FWIW, it seemed to come up a lot during the (most-recent) Microsoft anti-trust trial. MS execs seemed to think it describes the way the software industry in general works.
That other 2%, is when they send me a proposal in Word to review: and not a grocery list, but a huge document with lots of Word cruft. When I can't read it properly, I get yelled at.
This seems like a pretty good summary of what "The Desktop" is. Linux or FreeBSD or what have you won't be ready for this desktop until people who mail large Word documents get yelled at, rather than doing the yelling. This is partially a social problem; in many environments people use Word documents as an interchange format for no good reason at all. These people I tell "Golly, I'd love to read your boring document, but my machine doesn't run windows". Word running under Linux is not the solution; open file formats are the solution.
Ahh, what the hell, this is no more offtopic that what it replies to:
Oh, and btw: if you have everything configured properly, have good hardware, and do not run buggy software, windows is alot more stable for a desktop user than many here give it credit for.
I agree that if you grew up with DOS, you might thing that this was satisfactory. For many people though, one of the most important functions of the operating system is protection from buggy software. peace d^2b
How much can we blame Microsoft for forcing consumers and OEM's hands regarding OS choice when we do the same thing for no reason other than to spite them?
Don't forget that there are some of use who don't actually know how to use Windows. Yes, we could learn, but probably there are more rewarding things to do with our time. My previous operating system was Multics...
xvidtune is your friend. It should have been part of the configuration process, i.e. XF86Setup. I don't recommend the red hat X configuration tool; it hasn't worked very well for me in the past.
"It seems odd that he would refer to GNU/Linux as a derivative of Unix"
There are lots of different ways to be derivative, only some of them involving a common codebase.
IMNSHO, any system that reimpliments the same (user and programming) interfaces counts as derivative.
So, maybe not if we are talking to lawyers, but I think the rest of us can be more honest.
Re:What's New with XFree 3.3.4 and 3.9.15??
on
XFree86 News
·
· Score: 1
Actually, the aforementioned URL doesn't say too much useful. Yet. From xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/RELNOTES
4. What's new in 3.3.4?
o Several security fixes.
o Intel i740 support (donated by Precision Insight).
o SiS 530 and SiS 620 support.
o 3Dfx Voodoo Banshee and Voodoo3 support.
o Trident Blade3D, CyberBlade and Cyber9525 support.
o S3 Trio3D support.
o Matrox G400 support.
o NVIDIA Riva TNT2 support and better acceleration for all Riva chipsets (donated by NVIDIA).
o Rewritten Cyrix MediaGX support (donated by Cyrix). Warning: this is reported to hang some machines! If that happens, please use the SVGA server in XFree86-3.3.3.1 instead.
o Acceleration for XF68_FBDev on PPC.
o VMWare's DGA-1.1 extension. Note that the next major release of XFree86 will NOT include DGA-1.1 but the newly developed DGA-2.0 that contains significantly more features than DGA-1.1 and will most likely not be compatible with DGA-1.1
o Change xterm to use the tty default value for the backspace key.
o Japanese documentation and manpage updates.
o Updates and new hardware support (Acecad flair, Calcomp DrawingBoard) for xinput extension.
o Bug fixed for cards with S3 Aurora64V+ (M65) chip, VGA output should now work.
Without touching the questions of whether the Linux development model is chaotic, or whether chaotic development models are good, bad, or indifferent, I think it is worth pointing out that there is nothing inherently chaotic about Open Source. If you want a coherent system where everything works together, then get a distribution and don't mess with it. Better yet (heh, heh...), get *BSD, where there is a centralized control over the entire source tree, rather than just the kernel. The fact that one can make a mess of ones operating system (or environment) has nothing to do with whether or not one has source, or even with Unix vs. DOS vs. Multics vs BeOS... Of course there are issues about priveledge levels or lack thereof, but hey, there is always some way to screw things up.
Mind you, the big SGI's do scale astoundingly; its not clear that Decpaq (or anybody else) has anything that competes with a 128 processor Origin_2000 yet. Wildfire will supposedly blow our collective minds, but as yet is only running (I think) 8 processors in the labs. Your friendly neighbourhood alpha booster.
HP-UX and AIX really only scale up 16 processors, Digital UNIX even less so,
Golly, I guess that means the Compaq Wildfire project is in big trouble. Well, I suppose that's possible, but I would be surprised if scalability of the OS is the problem. For those not obsessive Q-watchers, Wildfire is an alleged large scale SMP Alpha box, yet to be introduced, with plans up to 72 processors.
I concede the point that IRIX and Solaris have the most scalability street cred. And Wildfire is still in the labs, rather than the stores.
ObLinux: Is there a well defined set of goals for scalability other than SMP support for large numbers of processors and not crashing (sorry NT:-)? Is anyone thinking about an "Enterprise Linux Distribution?"
Slashdot Mirror
FWIW, it seemed to come up a lot during the
(most-recent) Microsoft anti-trust trial.
MS execs seemed to think it describes the
way the software industry in general works.
The sources and binaries are also available
via http
xvidtune is your friend. It should have
been part of the configuration process,
i.e. XF86Setup. I don't recommend the
red hat X configuration tool; it hasn't worked
very well for me in the past.
From Kitsune Sushi:
"It seems odd that he would refer to GNU/Linux as a derivative of Unix"
There are lots of different ways to be derivative,
only some of them involving a common codebase.
IMNSHO, any system that reimpliments the same
(user and programming) interfaces counts
as derivative.
So, maybe not if we are talking to lawyers,
but I think the rest of us can be more honest.
Actually, the aforementioned URL doesn't say
too much useful. Yet. From
xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/RELNOTES
4. What's new in 3.3.4?
o Several security fixes.
o Intel i740 support (donated by Precision Insight).
o SiS 530 and SiS 620 support.
o 3Dfx Voodoo Banshee and Voodoo3 support.
o Trident Blade3D, CyberBlade and Cyber9525 support.
o S3 Trio3D support.
o Matrox G400 support.
o NVIDIA Riva TNT2 support and better acceleration for all Riva chipsets
(donated by NVIDIA).
o Rewritten Cyrix MediaGX support (donated by Cyrix). Warning: this is
reported to hang some machines! If that happens, please use the SVGA
server in XFree86-3.3.3.1 instead.
o Acceleration for XF68_FBDev on PPC.
o VMWare's DGA-1.1 extension. Note that the next major release of XFree86
will NOT include DGA-1.1 but the newly developed DGA-2.0 that contains
significantly more features than DGA-1.1 and will most likely not be
compatible with DGA-1.1
o Change xterm to use the tty default value for the backspace key.
o Japanese documentation and manpage updates.
o Updates and new hardware support (Acecad flair, Calcomp DrawingBoard)
for xinput extension.
o Bug fixed for cards with S3 Aurora64V+ (M65) chip, VGA output should now
work.
Without touching the questions of whether the Linux development model is chaotic, or whether chaotic development models are good, bad, or indifferent, I think it is worth pointing out that there is nothing inherently chaotic about Open Source. If you want a coherent system where everything works together, then get a distribution and don't mess with it. Better yet (heh, heh...), get *BSD, where there is a centralized control over the entire source tree, rather than just the kernel. The fact that one can make a mess of ones operating system (or environment) has nothing to do with whether or not one has source, or even with Unix vs. DOS vs. Multics vs BeOS... Of course there are issues about priveledge levels or lack thereof, but hey, there is always some way to screw things up.
- Compaq DS20 1077 MB/s
- HP_N4000 760.0 MB/s
- SGI_Octane_300 375.3 MB/s
Mind you, the big SGI's do scale astoundingly; its not clear that Decpaq (or anybody else) has anything that competes with a 128 processor Origin_2000 yet. Wildfire will supposedly blow our collective minds, but as yet is only running (I think) 8 processors in the labs.Your friendly neighbourhood alpha booster.
Golly, I guess that means the Compaq Wildfire project is in big trouble. Well, I suppose that's possible, but I would be surprised if scalability of the OS is the problem. For those not obsessive Q-watchers, Wildfire is an alleged large scale SMP Alpha box, yet to be introduced, with plans up to 72 processors.
I concede the point that IRIX and Solaris have the most scalability street cred. And Wildfire is still in the labs, rather than the stores.
ObLinux: Is there a well defined set of goals for scalability other than SMP support for large numbers of processors and not crashing (sorry NT :-)? Is anyone thinking about an "Enterprise Linux Distribution?"