and GCC 3.04 and *everything* I have ever used will compile, properly and cleanly. That's 3 release compilers, and it will all work.
To date there is a standing warning on using RedHat compilers by the kernel team. On several occasions I have seen posts to the kernel mailing lists with dmesg that indicated rh gcc was used, and the kernel hackers wont help them unless they use the proper compiler.
All in all this kind of argument makes it clear why SuSE and Mandrake and Debian and Slackware and TurboLinux have a place in the world today. They are all x86 primary, all backed by some major OEM in one way or another. RedHat could have wiped the floor, but technically, they have shortcoming that the others can address in one way or another.
It's times like these where I wish a big commercial entity put out their own dist from scratch, say IBM. Most of the Immunixes, HP-secure-linuxes,etc, are rehashes of RedHat. Most notable what is different is the compiler;p
I have used that compiler, ICC, it is impressive. I would recommend it to anyone. It increases speed by at least 15%, and this happens to Athlon as well. It is the best x86 compiler out there bar none - in terms of performance and x86.
Keep in mind this compiler has strange licensing, weird runtime restrictions that curiously favor the use of IA-64. A way around the linked restrictions in licensing is to build statically.
It would be nice if Intel gave the GCC team the secret sauce which makes this one some much better at optimizing code. I do not flame GCC at all, I like it , and clearly it is superior at going across architectural boundaries. I just wish HP/DEC/Compaq, Sun and Intel were more willing to show them a 'thing or two' about insightful ways to optimize the compiler.
Also, note that ICC can not compile the kernel. I know and have been told that there are things present in GCC that allow the successful build of the kernel that do no (CAN NOT?) exist in ICC. It would interesting to see if someone could get the kernel to build with ICC by hacking a mixture of the two compilers.
Another strange thing about ICC is that they are not entire GNU aware, and have an odd licensing file and install procedure. We had some problems with linking that were an obvious kluge and required a workaround. It would be nice to see the source for this, but that will not happen in the near future.
Best of luck to both teams, and I suggest that Intel, if you want the world to love x86 (even more), drive the stake in, and show us the source so that we can make GCC considerably better on x86.
I recommend that people try ICC whenever possible and take measurements.
I appreciate his honesty in not commenting on it, but seriously, this guy is way too smart to ignore what else is going on in compiler-land, and if he isn't measuring himself to the "competition," then he has stuck his head in the sand. I recommend that where ever possible he builds with the respective compilers every piece of code and looks for comparative anomalies and or performance differentials in order to learn from that.
I do not deprecate RedHat, and I use them - they are to me decidedly not evil.
However, why did gcc3 appear in 7.2 and not 7.3? All I ask is that yes, they can compile how they see fit, and so can I. My only request is to for them to provide the rest of the compilers for me that have been cleanly installed "their way," so that I don't have to go through the same shenanigan every time I upgrade or change a system or install a new one, etc.
On a side note, as far as GCC 3.X not being prime time, for C is surely is, I don't know about the rest, but for C its, as far as I can see, quite useable, stable and reliable with some interesting new optimizations. I also like ICC, from Intel, but they have very strange and frustrating licensing weirdness, and the kernel can't be compiled with it.
A lot of the GCC 3 is broke with regards to the C++, that's a crock. Both sides blame the other, but from what I have seen, most of the crap that doesn't compile right on GCC 3.x is the writer's fault, not the compiler. Think, what is harder, writing hello world or writing a compiler to compile hello world. I'm more inclined to believe the compiler guy that has to work on the project.
I see the reason to maintain binary compatibility to a point. For their manageability it makes sense, to some degree. So if its easier for them to put stuff out, go ahead.
I think that GNU has been a great force in the world, and to uselessly outpace them or point fingers at them is frustrating and bad for both sides of the camp.
One more note on RedHat, I am what would be the "customer," I do buy the media and get RH with new systems, etc. "Customers" who use this as a server don't like things being out of whack. I wish I could make it a requirement that the EGCS 1.1.2 release, 2.95.3 release, GCC 3.0.X release be included already to make things easier. It was there in 7.2, and then yanked out. I didn't hear the pissing and whining from the usual suspects about why this was done, but, I can only imagine they went off in some strange direction and have to dig themselves out quietly and slowly form this bastard fork, which, NO "readme," or "install" doc *EVER, EVER* requests. Face it. 2.96 is some RedHat only (Not Mandrake, Not SuSE) strange kluge. Programmers ignore in favor of GNU releases. Debian ignores it. It's a strange wart that needs wart removing acid, now.;p
Slashdot Mirror
you are a fucking troll.
To show the world that throwing hardware at a problem like Oracle contributes to the solution FAR more that the software on the box.
.NET will show up all over, not a bad thing, but this kind of technology isn't the "get you to the moon and back" kind, and we know this. I would like to see the rest of the supported Oracle platforms/OS compete, Sun/SPARC/Solaris, Itanium/Linux, PA-Superdome/HPUX, UniTrash[UniSys lol]/Linux, NEC, etc.
.NET fares against Java.
..
One would think that Oracle has been written in such a way that makes what OS it runs on moot.
Based on this, since I have become used to seeing Linux compete with and exceed Windows performance at even Window's own core technologies, e.g. SMB/CIFS, "length-measuring" (you know what I'm getting at here) with Oracle might not be the PR this kind of story is meant to attract.
Also, run this benchmark for a year, sustained. Uptime at the end of a year would be far more interesting that this peak crap - 100-150 CIOs at Fortune 500 companies might care about that, but they are probably more interested in *nix being able to stay up on the order of years and not having to reboot for anything but a kernel patch [with kernel modules even being hot-fixable].
Windows is not interesting to me. Its not penetrating the back end, even though Microsoft marketing pretends it can. Its been thrown around as a workgroup server, but cant be a serious directory or DNS server. Its polluted the world with ASP. Even
Also, Microsoft pays no dividends (MSFT), and has a monopoly (most PCs shit with some Windows OS). They rely on "doing better next time" to make the share price go up (it hasn't done very well since they completed the monopoly). They have to penetrate the back end (which I think they will fail unless they accept Windows is not suitable for an OS for everything, and that Microsoft could be selling its wares on other platforms - probably with some success - reference, Apple's only useful apps are IE and Office X - or at least a huge common denominator) to make more money than last quarter. Being in control of a monopoly and not paying dividends and losing drastic cash on XBoX and alienating users with oppressive licensing schemes and protections might be the beginning of their end. We will have to see how
Oh well, hope the guy who needs a 32 way Intel box enjoys it. I would just be ill watching big iron like that boot off a PC BIOS. SRM or Openrom would be nice
Regarding:
;*default base=/usr ;*default prefix=/usr ;*default release=cvs ;*default tag=RELENG_4 ;*default delete use-rel-suffix ; src-all], make world ; make kernel ; mergemaster -p if needed. Binary packages are also available, and this operating system can be synched up with -STABLE, source-ily or binar-ily. This system is commercially viable[JUNOS on gigantic M160 Juniper routers are FreeBSD, and I have an M10 at work that is my playground, again, FreeBSD], robust, maintainable by source or binary. FreeBSD has a great regard for coherency, real documentation and contrary to the typical FreeBSD is dying troll, the are hardly any features that Linux and FreeBSD don't have in common, with a number of the better and more important drivers and subsystems in Linux being ports of a FreeBSD endeavor, eg, SCSI, AIC7XXX, USB support, etc. I find Free BSD to be easier to maintain either bleeding edge or bleeding stable, and ports makes it laughably easy to break ranks and auto-magically place the stuff you want in a packaged manner in your system with autodeps. RedHat is notably resistant to tinkering, this is why I like FreeBSD. Unfortunately, the penguin has sucked up a lot of the attention, so certain things like Java directly from Sun are behind the curve. (e.g. JRE 1.1.8). FreeBSD does run Linux binaries - but this isn't a robust solution, but it's a meta-hack. I also like 'portupgrade' which really puts the ease of keeping ports up to the stable minute in high gear. The soft update filesystem is a big plus when compared to EXT2/EXT3/Reiser.
;p.
OpenBSD. I do not favor this, but a patch requires a diff on your local CVS, and that you only recompile the portion affected. No need to recompile everything. OpenBSD's monolithic approach to things is not my cup of tea, personally, and I would use FreeBSD in place of OpenBSD wherever it may be found.
Gentoo: I attempted to get this to work, and it failed, but I got the sense this was similar to FreeBSD, in that a portion or package could be 'emerged.'
Debian: I find this distribution to be difficult, but once working, upgrades are easy to accomplish by apt. The problem here is that Debian has a tendency to not let anything into -STABLE - sometimes on the order of months to years after its needed.
FreeBSD: My current favored system. The core OS is small enough recompile for a one off/test solution. It has a robust sense of packages. Its ports collection make everything and anything installable, packaged and remove-able - quite easily. The system is extensible and scriptable, the build is easy to invoke. cvsup supfile [*default host=cvsup3.freebsd.org
RedHat: What can you say, the status quo of GNU these days. Not good, not bad. If you need someone to "worry" about *everything* for you, and you leave you system well enough alone and have no desire for things similar to FreeBSD ports, its good. I do not agree with RedHat on the sloppy kernel patching, awful system compiler offerings, strange mangling of glibc, gcc, and the kernel, and 1500 versions of the kernel for 6.2, 7.0, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3 and Advanced Server. How can a good job be done with so many forks and branches? I also got upset with a situation like this: HP Openmail has new glibc minim requirement. Openmail runs perfect on RH 6.2 Now I have to get a new glibc for 6.2 (the same version of higher in 7.1). How do I do that without bringing the system down or upgrading it? (I bought openmail BUNDLED officially with redhat, and they dropped the ball on me. Thanks RH] Is RedHat revolting to me? No. Do I wish they did certain things differently? Yes. JFS and XFS are not supported at install by RedHat, which annoying.
Also RedHat blocks up2date-ers and tries to extort money from you so you can get your security updates. I find this practice revolting. I never download from RedHat ftp, I have to use speakeasy.rpmfind.net. I did "buy" the RedHat server that came with my Dell 1550. So I get slow ftp access and have to use an unofficial mirror, and I get no up2date priority. They say "If you want to be secure now, PAY UP." Even Microsoft offers fast and free access to updates. Not that that company is honest or honorable, but I want to take a cheap shot at RedHat and point out when a said nemesis is more honest about something, is should speak a volume about that behavior of extortion.
There is also Solaris, which is to me the no-compromise solution in maintainability. Its not everything you want, you don't get a desktop environment out of it, but in terms of commercial viability, this is probably one of the best supported environments out there. I think the thing is arcane, a strange mix of BSD-ness and SYS V-ness. It got a slow package manager, etc. But it has volumes of tracking, documentation and coherency. I am greatly disappointed by Solaris X86 having been deprecated to only the LX50 Cobalt. I do think this platform has immense value, often from the standpoint tat script kiddie assembly for x86 wont run here
Cobalt: This platform revolts me. It is a horrible bastardization of RedHat, which is why I do not fully deprecate RedHat. RedHat to me is far superior to this horror show. I have to maintain a cobalt, and there are a number of reasons I don't like this operating system.
My current viable OS choices are FreeBSD, Solaris and RedHat from the x86/SPARC perspectives. I have not enough time or experience to consider AXP or PPC's OS choices. I also use NetBSD on ancient SPARCs and much prefer this to OpenBSD.
Here is another problem, invite a team of socialists (not the party, in the line of thinking) to regulate your businesses. They don't need to make money, they just exist to feed off of others like leeches. They aren't chartered to create new wealth, jobs or revenue, just to harass others while doing so. I stagger when I think of the rapid rate of "progress" here in the 1st world, particularly the US. People who live in the confines of safe homes and television sets forget a mere 50 - 100 years separates us from what we would consider to be a painful, suffering existence. or normal daily life "back then." The sad part is that most of the world's population, while now by percentage is better fed, medicated and accounted for than ever before, is living in conditions most 1st worlders have no damn concept of.
So this is where I come to the point that sure, the system needs regulation. We need thoughtful people to put some rules down. But no ONE person is smart enough to figure it all out. Sorry, I don't see any son of God archetypes floating around and knowing the answers to everything. I mean, even Einstein was in the communist party, so there goes one of the "smartest men EVER" as a viable societal leader. The way the world best works is people vote. They vote with their wallets. Every day. That, unfortunately, is the ultimate strap on for everyone. Believe it or not. The root religion for humans is greed. And the difference with the 1st worlds and particularly the US, is that it's the accepted vice/religion. Others try and cover it up, or suppress it, or claim for the good of the people but its all a crock. Even squirrels hoard nuts for the winter. We don't have enough power/money/technology yet to set up a Star Trek like utopia. Maybe someday, but until technology makes more things moot (like maybe when fossil fuels are considered dirty, expensive, and not viable) we can have a socialist attitude. But in a world where there isn't enough to go around, forget it. Back to your vote. I vote. People who don't vote vote. People strapped to a life support machine vote. If you come out with something good, people vote by buying it. If its bad, people vote by not. The market is a powerful and sobering reality. CRAP does not fly. Naturally you need accountability for recourses against fraud, but overall, the market is unpredictable, chaotic, fairly and seemingly uncontrollable/manipulate-able (its so nebulous and huge, like the universe). Boeing's are the best planes. Socialists try and keep Scare Bus in business by subsidizing, yes, Britain, France and Germany fork over cash to keep them in business. But they are CRAP. I don't want them, I personally REFUSE to fly on them and write to airlines here and tell them so, airlines don't really want them unless they are on fire sale. The other day I read that a jets front landing gear snapped off, the rudders and engines sheared off the flight 583, (even if it was blown up, that was pretty absurd), an A319 crashed itself into the ground at a Paris Airshow, lots of computer problems, recently one ran out of gas because the gauge was broken. The idea is this. Because companies, and people, aren't affecting Airbus's business model and we have fools subsidizing them, an unsafe, undesirable product continues to plague humanity. I've read all the reports of every major airline mishap involving jet powered passenger aircraft the 777 is backordered to kingdom come and, like the B-52, I would suspect to see them flying 100 years from now, it is the most beautiful plane I have ever seen.
Off of Airplanes and back to your crap boss. Leave. Go home. Suddenly leave. Stick it to him. Or ask to be laid off, because you want unemployment, but you can no longer stand the working conditions. If he fires you for saying that, GOOD. Now you get unemployment - because he cant fire you for saying that. Why the hell are you telling Slashdot. The power to vote is yours. Spend all day on the phone with a good recruiter (these are hard as hell to fine, you'll know when you get one), user resume rabbit, monster, hot jobs, beat the pavement, ask friends, call up old professions, do everything and anything to change the quality of your life for the better. The world owes no one a living, people who think otherwise invariably take from other what is rightfully theirs (communists, generally, who stifle innovation for the greater good and prevent entrepreneurs from improving the quality of our lives). Be self empowered, try hard, get out of bad situations. There are probably a billion people who would die for the chance to work in a clean, unpolluted city, in a clean environment for 15 hours a day. Its all relative. Here, now, you may have come to expect such things which you would think would go without saying, but in reality, it's a bump in the road. Get over it. Get out and do something about it. if you cant make a difference for everyone, for the "greater good," get out on the street and beat the pavement and go looking for someone else to help "Just Do It!" one day at a time. No one should regulate your bosses unfair practices, that would cost everyone money (like a large ineffective department of labor here in the US, that only creates jobs within itself). Your boss would be fired if everyone walked out on him. That's a free market, and if even the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" caught the drift, you should too.
Only thing I have to say in closing, is that a society needs to be FREE, before it can be economically free and a have a free market. There are scumbags and troglodytes in the US, of late, that piss on the Constitution, erode it, and care only to have the free market, and a free economy, but at the expense of the people's freedom. All I have to say to those would be suppressors of the sacred freedom that Constitution laid forth (and which has yet to be fully actualized), is that you deserve to DIE, but I will vote, if this becomes like Germany in the 1930's. I will vote by leaving this place and doing expatriate work elsewhere. If the society is not FREE, the US's vast lead will erode into dust. As it should, because the tenants of the constitution, the ideals of Jefferson and Madison were eroded and trivialized, and will we have left now is a bunch of greed without freedom, and that system is just doomed to fail. Death to the treasonous politicians who undermine my rights to the root document which has the potential to salvage those who are oppressed! ALL politics are local, all governments that tend toward centralized power are corrupts and screw the little guy. All you can do to change things is to change your surroundings to your liking, and you cant worry about the big stuff because they took your freedom away to say much about it anyway. Sometimes an abstraction of the mob is better than the mob, sometimes it isn't. You have to live with the fact you don't get to launch "our" nukes. The system here in the US is far from perfect, but in the words of Winston Churchill;
"A monarchy is a merchantman which sails well, but will sometimes strike on a rock, and go to the bottom; a republic is a raft which will never sink, but then your feet are always in the water." -- Fisher Ames.
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard." -- H. L. Mencken.
"Democracy: The substitution of election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few." -- George Bernard Shaw.
"The reason there are two senators for each state is so that one can be the designated driver." -- Jay Leno.
Notice that most of the nasty things said above are about government, its hard to find quips, hacks and flames on scientists, inventors, great innovators. (Except those who are false Idols, like the lawbreaking Bill Gates, and his evil henchman such as Ballmer - the real innovator in that company, Allen, left in disgust.).
meowmix
The cpu still looks like the most expensive thing in that picture - by far. And considering the backside cache is half speed on those, I don't see the big deal. Also considering you find P3-866 chips (with full speed cache and superior SPEC-CPU-2000 numbers) practically in the trash, I dont see why $300 is fair.
The real cost may have to do with the fact they have to reverse engineer firmware updates put out by apple to block people from updating, like the infamous BW Yosemete G3 - I'm half beig snarky and speculative, but I have a G3 BW REV 1 right here, and I don't use it much, expensive to upgrade, slow, broken CMD 640 that won't take a slave, no AGP, no SCSI. Its sitting next to a PC thats 6 months older with none of the said problems, more memory, onboard 7895 SCSI, dual IDE channels that work, etc.
I was rather disappointed to learn that there is little markup on those, but Sonnett has to charge, I have yet to meet many tech savvy mac users (or Mac users that function technically in any capacity), so I can imagine the tinkerer-upgrader-gamer market for Macs being exceedingly small.
What you are paying for is something that won't sell in incredibly high volume.
And to answer the root of this ridiculous thread, I would have to say, heck no, the Mot CPU won't work. If it does, post a webpage HOWTO. I won't be holding my breath.
Yeah well... The Japanese economy is sad. Your future is uncertain; you are likely to be unemployed. The Japanese cost of living makes San Francisco look cheap (even New York) - $30 is probably a far greater percentage of your disposable income than mine. And judging on the last time there was an earthquake, your government acted completely defunct. Taxes are high and Japan is going through a cultural crisis. And most Japanese work on Saturday - but get less done (your GDP is lower ($36,200 USA vs. Japan $24,900) and we work 5 days a week). Your country lends money to countries who get better economic ratings than you. Japan's Economy: Now Rated Below Botswana Monday, July 8, 2002.
You know, there is a lot more to life than DSL. Unlike Japan, we have a *huge* country and a gigantic and fascinatingly well working infrastructure (in part due to Japanese Americans, Japanese engineering and equipment, credit is most certainly due).
You know, there are central offices here in the US that are 100s of miles from certain customers. In Japan, there is barely a square mile left that is undeveloped, so suffice to say, it should be rather easy to implement high speed internet cheaply. And speaking on environments, your fishermen are repeatedly caught killing near-extinct whale species, kill seals for their penises which are considered a delicacy, and have no renewable resources left on your Island of Japan. Looks like Nabunaga's ambition went a tad too far.
Think. The USA is not a poster child for how things should be run, but socialist tendencies (like DIRT! CHEAP! INTERNET! FOR! EVERYONE!) seem to far further from the ideal we all try to work towards.
US/Japan infrastructure:
US Telephones 194 million (1997) / Japan Telephones - 60.381 million (1997)
US Telephones cellular: 69.209 million (1998) / Japan Telephones - cellular: 63.88 million (2000)
US Radio stations: AM 4,762, FM 5,542 (1998) / Japan Radio stations: AM 190, FM 88 (1999)
US Highways: total: 6,370,031 km / Japan Highways: total: 1,152,207 km
US Waterways: 41,009 km / Japan Waterways: 1,770 km
US Airports - with paved runways: total: 5,174 / Japan Airports - with paved runways: total: 142
US Internet Service Providers (ISPs): 7,800 (2000 est.) / Japan ISPS 73 (2000)
US INTERNET USERS Internet users: 148 million (2000) / JAPAN INTERNET USERS Internet users: 27.06 million (2000)
So, I think the US has a slight idea about infrastructure, and how to provide every opportunity to do well for yourself and your business.. And most of the figures, even when divided by 2.1 or so to account for the population discrepancy, well, leaves Japan in the dust.
US Population: 278,058,881 (July 2001 est.) / Japan Population: 126,771,662 (July 2001 est.)
Go check out more interesting country facts here.
Quotes:
Japan's Ledger
By comparison, Japan's ledger sheet is not so simple or impressive. Japan's $4.2 trillion economy may be slowly shrugging off its third recession in a decade, but there are still fundamental issues.
Japan's total debt to GDP is triple the American level. That is the highest any major industrialized country has faced in the last half century.
Japan's economy shrunk by 1.3 percent last year. Meanwhile, the average age has crept up to 41, the highest in the world.
Japan has $5 trillion in primary government debt, $3.7 trillion of which is bonds.
Japanese companies continue to eliminate jobs, helping push the unemployment rate to a near-record 5.4 percent in May. With their jobs in jeopardy, Japanese are spending less on cars, homes and other expensive items.
Thirteen percent of Japan's general expenditures go to social security payments and a whopping 20 percent to debt service.
Its long been HPs and other inkjet people to give away printers and make killings on ink.
;p
I was faced with replacing an older Canon's bubble jer inkwells, at $40 a pop. I bought a new DJ932C instead (~$110). I tried telling everyone that everytime it runs out of ink to throw out the printer and get a new one. (to discourage losing mone on the printer and making 10000% on ink)
But alas, the vile trap was set, and now we have replaced the ink 5 or 6 times.
Laser is always cheaper, unless its home printing. SHould have bought a 4050C or something from the Excite auction
lol dude that was classic, ;p
I can still hum most of the music perfectly for almost all the NES games, and the first wave of SNES games. The games today, except things like Hitman or GTA 1,2,3 have minimal replay value. Games that are fun to replay is how much murder can you get away with before you get nailed! Like in any of the games, you could get bigger, better and faster if you were more sklling.
;p
I remember wall jumping (the door wall ball unball warp trick) in Metroid to get the varia early, or killing lots of things to get the strength arrows faster in KID ICARUS! All neat little tweaks to twink out earlier.
EGG PLANT WIZARDS! AHAHAHAAAAAAAAA! Those freaks. The best. You had to find the hospital, and you best have a map. Remember you could negotiate the merchants in KID ICARUS with the second controller? Remember the map, torch and pencil? hehehe. The barrels, potions and feathers?
Rememeber the dungeon music?
Do deet do deet do deet do deet do deet;
Doweeey Dooowey dooooowey dewie dewie dewie dewie dewie doooo doooooooooo.
Doweeey Dooowey dooooowey dewie dewie dewie dewie dewie doooo doooooooooo.
Dooo, doo! doo... doooooooooo.
Dooo, doo! doo... doooooooooo.
Dooooooooo woooooo woooo woooooooooo!
Dooooooooo woooooo woooo woooooooooo!
hehehe. I can hum it to date.
Zelda II was my fav, and the SNES Zelda was awesome. I got so good at Zelda II, well, it was absurd.
Those games had room for mastery. Few games do today.
I tried Max Payne. I beat it. No replay value, IMHO. It was good, the best part was his grumpy dialogue in between stuff.
" ALARM! ALARM! " - Chinese Guards in HITMAN
I only wisht he would revive KID ICARUS, and Life Force, and BIONIC COMMANDO. Man, these games had some nice formulas. How about 1945 again?
I like the retro 2D stuff from Nintendo.
Anyone else remember Sword of Vermillion (SEGA)?
The new metroid looks cool, but I long for some 2D retro. Super Metroid is top 5 games for me.
I have to got buy GTA III for the PC, right now, but if enough of the retro themed stuff comes out, I'll get a game cube.
Oh, and a Kid Nikki would be nice. And maybe another 2D castlevania.
Reinforcing the notion Java isn't everything:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/25380.html
C++, SQL, Unix and C are key skills - still
By John Leyden
Posted: 21/05/2002 at 18:35 GMT
Fewer IT jobs were advertised last quarter than a year ago but programmers with key software skills are still very much in demand.
That's the conclusion of a study of the UK IT recruitment market by CWJobs, The Register's recruitment partner.
CWJobs compiled a very big list of all the software skills asked for in job ads, published online and in print IT rags, and the broadsheet nationals, in Q1.
Experience in C++ (mentioned in almost 24,844 ads in Q1 2002), SQL (23,134), Unix (21,079) and C (20,532) were highly prized.
Requirement for C skills is holding up but mentions of other once sought-after skills was down 50 per cent from Q1 2001. This reflects an overall slowdown in the IT sector, CWJobs reckons.
Oracle, Win NT, Visual Basic and Java were each mentioned in more than 10,000 ads. However, demand for Java skills has slipped markedly from 40,681 mentions in Q1 2001 to 14,566, a decline of 64 per cent.
The number of jobs advertised last quarter is lower than that advertised in Q4 2001, but this may be affected by seasonal factors in the job market.
Online ads account for the vast majority of ads in Q1, reflecting a long-term trend in the UK IT jobs market. Which is nice. For CWJobs. For Computer Weekly, from whence it spawned, it's crap.
Try telling Linus Torvalds ANSI C is lame.
I second vsync's notion that those who use higher level languages can never use them properly because they do not know what these higher level languages *DO* for them
I have run into it time and time again. Decades have gone by and still the most rigorous CS departments do some of the very same things. Like, write a language and a compiler for that language. People who know how to write their own language and then a compiler for that made up language often find it very easy to pick up new things.
I can't believe for a moment that one learns "lame ANIS C," for real, then goes on to find Java difficult to master. I mean, by no means is it simple, and the strategy for using that is different, but Jesus - grab a few books and crank out some code if you want a Java job.
If I had to assign aspiring students to do something it would be this: Write a patch for a Linux kernel (or any Open kernel), write a user land utility to interface with whatever you patched into the kernel, the write a daemon to interface with the kernel hack you just wrote and then manage that daemon remotely from the said user land utility. Man, if every "programmer" did that as an exercise, we would reduce sucktitude 90%.
Then try to control the said daemon from a Java project - just for fun, to learn it.
One thing about "LAME C" versus C++ or Java, at least C doesn't change forms every 5 minutes. Much less with C++ now, but Java has had a myriad of APIs since its birth and it really get annoying after a while.
Good luck man, because if your C didn't teach you C well enough (as exemplified by referring to it as 'Lame,' you need to take it upon yourself to make sure you know systems, bottom to top, because when and if you do learn Java, chances are you wont be very good at using it. For all the rigors or my own education, most of your usefulness in corporate America will come from things you taught yourself or pickup from a mentor. School apparently doesn't do much for your starting salary, as freshly gradated students usually get paid less than everyone else. It's experience and aptitude that changes that - not "I TEWK A KEWL KLASS A THE UNIVEHRCITY AND TEHY TEECHED ME JAVA AND MI SI BETTAR!"
In more way than one! Be sure to honor OpenSSH and the new OpenBSD 3.1 that is coming (I GOT MY TRACKING NUMBER from CanadaPOST ;P its coming!) by visiting the OPENBSD SONG PAGE. (MP3 and OGG files available!)
3 g
OpenBSD 3.1 Song lyrics (and 3.0 too) http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html
"Systemagic"
BSD fight buffer reign
Flowing blood in circuit vein
Quagmire, Hellfire, RAMhead Count
Puffy rip attacker out
Crackin' ze bathroom, Crackin' ze vault
Tale of the script, HEY! Secure by default
Can't fight the Systemagic
Über tragic
Can't fight the Systemagic
Sexty second, black cat struck
Breeding worm of crypto-suck
Hot rod box unt hunting wake
Vampire omellete, kitten cake
Crackin' ze boardroom, Crackin' ze vault
Rippin' ze bat, HEY! Secure by default
Chorus
Cybersluts vit undead guts
Transyl-viral coffin muck
Penguin lurking under bed
Puffy hoompa on your head
Crackin' ze bedroom, Crackin' ze vault
Crackin' ze whip, HEY! Secure by default
Crackin' ze bedroom, Crackin' ze vault
Crackin' ze whip, HEY! Secure by default
Chorus
This song is great, and its free!.
Produced & Directed by Ty Semaka and Ian Knox. Written, Arranged and Performed by Ty Semaka (vocals, lyrics), Ian Knox (bass, drum programming), and Sean Desmond (guitar).
Recorded & Mixed at Ruffmix Audio Productions (Calgary) by Kelly Mihalicz.
Mastered by Jonathan Lewis.
OpenBSD 3.1 CD2 track 2 is an uncompressed copy of this song.
MP3 version of song (3 minutes, 2.9MB)
ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/songs/song31.mp
OGG version of song (3 minutes, 2.3MB)
ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/songs/song31.og
1) We compiled something here with 2.96 (C) it did not work. We compiled with 3.0.1 and it did. Since I cannot release our source code to the public as it isn't my property, you won't be seeing. We now use ICC because of the performance boost (that is considerable.) If RedHat took it upon itself to actually optimize the compiler, rather than what they have done, maybe I would use it.
2) I'm not inclined to believe what he says due to where he works - kind of simple.
3) Yes it is. As I am the one using the software, anything I say should be considered. Your snarky attitude will not help gain industry support for GNU. It's kind of amusing how large companies have to sugar coat this stuff because people like you won't even listen to someone's opinion. (Case in point: The fact Cobalt exists is a testament to customer requirements not being thoroughly evaluated by the likes of RedHat, there should have been NO room in the market for boxes like that.)
4) I believe what I see. I also want a choice. RedHat can compile anything it wants to with whatever compiler it wants to. I want to grab SRC RPMS or source packages and compile with what I want to.
5) Been around long enough, and Bero's site hasn't been updated in ages, that site was there before GCC 3 came along. He added a few uninspiring things about GCC 3 when it came along. Its funny, when that little tirade began it was RH-SECKR3T compiler vs. 2.91.66 and 2.95. It's like he did a replace with VI wherever there was 2.95 he put 3.01. I'm not inclined to believe the compiler hasn't been "fixed," because I don't consider the people working on GCC retarded, as you seem to.
While I don't claim to be an expert, or much of a contributor, lets just say this and a few other things makes me more interested in SuSE, Gentoo, Debian and Mandrake. Competition is good.
RedHat, prepare to lose market share. Shitting on people wit valid complaints and going against the grain doesn't win you friends or customers.
Thanks for trying to police my thought. As I had seen those pages before, and read them in their entirety, you have done nothing whatsoever to disarm my thinking about the RedHat compilers. I will continue to avoid them. You are way too evangelical, holding this Bero URL, a man with stock in the company being criticized, and holding it as gospel. It isn't.
While I may not be able to say QED, I have personally seen evidence that leads me to believe there is something going on. I was merely pointing out that if Gentoo can compile essentially all of GNU with a "broken" and "heinous" compiler (with regards to 2.95.3), and producing a working dist (I have evidence, not proof that this is true as well), why RedHat chose to continue with his particular compiler.
I like RedHat, I aprecate them and wish them the best, but no one is without faults. Criticism can be constructive - and at this point, even if they are correct, the crap that has been said about 2.96 would have me running away from it to make the customers happy, or at least give them alternatives to suit their bias.
If a discussion of a feature in a distribution that's being announced isn't relevant to you and you refer to it as a troll, I'm sorry, Mr. Orwellian thought police brave new world prefect. You will not suppress me or my opinions or my experiences simply by trying to pass off an argument as a troll.
I'd say then they owe it to x86 to open up - but they can't the for fiscal reasons. It's sad.
;p
If x86 was more aggressively challenged by other architectures, we may see the tides change. They've been in the driver's seat now for some time.
I'm 'open' to new things, anytime.
I think that there is a complex sex going on between Intel, Microsoft and being more supportive of OSS endeavors. Obviously with AMD's shocking support of Redmond a few weeks back in the hearings against the 9 states and MFST, in addition to MSFT's Opteron support, one would think that embracing the x86 OSS/GNU/*BSD community would be favorable at this point.
In addition to the C and C++ front-end, i do believe Intel supports Fortran with another compiler. They should round out front end support with Ada, and objective C, other than that - I have no complaints.
In addition to that, the license is rather ridiculous, particularly in reference to the runtime restrictions, which seem to indicate that for IA-64 its very permissive and free, and for IA-32 it is not. This internal self competition is ridiculous, Itanic is ridiculous.
As far as sharing the intellect behind optimizing ICC, I'm sure Intel doesn't make anything off of either the ICC for Win or Lin, and probably several orders of magnitude less on the Lin compiler than the Win stuff, so opening up the Lin stuff wouldn't hurt them financially. The only problem is, ICC makes AMD faster too. If the secret sauce was revealed maybe the GCC team would end up modifying it such that AMD chips do better because of it.
Who knows. Open for OSS/*BSD/Lin makes more sense, and companies have to find that out the hard way. Its all a credibility issue.
If I was Intel, I would try and make GCC as fast and nasty as possible to combat the VisualIdiot.NET stuff - every little bit counts. Intel will make bread anyway the cookie crumbles.
The difference isn't as small as you say. We saw an immediate 15% gain in our production C code, and that was on a Pentium 3, the Pentium 4 test machine gained quite a bit more from ICC. In certain cases, others have claimed two or three times performance for their respective program.
I believe in 'may the best man win,' Intel's compiler is certainly worth buying, and if your production code needs the speed boost the be more competitive, then there is no choice - it must be done the best way.
This isn't about licensing, who makes, if its open or not, its about a meritocracy voting on what's the best way to see performance on a given platform.
I would love for Gentoo to allow the use of ICC to compile the whole distribution. It not possible for certain things, but I'd like to see it done.
Hey, if LEO is what the requirement is, then just get is there. I agree - SV is ugly but it works. This fancy schmancy stuff isn't paying off, as RUS sends stuff into space all the time, most recently for Direct TV:
l ]
Russian rockets idle Òåêñò: Ivan Ivanov [ http://www.gazeta.ru/2002/05/08/USbetrayalle.shtm
Russia's heavy-lift Proton-K rocket successfully took off from the Baikanur cosmodrome in Kazakhstan on its second commercial flight carrying the US communications satellite DirecTV-5. The second commercial Proton-K flight may well, however, be the Russian rocket's swan song, since the ILS launch service provider, which exercises the exclusive right to use the Proton carrier, has expressed a preference for American rockets.
The Proton-K carrier was to take off from the Baikonur launch pad at 2100 Moscow time on May 6. However, owing to technical problems the launch was cancelled only two minutes before the scheduled blastoff. The launch was put back 24 hours, and at 2110 on May 7 the rocket successfully blasted off into space. Several minutes later the US DirecTV-5 satellite was safely positioned in its orbit.
According to RIA-Novosti reports, the orbit parameters are of a maximum distance of 245km from Earth and a minimum of 198km. Russian Space Force's experts said that once placed into the orbit, the satellite will then move into the interim orbit, and later into the target orbit - the so-called high elliptic and circular orbits with altitudes ranging from 700 to 40,000 km. In line with the experts' estimates, the satellite will hit the target orbit at 0332 Moscow time on May 8.
In comments for RIA, a Space Force specialist noted that the 4.3-ton DirecTV-5 communications satellite is designated to provide digital television services to customers in North American. Its payload amounts to 48 powerful transponders. The satellite will be taken to a geostationary orbit where it is expected to work for no less than 15 years. The device is meant solely for telecommunications and will not be used for military purposes.
International Launch Services is a joint venture of Lockheed Martin Corp. in the United States, with Russian companies Khrunichev State Research and Production Space Center, and Rocket Space Corporation Energia. The company was formed in 1995 to provide launch services for the American Atlas and the Russian Proton vehicles for customers worldwide.
Tuesday's launch was Proton's second commercial flight this year. In December last year, director general of Khrunichev Alexander Medvedev optimistically said that in 2002 his company planned to launch at least 9 commercial flights jointly with the ILS. In addition to that, the Khrunichev Centre planned to carry into space the European astrophysical observatory Integral, Russian communication satellites Express A-4 and Louch, three navigation satellites for GLONASS system, and several military satellites. (Note: GLONASS -Global Navigation Satellite System- is a satellite based radio navigation system which provides an unlimited number of users with all-weather 3D positioning, velocity measuring and timing anywhere in the world or near-Earth space). Altogether, Khrunichev planned to carry out 15 Proton launches this year. That would set a new record for the number of Proton flights, with the current record of 14 flights being set in 2000.
But in the first four months of the current year Proton has been launched only twice. In April, the Russian rocket travelled into space with the communication satellite Intelsat-903 and the DirecTV device on its second flight. To all appearances, the 2000 record will remain unbroken in 2002, since the ILS failed to secure the planned number of orders for Proton.
It is expected that by the end of the year Proton will have placed only two more commercial devices into orbit - the US EchostarVIII (launch scheduled for June 16) and the European Astra-1K (August 16). The launch of the US communications device GE-12, earlier planned for the 4th quarter of 2002, has been postponed till 2003.
Four more satellites will be travelling into space in the near future, but not on board Proton. Only one of those has ''flown the nest'' from Proton to other launch service providers: the owners of AtlanticBird-1 have decided against using Proton and are instead considering Europe's Ariane or the US's Delta-IV as alternatives.
As for the other three satellites, ILS has decided not to launch those on board the Russian carrier, but on board the US rocket. Asiasat-4 is to travel into space on board Atlas IIIA in June, while European HotBird-6 and Canadian Nimiq-2 will be on board Atlas V, the new carrier of Lockheed Martin, in July and October respectively. As a result, the Russians will not receive the $340 million revenue it had forecast.
By jumping ship to other carriers it seems that ILS has made a conscious decision to give up cooperation with Russia altogether. As long as Lockheed Martin only had the Atlas II carrier, which was not exactly renowned for its lifting capacity, the ILS used Proton carriers to launch commercial satellites into space, which allowed it to retain its market share. But as soon as the US company learned to produce the more powerful Atlas III and Atlas V launchers, ILS started to award contracts primarily to them.
The future now looks bleak for Proton. Paradoxically, the producer of Proton, the Khrunichev Centre, under their agreement with the founders of ILS, does not have the right to enter into contracts with foreign customers. Moreover, ILS has the same exclusive right for the use of another Russian rocket Angara, also developed by Khrunichev, therefore, the same sad fate is likely to befall that carrier, too. Thus, it seems, the Americans, who have retained their market share with the help of Proton, are set to seal the fate of the Russian rockets.
08 ÌÀß 17:50
As a reply to myself, I'd like to point out to all the Zealots who support the broken 2.96, why does GENTOO completely compile from SOURCE, and support all the major packages RH-7.3 does using, the OH GOD, 2.95.3 COMPILER?!?!?!!?!!!!! I can't believe the FUD that gets spread about this compiler war that doesnt exist, only in RedHat's mind.
Sounds like RedHat minus the cruft and haphazard stuff. Funny how everything INCLUDING KDE 3.0 compiles.
compat-egcs-6.2-1.1.2.16
/usr/bin/kgcc - g libc21-linux-env.shu d e- li nux/lib/gcc-libl i b/i386-redhat-linuxg c c-lib/i386-redhat-linux/2.96i n ux/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/2.96/SYSCALLS.c.X n ux/2.96/cc1i 3 86-redhat-linux/2.96/collect2l i nux/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/2.96/cppi 3 86-glibc21-linux/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/2.9 6/cpp0r e dhat-linux/2.96/crtbegin.ou x / ib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/2.96/crtbeginS.os r / 386-glibc21-linux/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/2. 96/crtend.oi 3 86-redhat-linux/2.96/crtendS.o- l inux/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/2.96/include
/ u sr/i386-glibc21-linux/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linu x/2.96/libgcc.al i b/i386-redhat-linux/2.96/libgcc.mapi b c21-linux/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/2.96/specs n ux/2.96/tradcpp0l ib / 386-glibc21-linuxl i nux/egcs-2.91.66i n ux/egcs-2.91.66/SYSCALLS.c.X8 6 -glibc21-linux/egcs-2.91.66/cc1/ i 386-glibc21-linux/egcs-2.91.66/collect2/ g cc-lib/i386-glibc21-linux/egcs-2.91.66/cppl i b/gcc-lib/i386-glibc21-linux/egcs-2.91.66/cpp0u s r/lib/gcc-lib/i386-glibc21-linux/egcs-2.91.66/crtb egin.o2 . 91.66/crtbeginS.ol i nux/egcs-2.91.66/crtend.og l ibc21-linux/egcs-2.91.66/crtendS.ol i b/i386-glibc21-linux/egcs-2.91.66/includei b / cc-lib/i386-glibc21-linux/egcs-2.91.66/include/REA DME1 . 66/include/float.h- l inux/egcs-2.91.66/include/iso646.hl i b/i386-glibc21-linux/egcs-2.91.66/include/limits.h n clude/proto.hx / egcs-2.91.66/include/stdarg.h3 8 6-glibc21-linux/egcs-2.91.66/include/stdbool.hu s r/lib/gcc-lib/i386-glibc21-linux/egcs-2.91.66/incl ude/stddef.h/ e gcs-2.91.66/include/syslimits.h/ i 386-glibc21-linux/egcs-2.91.66/include/va-alpha.h n clude/va-arc.hu x / gcs-2.91.66/include/va-clipper.hb / i386-glibc21-linux/egcs-2.91.66/include/va-h8300.h n clude/va-i860.hn u x/egcs-2.91.66/include/va-i960.hb / i386-glibc21-linux/egcs-2.91.66/include/va-m32r.h n clude/va-m88k.hn u x/egcs-2.91.66/include/va-mips.hb / i386-glibc21-linux/egcs-2.91.66/include/va-mn10200 . 6 / include/va-mn10300.h2 1 -linux/egcs-2.91.66/include/va-pa.h- l ib/i386-glibc21-linux/egcs-2.91.66/include/va-ppc. h6 6 / nclude/va-pyr.hn u x/egcs-2.91.66/include/va-sh.hi 3 86-glibc21-linux/egcs-2.91.66/include/va-sparc.h
/ usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-glibc21-linux/egcs-2.91.66/in clude/va-spur.hn u x/egcs-2.91.66/include/va-v850.hb / i386-glibc21-linux/egcs-2.91.66/include/varargs.h i bgcc.a2 . 91.66/libgcc.mapi n ux/egcs-2.91.66/specsc 2 1-linux/egcs-2.91.66/tradcpp03 8 6-redhat-linuxx / egcs-2.91.66e g cs-2.91.66/SYSCALLS.c.Xd h at-linux/egcs-2.91.66/cc1r e dhat-linux/egcs-2.91.66/collect2b / i386-redhat-linux/egcs-2.91.66/cppl i b/i386-redhat-linux/egcs-2.91.66/cpp0c c -lib/i386-redhat-linux/egcs-2.91.66/crtbegin.ou s r/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/egcs-2.91.66/crtbe ginS.o. 9 1.66/crtend.o/ e gcs-2.91.66/crtendS.oa t -linux/egcs-2.91.66/include6 - redhat-linux/egcs-2.91.66/include/READMEb / gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/egcs-2.91.66/include/flo at.h1 . 66/include/iso646.h- l inux/egcs-2.91.66/include/limits.hl i b/i386-redhat-linux/egcs-2.91.66/include/proto.h
/ usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/egcs-2.91.66/inc lude/stdarg.h/ e gcs-2.91.66/include/stdbool.h3 8 6-redhat-linux/egcs-2.91.66/include/stddef.hr / lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/egcs-2.91.66/include / yslimits.hc s -2.91.66/include/va-alpha.h6 - redhat-linux/egcs-2.91.66/include/va-arc.hl i b/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/egcs-2.91.66/include/v a-clipper.hg c s-2.91.66/include/va-h8300.h8 6 -redhat-linux/egcs-2.91.66/include/va-i860.hr / lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/egcs-2.91.66/include / a-i960.h- 2 . 1.66/include/va-m32r.hh a t-linux/egcs-2.91.66/include/va-m88k.hg c c-lib/i386-redhat-linux/egcs-2.91.66/include/va-mi ps.h1 . 66/include/va-mn10200.hd h at-linux/egcs-2.91.66/include/va-mn10300.hl i b/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/egcs-2.91.66/include/v a-pa.h. 9 1.66/include/va-ppc.ha t -linux/egcs-2.91.66/include/va-pyr.hc - lib/i386-redhat-linux/egcs-2.91.66/include/va-sh.h c lude/va-sparc.hu x / gcs-2.91.66/include/va-spur.h3 8 6-redhat-linux/egcs-2.91.66/include/va-v850.hs r / ib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/egcs-2.91.66/include/ varargs.hs - 2.91.66/libgcc.an u x/egcs-2.91.66/libgcc.mapr e dhat-linux/egcs-2.91.66/specs3 8 6-redhat-linux/egcs-2.91.66/tradcpp0d o c/compat-egcs-6.2/ C OPYINGB
/proc/version))) := kgcc gcc cc := gcc cc /dev/null 2>&1 && echo $(cc)) := $(foreach cc, $(CC), $(test_cc)) := $(firstword $(CC))
So yes, there is a kgcc. Try it, kgcc -v.
Want to see the manifest for that?
The RPM is not called KGCC.
/usr/bin/egcs
/usr/bin/i386-glibc21-linux-gcc
/usr/i386-glibc21-linux
/usr/i386-gl ibc21-linux/bin
/usr/i386-glibc21-linux/bin/i386
/usr/i386-glibc21-linux/incl
/usr/i386-glibc21-linux/lib
/usr/i386-glibc21
/usr/i386-glibc21-linux/lib/gcc-
/usr/i386-glibc21-linux/lib/
/usr/i386-glibc21-l
/ usr/i386-glibc21-linux/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-li
/usr/i386-glibc21-linux/lib/gcc-lib/
/usr/i386-glibc21-
/usr/
/usr/i386-glibc21-linux/lib/gcc-lib/i386-
/usr/i386-glibc21-lin
/u
/usr/i386-glibc21-linux/lib/gcc-lib/
/usr/i386-glibc21
/usr/i386-glibc21-linux/lib/gcc-
/usr/i386-gl
/ usr/i386-glibc21-linux/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-li
/usr/lib/gcc-lib
/usr/lib/gcc-
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-glibc21-
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-glibc21-l
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i3
/usr/lib/gcc-lib
/usr/lib
/usr/
/
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-glibc21-linux/egcs-
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-glibc21-
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-
/usr/lib/gcc-
/usr/l
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-glibc21-linux/egcs-2.9
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-glibc21
/usr/lib/gcc-
/ usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-glibc21-linux/egcs-2.91.66/i
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-glibc21-linu
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i
/
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-glibc21-linux
/usr/lib/gcc-lib
/ usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-glibc21-linux/egcs-2.91.66/i
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-glibc21-lin
/usr/lib/gcc-li
/ usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-glibc21-linux/egcs-2.91.66/i
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-glibc21-li
/usr/lib/gcc-li
/ usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-glibc21-linux/egcs-2.91.66/i
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-glibc21-li
/usr/lib/gcc-li
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-glibc21-linux/egcs-2.91.6
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-glibc
/usr/lib/gcc
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-glibc21-linux/egcs-2.91.
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-glibc21-li
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-glibc21-li
/usr/lib/gcc-li
/ usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-glibc21-linux/egcs-2.91.66/l
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-glibc21-linux/egcs-
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-glibc21-l
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-glib
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linu
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-re
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-
/usr/lib/gcc-li
/usr/lib/gcc-
/usr/lib/g
/
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/egcs-2
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redh
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i38
/usr/li
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/egcs-2.9
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat
/usr/lib/gcc-
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i
/us
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/eg
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i38
/usr/
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/e
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i3
/us
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/egcs
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-red
/usr/lib/
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/egcs-2.9
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-re
/usr/
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/egcs-2
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redh
/usr/lib/gc
/ usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/egcs-2.91.66/in
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-lin
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i
/u
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/egc
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-li
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i
/usr/share/
/usr/share/doc/compat-egcs-6.2
/usr/share/doc/compat-egcs-6.2/COPYING.LI
/ usr/share/doc/compat-egcs-6.2/README
Explain this, for example, in the e100 driver:
(e100-1.8.38)
# pick a compiler
ifneq (,$(findstring egcs-2.91.66, $(shell cat
CC
else
CC
endif
test_cc = $(shell which $(cc) >
CC
CC
So, for RedHat internally, RedHat can use RedHat compilers.
For everyone else, there is GNU.
I have never used RH compiler for anything that I have done, and have compiler
If I was actively developing, I would probably use Debian, or something far more conservative that what RedHat is right now.
This seems to be coming down to an interesting point in my mind; is this a server or a kiddie's workstation? Seems to me the motivation behind this deviance from release was to compile KDE, and arguably there were problems in KDE, because I never saw something like mozilla not compile, or any other convoluted and hairy C++ projects.
I think empirically coming up with opinions based on actually using a system is a valid way of doing things. Being "strategic" is not really imperative for RedHat's survival with regard to B2C. Most people who use RedHat still get driver RPMS in binary form from the vendor, don't compile anything and are GNU-impaired.. They do what MSFT has done, Dell is going to gleefully take and use your newest version. You don't really have to research your B2C commerce when you brokered large B2B deals. I would imagine that if RedHat was still more a B2C company, they would take this seriously.
About developers, they can read. If something calls for a compiler, you have to go install it anyway. You can compile with runtime specificity anyways, so more than one GNU compiler is easy. Case in point the 2.5 kernel. Boy, if I was a kernel hacker it would sure be nice to not have to go and install 2.95.3 RELEASE in usr/local.
The goal of RedHat is to make B2C customers happy, within reason. By the way, kgcc is still there in 7.3, and 90% of vendor supplied drivers, such as the e100 driver, check for kgcc and use it, because 2.96 is broken. I have all the updates, and the latest and greatest, and I can not for the life of my find valid reasons why RH avoids even putting in gcc3, like they did in 7.2 (that was a kluge by the way, it was a CVS checkout and not a release)
By the way, I don't think it's a good idea to comment about things, particularly kgcc, when its there in 7.3. That's like spreading FUD directly. I will proceed to show the audience that its still there, to date.
[root@rh73 root]# uname -a
Linux rh73 2.4.18-3 #1 Thu Apr 18 07:37:53 EDT 2002 i686 unknown
[root@rh73 root]# cat
Red Hat Linux release 7.3 (Valhalla)
[root@rh73 root]# rpm -qa | grep cc
gcc-java-2.96-110
gcc-g77-2.96-110
gcc-2.96
gcc-c++-2.96-110
gcc-chill-2.96-110
gcc-ob
[root@rh73 root]# rpm -qa | grep compat
compat-glibc-6.2-2.1.3.2
XFree86-compat-
compat-egcs-c++-6.2-1.1.2.16
compat
nss_db-compat-2.2-14
kde
kde2-compat-2.2.2-2
comp
compat-libs-6.2-3
XFree86-c
compat-libstdc++-6.2-2.9.0
compat-egcs-g77-6.2-1.1.2.16
kde1-compat-1.1
And there you have it. So much for ONE compiler. EGCS 1.1.2 *AND* 2.96-110.
Like I said, I'm not RedHat's enemy, but it would be nice if they explained to people why (and did this with updated information and not the same old same old), and listened to my requirements, which are shared by everyone I know, particularly the OSS developers I know, who liked to use "matched sets" when possible.
Also, reader's note. In RedHat 7.2, Full Install, egcs 1.1.2, 2.96 and gcc 3.01(CVS) was included. That's 3 compilers.
You could have egcs 1.1.2 (for kernel-2.4 only), gcc 2.95.3(+CVS-stable if you are really picky) (this is what kernel 2.5 wants) and GCC 3.04 and *everything* I have ever used will compile, properly and cleanly. That's 3 release compilers, and it will all work.
To date there is a standing warning on using RedHat compilers by the kernel team. On several occasions I have seen posts to the kernel mailing lists with dmesg that indicated rh gcc was used, and the kernel hackers wont help them unless they use the proper compiler.
All in all this kind of argument makes it clear why SuSE and Mandrake and Debian and Slackware and TurboLinux have a place in the world today. They are all x86 primary, all backed by some major OEM in one way or another. RedHat could have wiped the floor, but technically, they have shortcoming that the others can address in one way or another.
It's times like these where I wish a big commercial entity put out their own dist from scratch, say IBM. Most of the Immunixes, HP-secure-linuxes
Keep in mind this compiler has strange licensing, weird runtime restrictions that curiously favor the use of IA-64. A way around the linked restrictions in licensing is to build statically.
It would be nice if Intel gave the GCC team the secret sauce which makes this one some much better at optimizing code. I do not flame GCC at all, I like it , and clearly it is superior at going across architectural boundaries. I just wish HP/DEC/Compaq, Sun and Intel were more willing to show them a 'thing or two' about insightful ways to optimize the compiler.
Also, note that ICC can not compile the kernel. I know and have been told that there are things present in GCC that allow the successful build of the kernel that do no (CAN NOT?) exist in ICC. It would interesting to see if someone could get the kernel to build with ICC by hacking a mixture of the two compilers.
Another strange thing about ICC is that they are not entire GNU aware, and have an odd licensing file and install procedure. We had some problems with linking that were an obvious kluge and required a workaround. It would be nice to see the source for this, but that will not happen in the near future.
Best of luck to both teams, and I suggest that Intel, if you want the world to love x86 (even more), drive the stake in, and show us the source so that we can make GCC considerably better on x86.
I recommend that people try ICC whenever possible and take measurements.
I appreciate his honesty in not commenting on it, but seriously, this guy is way too smart to ignore what else is going on in compiler-land, and if he isn't measuring himself to the "competition," then he has stuck his head in the sand. I recommend that where ever possible he builds with the respective compilers every piece of code and looks for comparative anomalies and or performance differentials in order to learn from that.
Best of luck to the GNU GCC team!
I do not deprecate RedHat, and I use them - they are to me decidedly not evil.
;p
However, why did gcc3 appear in 7.2 and not 7.3? All I ask is that yes, they can compile how they see fit, and so can I. My only request is to for them to provide the rest of the compilers for me that have been cleanly installed "their way," so that I don't have to go through the same shenanigan every time I upgrade or change a system or install a new one, etc.
On a side note, as far as GCC 3.X not being prime time, for C is surely is, I don't know about the rest, but for C its, as far as I can see, quite useable, stable and reliable with some interesting new optimizations. I also like ICC, from Intel, but they have very strange and frustrating licensing weirdness, and the kernel can't be compiled with it.
A lot of the GCC 3 is broke with regards to the C++, that's a crock. Both sides blame the other, but from what I have seen, most of the crap that doesn't compile right on GCC 3.x is the writer's fault, not the compiler. Think, what is harder, writing hello world or writing a compiler to compile hello world. I'm more inclined to believe the compiler guy that has to work on the project.
I see the reason to maintain binary compatibility to a point. For their manageability it makes sense, to some degree. So if its easier for them to put stuff out, go ahead.
I think that GNU has been a great force in the world, and to uselessly outpace them or point fingers at them is frustrating and bad for both sides of the camp.
One more note on RedHat, I am what would be the "customer," I do buy the media and get RH with new systems, etc. "Customers" who use this as a server don't like things being out of whack. I wish I could make it a requirement that the EGCS 1.1.2 release, 2.95.3 release, GCC 3.0.X release be included already to make things easier. It was there in 7.2, and then yanked out. I didn't hear the pissing and whining from the usual suspects about why this was done, but, I can only imagine they went off in some strange direction and have to dig themselves out quietly and slowly form this bastard fork, which, NO "readme," or "install" doc *EVER, EVER* requests. Face it. 2.96 is some RedHat only (Not Mandrake, Not SuSE) strange kluge. Programmers ignore in favor of GNU releases. Debian ignores it. It's a strange wart that needs wart removing acid, now.