I believe Oracle has reached the top, not through being the best, but through marketing hype.
And I "believe" this is the central phalacy in your argument; it's a belief, not a fact. But, Microsoft's strong-arming, astro-turfing, purjuring, is a known demonstrated fact.
Because a lot of us are all hellbent on beating MSFT into the ground and thus will focus in on all the bad points.
Well, I think this about sums up the whole public reaction. And it's only natural, I believe, and certainly apropos considering Microsoft's karma.
Nobody runs around flaming Oracle, implying they make an unstable, sucky product. Why? Because it's been demonstrated, openly, that it's a kick-ass heavy-duty reliable hunk of heavy machinery as can be had. Same think can be said for other prominent IT products/companies.
Why does everybody hate them? Well, that's damn obvious.
Cool!! This reminds me of the old S-100 bus CP/M "workstations" of back then. You had your CPU card, sometimes even several of them, and youd disk (both floppy and hard) controller card, serial communications card, etc... really cool, modular stuff.
But they don't care about that, they beign the people who worked out this scheme. I'll net them a huge amount of money in the short term, and then Raumbus will die. After that, either they create another company and do something similar, or get hired by other companies who liked their way of grabbing cash. It was never about creating a long-lasting solid technology-oriented company.
I believe he said he was working on Forte, not Plan9.
Some clues: [Plan 9, I hate thee and I do not know you] is a good one; also I found [Forte is the pre-cursor of Plan 9] and [I cannot count the times Forte dissaperared from the process tables]; so I do believe he *was* talking about Forte, and not Plan9.
Ha ha ha!! Good one! not. Where did you read those Many Slashdot commenters say "it'll last forever" comments? All I read on the thread was tons and tons of lambasting. Even I thought it was downright shameful, I mean, if you don't like something --which, curiously, is free-- then you simply don't use / do / read / have it.
Hmmm... if you believe that, then I have some farmland in Sonora that I'd like to sell you.
Mr. Billy Gates has a long history of doing things the way HE says, else you can go to hell. He's a power-hungry sourpuss, and also he's been known to disregard contracts previously.
So, with that in mind, can you truly believe that Bungie will remain autonomous? I doubt it, very much so.
Not really. Back in the "good-old days" (remember CP/M?), you could build your own machine, since all the parts were openly available: you could easily get a Z80A, a crt controller, some uarts, ram chips (sram, cuz it was easier to wire up), program an eprom with your bios, get disk controllers, keyboard interfaces, etc...
So actually, it was even more open than it is now. Remember Heathkit? Hell, more open than that I don't think you can get. Too bad that era ended, and they disappeared.:-(
Correction: ICANN has actually done nothing; the infrastructure (IP networks and stuff) belong to others, ICANN is supposed to be an arbitration organization, helping out to resolve conflicts and such. I may be wrong, so please correct me if I am.
Now... ICANN has *really* dropped the ball more than once, and has done *nothing* worth of note. Nothing that says "Wow! It's so cool we have these guys!"; actually, I've heard nothing about them, just lots of noise and no real substance.
Second, ICANN was imposed by US officials, so I can guess there's a certain nervousnes about giving total arbitration and control to them; it's global in scope, but not vision or appointment, so there is a certain imbalance there.
What I say? To hell with all this. Every country has their own telecommunications infrastructure, IP technology is out in the open. The rules are simple really, I don't see a need for the ICANN.
Conflict arbitration can be done on each country's jurisdiction: if "cocacola.com.mx" is owned by someone else (and not CocaColaCo.), hell, let mexican authorities work it out, not the ICANN.
Don't ask, let them legal fellers tangle in this one.
Personally I've been waiting for this to happen a long time. I mean, my information is mine, right? My programas, my development, my experiments, are mine, right? Why should a damn little kid have his kicks by letting out into the "cyber-environment" a destructive, self-replicating program?
OK, so maybe I should have software to scan for such attacks (viruses, network cracking attempts), but attackers are always trying to overwhelm any protections in place, by looking for new and undocumented loopholes.
So I say "hell yes" to this; intentional destruction of information should be treated as a form ("AS A FORM", not "exactly like") of destruction of property. Depending on the potential of said information should be the restitution.
The "potential" for the destroyed information should be up to the victim; sure, that creates the posibility of inflating it, but then you create an environment where the mere idea of destroying information can be a very serious crime. And that's ok with me.
Destroying an installable application is no problem, you can reinstall if necesary; but destroying documents, data, files... that really gets my goose; specially when not backed up. AND don't tell me that "it's the user's fault for not backing up", get off your damn high-horse for once and look at the people who use these things, NOBODY backs up, unless it's a sysadmin or something like that.
User's shouldn't have to carry the burden of hardening their own machines; crackers and virus writers / spreaders should carry the financial and criminal burden of destroying other people's information.
So it sounds tough. Have you ever had to retype a whole damn essay because of some fucking script kiddie or a damn virus that came from who-knows-where? That's fucking tough also.
If MS should move to Canada, it really creates other restrictions for them. If they start selling software too cheap for other companies to compete, they can be accused of dumping; they can have their products tagged for heavy import taxes; so, besides moving the people (which would really be a logistics terror), it would create plenty other legal problems for them.
But what really bothers me is that BC would actually invite MS over; I mean, they've proven that they're totally driven by the urge to make a buck, they've proven to be dishonest, predatorial, they've destroyed / dismantled any competing company that they've gotten their hands on (STAC for example), etc. The question that jumps to my mind is: "Why? Why invite a shark over for lunch?". So, any British Columbians wish to enlighten us?
I was pleasantly surprised upon reading the Mexican Patent Institute's charter, and found out that patents on computer software, natural phenomena and mathematical formulae are expressly forbidden, and reverse engineering is expressly permitted, for interoperability reasons.
This article is excellent, I applaud these people from the bottom of my heart.
The rapacity of biotech conglomerates really scares me, because they're actually tampering witn out food sources using technology that's not wholly understood. Mainly, I'm worried because corporations seem to be running roughshod over everybody, and need not answer to anybody, and are free from any kind of restraint or responsibility. THAT's scary.
It's tough to compete against them, because, by nature, people tend to not look for trouble; so you find that it's one or two farmers who are fighting against a whole corporation; of course the corp is gonna run all over them.
I just home this stage of humanity reaches it's end soon; the sooner the better.
It's kind of absurd to qualify a file format as illegal, more like it's current use is illegal. Or rather, can be illegal, or infringing upon someone else's copyrigt (etc etc...)
-elf
Re:Don't let Microsoft's numbering confuse you
on
Linux 2.2.15 Released
·
· Score: 1
"single decimal point" where? Actually, in Europe if I recall correctly, it's a decimal comma, not a point. That something has been done for plenty of time does not guarantee it's eternal existance unchanged.
Second, a version number is not a decimal number, so your "single decimal point" standard has no bearing on it; it's quite clearly documented that it's MAJOR-VERSION (dot) MINOR-VERSION (dot) REVISION, which is much more legible than using dashes. Why? Because a dot, at least for CS people, has quite a diferent connotation than a dash.
And third, why drive yourself up in a tizzy just for something as unimportant as the kernel version number separator character? Just because we/they don't think as you do? Is your consciosness so limited that it can't do context switches when it finds manifestations of new ideas? Relax, have a cup of coffee (or whatever) and get on with your life.
-elf
Re:RMS should stick to activism
on
RMS On eBooks
·
· Score: 1
Mr. Stallman isn't naive, he's a visionary, his ideas are well above those of "normal" people, or should I say "sheeple".
Yes, they (Stallman's ideas) are also hard to stomach, and raise hairy questions, and might even seem alarmist. But that's a visionary's job --or calling if you will--, to make people question their surroundings, their values, their government, the status quo.
It's sad to see so many dis him and call him stupid, or dumb, etc. Because they're only doing it out of boredom, nobody's actually trying to see what Stallman's trying to warn us about.:-(
Some of us have been post-Microsoft for over five years!
What do you mean by that? Do you mean that you're toying around, maybe earning a living, from an alternate platform not M$ sourced?
Or perhaps you mean that you've been fighting middle and upper management, trying to regain your professional credibility, because you think that just repeating M$-produced catch phrases, and their buggy, instable software, is against your work ethic?
To me, Microsoft's greatest damage has been cultural; IT professionals, grunts, "guru's", aren't worth anything anymore; anybody who's been in a position where you have to actually convince people that they've been truly brainwashed by Microsoft's PR department know what I'm talking about.
A mechanic HAS to learn to use each and every one of his tools; if a new one appears, he learns to use it and applies it to his work. But a computer? Hmm... that's tech stuff, leave it to the tech guys. Hell!! A computer is just a tool, LEARN to use it!
Bill Gate's message was: "Don't, no need to learn a new tool, look! You can be as dumb and useless as you want to! Just give us your money and we'll hoard all the power and knowledge, you just do your thing."
The man should be shot for that. And all those who let themselves become useless keyboard-potatos for believing him also.
What is it about variety that scares the shit out of so many people?
"Windows Distributions" Hmm... let's think about it a little. Maybe Windows is such a sucky, unstable, bloated OS precisely because it doesn't have any form of competition, not even itself.
I mean, if someone put out a mismatched Linux distro, without any regard for maintaining a coherent set of binaries, libraries, daemons, etc... it would definitely be a total failure, nobody would use it, and it'd wither and die.
On the other hand, Windows has a single source (it's multiple versions), and no other can produce Windows. So, there's no need to improve it, just add more and more features / bugs, so users keep coming back for more (either features or bug fixes / new bugs).
Also, Microsoft has locked-up the interoperability idea in so many people, that it's inconcievable (for the "normal" person) for products of diferent vendors to interoperate. The idea is "I need Microsoft products in order for them to talk to each other", and that's killing much of the network world. M$ can get away with perverting protocols because of this.
Hmmm... what would happen in the long run? Most probably, things would take shape as they should be. Trade secrets would be just that, and those can be reverse-engineered legally, if you can prove you didn't have any inside help.
Patenting stuff that either should be copyrighted or be trade / industrial secrets is the worst thing that can happen.
Hmmm... you might mean Hipocrisy, but I still don't understand your point.
Why would it be hipocritic of Tim to tell Jeff Bezos that he doesn't like his current policies? It's like saying that if a friend of mine gives me bubblegum I have to like the idea he/she smokes, even though I'm opposed to smoking myself? It's kind of blind and sheeply if you ask me.
Tim, by posting publicly his opinions and taking action is actually showing to the world that he believes that Business isn't mutually exclusive from doing what's right; if he should pull distribution of his books from Amazon, provoking them into action (say, freeing the patents and concentrating on service), that could possibly be the best thing to happen to Amazon.
Jeff Bezos, in his current unenlightened blindness, is proving to be Amazon's worst enemy. Too bad to see an E-Commerce pioneer going down the drain because of the ill-directed greed of it's CEO.
Lets face it. Journalists, editors, "major" businesspeople, are not required to be accountable for their opinions and actions anymore. Why? Truly, I do not know. Yet we see them act as they well please, mostly to pander to external bucks, instead of their supposedly readership's best interest. Doesn't this seem strange to you all? Alarming even?
I mean... If ("if") I had a business of my own, I surely wouldn't hire a person who has a questionable professional record (where "questionable acts" are depending on his profession), then, why do newspapers, magazines, corporations, etc... constantly hire people who EVERYONE knows have done damaging things in the past? Some will say "because the industry demands it", does that mean that everyone's corrupt? Anything for a buck?
Truly I don't understand, can someone shed some light on this for me?
Is it truly freedom, when you expect to be (at least) socially blasted for expressing controversial ideas? I don't care about the legal structure, but about society. Sure, legally they can't touch you, but you become ostracized by your peers. Is that the mark of a free and educated society?
What makes freedom is education, the knowledge that you should not be attacked for proffering a thought-out opinion, requesting consideration, or at the least discussion. At the same time, one can not inflict one's prejudices upon others.
Why should Jon NOT post his "complicated, controversial articles" on slashdot? I happen to like his articles; I've always considered slashdot to be the place for people who like to read thought-provoking news and articles, not a techo-sheeple palace.
It's one thing to know many things, and it's another entirely to actually think.
Would that be considered monopolistic behaviour? After all, people are buying more and more celerons because of it's ability to use SMP, yet being cheaper than P2s and XEONs. Yet Intel forcibly wants them to buy the more expensive chips if we wanto to do SMP.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, you might say that, but that is the system's interpretation of the situation, and as such, it's subject to concensus.
So yes, it will most assuredly be called vandalism or terrorism by those who wish to uphold the current rules, but others see it in another light.
If you can't understand that, then no amount of words will ever convince you.
-elf
I believe Oracle has reached the top, not through being the best, but through marketing hype.
And I "believe" this is the central phalacy in your argument; it's a belief, not a fact. But, Microsoft's strong-arming, astro-turfing, purjuring, is a known demonstrated fact.
-elf
Because a lot of us are all hellbent on beating MSFT into the ground and thus will focus in on all the bad points.
Well, I think this about sums up the whole public reaction. And it's only natural, I believe, and certainly apropos considering Microsoft's karma.
Nobody runs around flaming Oracle, implying they make an unstable, sucky product. Why? Because it's been demonstrated, openly, that it's a kick-ass heavy-duty reliable hunk of heavy machinery as can be had. Same think can be said for other prominent IT products/companies.
Why does everybody hate them? Well, that's damn obvious.
-elf
Cool!! This reminds me of the old S-100 bus CP/M "workstations" of back then. You had your CPU card, sometimes even several of them, and youd disk (both floppy and hard) controller card, serial communications card, etc... really cool, modular stuff.
I'll just cross my fingers... :-)
-elf
But they don't care about that, they beign the people who worked out this scheme. I'll net them a huge amount of money in the short term, and then Raumbus will die. After that, either they create another company and do something similar, or get hired by other companies who liked their way of grabbing cash. It was never about creating a long-lasting solid technology-oriented company.
-elf
I believe he said he was working on Forte, not Plan9.
Some clues: [Plan 9, I hate thee and I do not know you] is a good one; also I found [Forte is the pre-cursor of Plan 9] and [I cannot count the times Forte dissaperared from the process tables]; so I do believe he *was* talking about Forte, and not Plan9.
-elf
Ha ha ha!! Good one! not. Where did you read those Many Slashdot commenters say "it'll last forever" comments? All I read on the thread was tons and tons of lambasting. Even I thought it was downright shameful, I mean, if you don't like something --which, curiously, is free-- then you simply don't use / do / read / have it.
But we'll see how long it lasts.
-elf
Hmmm... if you believe that, then I have some farmland in Sonora that I'd like to sell you.
Mr. Billy Gates has a long history of doing things the way HE says, else you can go to hell. He's a power-hungry sourpuss, and also he's been known to disregard contracts previously.
So, with that in mind, can you truly believe that Bungie will remain autonomous? I doubt it, very much so.
-elf
Not really. Back in the "good-old days" (remember CP/M?), you could build your own machine, since all the parts were openly available: you could easily get a Z80A, a crt controller, some uarts, ram chips (sram, cuz it was easier to wire up), program an eprom with your bios, get disk controllers, keyboard interfaces, etc...
So actually, it was even more open than it is now. Remember Heathkit? Hell, more open than that I don't think you can get. Too bad that era ended, and they disappeared. :-(
-elf
Correction: ICANN has actually done nothing; the infrastructure (IP networks and stuff) belong to others, ICANN is supposed to be an arbitration organization, helping out to resolve conflicts and such. I may be wrong, so please correct me if I am.
Now... ICANN has *really* dropped the ball more than once, and has done *nothing* worth of note. Nothing that says "Wow! It's so cool we have these guys!"; actually, I've heard nothing about them, just lots of noise and no real substance.
Second, ICANN was imposed by US officials, so I can guess there's a certain nervousnes about giving total arbitration and control to them; it's global in scope, but not vision or appointment, so there is a certain imbalance there.
What I say? To hell with all this. Every country has their own telecommunications infrastructure, IP technology is out in the open. The rules are simple really, I don't see a need for the ICANN.
Conflict arbitration can be done on each country's jurisdiction: if "cocacola.com.mx" is owned by someone else (and not CocaColaCo.), hell, let mexican authorities work it out, not the ICANN.
-elf
Don't ask, let them legal fellers tangle in this one.
Personally I've been waiting for this to happen a long time. I mean, my information is mine, right? My programas, my development, my experiments, are mine, right? Why should a damn little kid have his kicks by letting out into the "cyber-environment" a destructive, self-replicating program?
OK, so maybe I should have software to scan for such attacks (viruses, network cracking attempts), but attackers are always trying to overwhelm any protections in place, by looking for new and undocumented loopholes.
So I say "hell yes" to this; intentional destruction of information should be treated as a form ("AS A FORM", not "exactly like") of destruction of property. Depending on the potential of said information should be the restitution.
The "potential" for the destroyed information should be up to the victim; sure, that creates the posibility of inflating it, but then you create an environment where the mere idea of destroying information can be a very serious crime. And that's ok with me.
Destroying an installable application is no problem, you can reinstall if necesary; but destroying documents, data, files... that really gets my goose; specially when not backed up. AND don't tell me that "it's the user's fault for not backing up", get off your damn high-horse for once and look at the people who use these things, NOBODY backs up, unless it's a sysadmin or something like that.
User's shouldn't have to carry the burden of hardening their own machines; crackers and virus writers / spreaders should carry the financial and criminal burden of destroying other people's information.
So it sounds tough. Have you ever had to retype a whole damn essay because of some fucking script kiddie or a damn virus that came from who-knows-where? That's fucking tough also.
-elf
If MS should move to Canada, it really creates other restrictions for them. If they start selling software too cheap for other companies to compete, they can be accused of dumping; they can have their products tagged for heavy import taxes; so, besides moving the people (which would really be a logistics terror), it would create plenty other legal problems for them.
But what really bothers me is that BC would actually invite MS over; I mean, they've proven that they're totally driven by the urge to make a buck, they've proven to be dishonest, predatorial, they've destroyed / dismantled any competing company that they've gotten their hands on (STAC for example), etc. The question that jumps to my mind is: "Why? Why invite a shark over for lunch?". So, any British Columbians wish to enlighten us?
-elf
I was pleasantly surprised upon reading the Mexican Patent Institute's charter, and found out that patents on computer software, natural phenomena and mathematical formulae are expressly forbidden, and reverse engineering is expressly permitted, for interoperability reasons.
Damn, we have nice laws, but lousy beaurocrats :-(
-elf
This article is excellent, I applaud these people from the bottom of my heart.
The rapacity of biotech conglomerates really scares me, because they're actually tampering witn out food sources using technology that's not wholly understood. Mainly, I'm worried because corporations seem to be running roughshod over everybody, and need not answer to anybody, and are free from any kind of restraint or responsibility. THAT's scary.
It's tough to compete against them, because, by nature, people tend to not look for trouble; so you find that it's one or two farmers who are fighting against a whole corporation; of course the corp is gonna run all over them.
I just home this stage of humanity reaches it's end soon; the sooner the better.
-elf
It's kind of absurd to qualify a file format as illegal, more like it's current use is illegal. Or rather, can be illegal, or infringing upon someone else's copyrigt (etc etc...)
-elf
"single decimal point" where? Actually, in Europe if I recall correctly, it's a decimal comma, not a point. That something has been done for plenty of time does not guarantee it's eternal existance unchanged.
Second, a version number is not a decimal number, so your "single decimal point" standard has no bearing on it; it's quite clearly documented that it's MAJOR-VERSION (dot) MINOR-VERSION (dot) REVISION, which is much more legible than using dashes. Why? Because a dot, at least for CS people, has quite a diferent connotation than a dash.
And third, why drive yourself up in a tizzy just for something as unimportant as the kernel version number separator character? Just because we/they don't think as you do? Is your consciosness so limited that it can't do context switches when it finds manifestations of new ideas? Relax, have a cup of coffee (or whatever) and get on with your life.
-elf
Mr. Stallman isn't naive, he's a visionary, his ideas are well above those of "normal" people, or should I say "sheeple".
Yes, they (Stallman's ideas) are also hard to stomach, and raise hairy questions, and might even seem alarmist. But that's a visionary's job --or calling if you will--, to make people question their surroundings, their values, their government, the status quo.
It's sad to see so many dis him and call him stupid, or dumb, etc. Because they're only doing it out of boredom, nobody's actually trying to see what Stallman's trying to warn us about. :-(
-elfSome of us have been post-Microsoft for over five years!
What do you mean by that? Do you mean that you're toying around, maybe earning a living, from an alternate platform not M$ sourced?
Or perhaps you mean that you've been fighting middle and upper management, trying to regain your professional credibility, because you think that just repeating M$-produced catch phrases, and their buggy, instable software, is against your work ethic?
To me, Microsoft's greatest damage has been cultural; IT professionals, grunts, "guru's", aren't worth anything anymore; anybody who's been in a position where you have to actually convince people that they've been truly brainwashed by Microsoft's PR department know what I'm talking about.
A mechanic HAS to learn to use each and every one of his tools; if a new one appears, he learns to use it and applies it to his work. But a computer? Hmm... that's tech stuff, leave it to the tech guys. Hell!! A computer is just a tool, LEARN to use it!
Bill Gate's message was: "Don't, no need to learn a new tool, look! You can be as dumb and useless as you want to! Just give us your money and we'll hoard all the power and knowledge, you just do your thing."
The man should be shot for that. And all those who let themselves become useless keyboard-potatos for believing him also.
Flame away. :-)
-elf
What is it about variety that scares the shit out of so many people?
"Windows Distributions" Hmm... let's think about it a little. Maybe Windows is such a sucky, unstable, bloated OS precisely because it doesn't have any form of competition, not even itself.
I mean, if someone put out a mismatched Linux distro, without any regard for maintaining a coherent set of binaries, libraries, daemons, etc... it would definitely be a total failure, nobody would use it, and it'd wither and die.
On the other hand, Windows has a single source (it's multiple versions), and no other can produce Windows. So, there's no need to improve it, just add more and more features / bugs, so users keep coming back for more (either features or bug fixes / new bugs).
Also, Microsoft has locked-up the interoperability idea in so many people, that it's inconcievable (for the "normal" person) for products of diferent vendors to interoperate. The idea is "I need Microsoft products in order for them to talk to each other", and that's killing much of the network world. M$ can get away with perverting protocols because of this.
Just my 2 cents.
-elf
Yep, today's her fifth birthday! :-)
Yeesh, I don't know if it's good or bad to be born on Feb 29th. At the very least it's weird.
-gus
Hmmm... what would happen in the long run? Most probably, things would take shape as they should be. Trade secrets would be just that, and those can be reverse-engineered legally, if you can prove you didn't have any inside help.
Patenting stuff that either should be copyrighted or be trade / industrial secrets is the worst thing that can happen.
-gus
Hmmm... you might mean Hipocrisy, but I still don't understand your point.
Why would it be hipocritic of Tim to tell Jeff Bezos that he doesn't like his current policies? It's like saying that if a friend of mine gives me bubblegum I have to like the idea he/she smokes, even though I'm opposed to smoking myself? It's kind of blind and sheeply if you ask me.
Tim, by posting publicly his opinions and taking action is actually showing to the world that he believes that Business isn't mutually exclusive from doing what's right ; if he should pull distribution of his books from Amazon, provoking them into action (say, freeing the patents and concentrating on service), that could possibly be the best thing to happen to Amazon.
Jeff Bezos, in his current unenlightened blindness, is proving to be Amazon's worst enemy. Too bad to see an E-Commerce pioneer going down the drain because of the ill-directed greed of it's CEO.
-gus
Lets face it. Journalists, editors, "major" businesspeople, are not required to be accountable for their opinions and actions anymore. Why? Truly, I do not know. Yet we see them act as they well please, mostly to pander to external bucks, instead of their supposedly readership's best interest. Doesn't this seem strange to you all? Alarming even?
I mean... If ("if") I had a business of my own, I surely wouldn't hire a person who has a questionable professional record (where "questionable acts" are depending on his profession), then, why do newspapers, magazines, corporations, etc... constantly hire people who EVERYONE knows have done damaging things in the past? Some will say "because the industry demands it", does that mean that everyone's corrupt? Anything for a buck?
Truly I don't understand, can someone shed some light on this for me?
-elf
Is it truly freedom, when you expect to be (at least) socially blasted for expressing controversial ideas? I don't care about the legal structure, but about society. Sure, legally they can't touch you, but you become ostracized by your peers. Is that the mark of a free and educated society?
What makes freedom is education, the knowledge that you should not be attacked for proffering a thought-out opinion, requesting consideration, or at the least discussion. At the same time, one can not inflict one's prejudices upon others.
Why should Jon NOT post his "complicated, controversial articles" on slashdot? I happen to like his articles; I've always considered slashdot to be the place for people who like to read thought-provoking news and articles, not a techo-sheeple palace.
It's one thing to know many things, and it's another entirely to actually think.
Would that be considered monopolistic behaviour? After all, people are buying more and more celerons because of it's ability to use SMP, yet being cheaper than P2s and XEONs. Yet Intel forcibly wants them to buy the more expensive chips if we wanto to do SMP.
Inquiring mind want to know.