You've just compared three different OSes. That's like saying, "If ham is so much better than turkey, why are you eating veal?"
Could it be that, while BeOS is better than Linux, OpenBSD is better than Be? That would account for the situation you just described. Or, possibly, they all have their advantages, and OpenBSD just happens to be the best OS for serving up their website.
As another user already pointed out, even if this thing were one million times faster than Intel and AMD's current stuff (which it isn't), breaking 128 bit encryption would still take time well beyond the death of the universe.
A kernel-level x86 emulator would only do one thing, really. It would allow people running Linux on Macs and Alphas to also run Linux applications that were compiled for Intel systems. And at a much slower speed.
Closed source drivers are not an issue, because most hardware is architechture-specific. Meaning that a driver for my PC's TV-tuner card would not be much use in my Apple G4, because my TV-tuner card won't work in my G4. Or my soundcard, or my videocard, or my modem. So there's no point in emulating the driver on a different system, because the hardware can't be used anyway.
So now we're written an entire processor emulator (x86 only) so that the very small minority of people that are using Linux on alternative hardware will be able to run WordPerfect? The majority of closed-source Linux applications that most people would want to run, are games. And games are very performance sensitive, so they don't take well to being emulated; a task that's guaranteed to kill your speed.
It's just not really a very useful feature to have.
Having the kernel emulate another processor is not a horrible idea. Having the kernel use Bochs to do this is a very silly idea. Bochs doesn't just emulate the processor, it also emulates devices like the video card, and the hard drive, and the mouse, creating a wholely enclosed system. That means you have to install an operating system to run on Bochs, and allocate a file to act as hard disk space, and all sorts of other issues.
Implemented the way you describe, a kernel-level emulator could only allow binaries to be run on the same sort of system, with a different processor. So my x86 Linux binaries could be made to run on my Alpha Linux box. Where's the advantage there? It wouldn't let me run Windows applications on my Alpha, unless I installed Windows into the Boch's virtual hard drive. And that's no better than just running Bochs as a regular application.
First of all, Bochs is not exactly a superb emulator, but even if it was, why would having it as a kernel module be any better than running it as an application? Except that, as a kernel module, it's conceivable that it could bring your whole system down.
Hey, your site seems fine at what it's designed to do, which appears to be conveying information about yourself, and your interests. But, with all due respect (which is none, since you implied I am a three-year-old), your site has absolutely no presentation value.
Say what you will about today's web, but it's undeniably a commercial entity. And commerce is, and always will be, about presentation. If you think any major site, slashdot included, could get along without graphics, today, you're simply mistaken.
Oh, silly me - I forgot that the definition of 'amatuer' was "someone who designs websites for a specific resolution". Let's all do ourselves a favor, and think about the things we're posting, rather than just trying to make them sound good.
But, back on topic, I find it very useful to design sites for a common-denominator, which is generally accepted as 640x480. I'm not worried about PDA browsers, and my sites look fine under larger resolutions.
You can't simply say that resolution doesn't matter. Any website that has more than just text, and flash-graphics is going to be designed for a resolution. Maybe it's designed for multiple resolution. Maybe it looks good on a couple different resolutions; maybe even a lot of them. But if it's got raster graphics, it's tied to resolutions. And that is by definition.
This is not to say that a good develop won't take this into account. But it's an act of futility to design a functional and aesthetic website that is completely resolution independent. I challenge you to show me a site you've created that will look equally well in a 320x240 screen *and* a 1600x1200 screen, without a fundamental change in how it appears.
Well 1) I wasn't talking about technical support. Anyone who has to call a line to ask how to play a DVD has bought the wrong player, IMO. I was talking about warranty. Since you've already been burned on Smart & Friendly, I would think you'd be even more cautious about what devices you buy.
Consumer Electronics have a very high rate of failure, compared to other consumables, if only because of their relative complexity. I wouldn't be in any rush to buy a non-trivial electronic device from a company I knew nothing about. I don't have any problem buying from Sony, RCA, or Mitsubishi, because I know the odds are exceptional that the company will still be around in 5 years. That's why I bought a HP cd-writer, not a Smart & Friendly. When my writer broke down, HP replaced it within a week. When I had trouble with a custom computer I bought from a low-profile company across the country, I had much less success getting adequate service in a reasonable amount of time.
I'm not saying "Don't buy from small companies". I'm saying "Don't buy from small companies that are inviting legal action." These guys are asking for a lawsuit. Regardless of how you feel about Intellectual Property (we obviously disagree), you can be very certain about how the entertainment industry feels, and you can be fairly certain that action will be taken against the producers of the Dulux DVD player.
Now, if the licensing is legit on these games, I stand corrected. I still wouldn't buy this player, simply because I've had bad experience with no-name DVD players in the past, but that's my own issue. I would be very cautious about these fellas though. You've been warned.
Well they *could* be "legal" ROMS, if only Dulux had licensed them from their respective owners. Since there's no indication that they have been legally licensed, this DVD player sounds like a very bad idea. Morals aside, you don't want to get involved with a company who's breaking the law.
Basically you have to ask whether or not you want to buy a system from a company who probably won't be around to support it in six months. Do you trust them that much? And I'm not sure whether this is true or not, but another poster mentioned there may be liability in purchasing what amounts to stolen material.
In Windows Whistler, the Start Menu will pop up even if you've pushed your mouse to the far-side of the Start button, and are actually *off* the button. This way you can not only not worry about over-shooting the button, but you also get the nice beveled look, consistent with other buttons.
"Hack the ROMS" -- Not exactly a trivial matter, considering you'd not only have to determine what sections of the binary were actually producing sound output, but also what that sound was supposed to be, and also where it should currently be (which is impossible, given a moving environment). Sorry, but without any source code, and assuming that these ROMS are filled with *highly* optimized, hand-tuned code, it's just not a feasible situation.
Because nobody's getting paid for those ROMS. It's illegal to distribute those ROMs from a website, but it's even worse to *sell* DVD players that use them. This manufacturer is directly making money off someone else's work without paying any royalties.
No, they could be using new technology to do something cool with old technology. However, in this case, that would require arbitrarily guessing where the sounds in a game where supposed to come from. Since SMS was not a 3D-sound-system, there's no information in the games that could clue this player into knowing where a sound effect was supposed to "appear".
But that's okay, you can make smart-ass remarks if you'd like.
Yeah, it was made for suckers. It's a fricking plug from the company, who seems to have illegally bundled tons of unlicensed Sega games that they admit they got from a ROM site. I cannot believe that this got posted...
It's not really possible to figure out what the character in the game would hear, in systems that weren't designed that way. I really doubt this is anything interesting. And I'm almost positive that the SMS is illegal. I'm even more sure that this "Anonymous" article was sent in by the PR people from this somewhat-shady company.
They may well be functionally equivelent. However, that hardly makes them the same. If you wish to label that painted goose as a duck, feel free. But I submit that you just aren't looking close enough.
Most black lights don't give off *only* UV light. If you can see a glow from them, then they're giving off regular light as well. Or, alternatively, a light could be giving off only UV, but normal light could be produced from nearby objects (like your shirt).
Okay, I can imagine that scenario. In that situation, Joe Free Software Hacker would have to apply for his own signature before he could release software that would be run on that company's systems.
Or Joe Free Software Hacker could opt to release the software unsigned, and then the IT department at said company could sign it themselves, authorizing it for use in the department. It's not complicated, it's just less anonymous than the process is now. Besides, it's not like there's never been a platform that you've had to pay to develop on before. Think consoles, anyway.
That's right it is tied to the executable. The 'signing' process is the combination of the executable and the digital-signature. However, my point still stands -- you can use the same signature on multiple files; you don't have to pay for new ones every time you release.
Slashdot Mirror
Could it be that, while BeOS is better than Linux, OpenBSD is better than Be? That would account for the situation you just described. Or, possibly, they all have their advantages, and OpenBSD just happens to be the best OS for serving up their website.
Get a clue.
As another user already pointed out, even if this thing were one million times faster than Intel and AMD's current stuff (which it isn't), breaking 128 bit encryption would still take time well beyond the death of the universe.
Closed source drivers are not an issue, because most hardware is architechture-specific. Meaning that a driver for my PC's TV-tuner card would not be much use in my Apple G4, because my TV-tuner card won't work in my G4. Or my soundcard, or my videocard, or my modem. So there's no point in emulating the driver on a different system, because the hardware can't be used anyway.
So now we're written an entire processor emulator (x86 only) so that the very small minority of people that are using Linux on alternative hardware will be able to run WordPerfect? The majority of closed-source Linux applications that most people would want to run, are games. And games are very performance sensitive, so they don't take well to being emulated; a task that's guaranteed to kill your speed.
It's just not really a very useful feature to have.
Implemented the way you describe, a kernel-level emulator could only allow binaries to be run on the same sort of system, with a different processor. So my x86 Linux binaries could be made to run on my Alpha Linux box. Where's the advantage there? It wouldn't let me run Windows applications on my Alpha, unless I installed Windows into the Boch's virtual hard drive. And that's no better than just running Bochs as a regular application.
First of all, Bochs is not exactly a superb emulator, but even if it was, why would having it as a kernel module be any better than running it as an application? Except that, as a kernel module, it's conceivable that it could bring your whole system down.
Say what you will about today's web, but it's undeniably a commercial entity. And commerce is, and always will be, about presentation. If you think any major site, slashdot included, could get along without graphics, today, you're simply mistaken.
But, back on topic, I find it very useful to design sites for a common-denominator, which is generally accepted as 640x480. I'm not worried about PDA browsers, and my sites look fine under larger resolutions.
You can't simply say that resolution doesn't matter. Any website that has more than just text, and flash-graphics is going to be designed for a resolution. Maybe it's designed for multiple resolution. Maybe it looks good on a couple different resolutions; maybe even a lot of them. But if it's got raster graphics, it's tied to resolutions. And that is by definition.
This is not to say that a good develop won't take this into account. But it's an act of futility to design a functional and aesthetic website that is completely resolution independent. I challenge you to show me a site you've created that will look equally well in a 320x240 screen *and* a 1600x1200 screen, without a fundamental change in how it appears.
Um, Slashdot != America. You're seeing a trend on Slashdot. Most people in the US don't mind companies like Sony, Microsoft, and AOL.
Consumer Electronics have a very high rate of failure, compared to other consumables, if only because of their relative complexity. I wouldn't be in any rush to buy a non-trivial electronic device from a company I knew nothing about. I don't have any problem buying from Sony, RCA, or Mitsubishi, because I know the odds are exceptional that the company will still be around in 5 years. That's why I bought a HP cd-writer, not a Smart & Friendly. When my writer broke down, HP replaced it within a week. When I had trouble with a custom computer I bought from a low-profile company across the country, I had much less success getting adequate service in a reasonable amount of time.
I'm not saying "Don't buy from small companies". I'm saying "Don't buy from small companies that are inviting legal action." These guys are asking for a lawsuit. Regardless of how you feel about Intellectual Property (we obviously disagree), you can be very certain about how the entertainment industry feels, and you can be fairly certain that action will be taken against the producers of the Dulux DVD player.
Now, if the licensing is legit on these games, I stand corrected. I still wouldn't buy this player, simply because I've had bad experience with no-name DVD players in the past, but that's my own issue. I would be very cautious about these fellas though. You've been warned.
Basically you have to ask whether or not you want to buy a system from a company who probably won't be around to support it in six months. Do you trust them that much? And I'm not sure whether this is true or not, but another poster mentioned there may be liability in purchasing what amounts to stolen material.
In Windows Whistler, the Start Menu will pop up even if you've pushed your mouse to the far-side of the Start button, and are actually *off* the button. This way you can not only not worry about over-shooting the button, but you also get the nice beveled look, consistent with other buttons.
I stand corrected. However, at no point have I endorsed ROM sites. They're both wrong.
It's also still illegal.
Because nobody's getting paid for those ROMS. It's illegal to distribute those ROMs from a website, but it's even worse to *sell* DVD players that use them. This manufacturer is directly making money off someone else's work without paying any royalties.
But that's okay, you can make smart-ass remarks if you'd like.
Uh, maybe over gigabit ethernet. I wouldn't count on it though.
Hey Slashdot -- Where's the integrity?
Hey Slashdot? Do you have any integrity?
They may well be functionally equivelent. However, that hardly makes them the same. If you wish to label that painted goose as a duck, feel free. But I submit that you just aren't looking close enough.
Most black lights don't give off *only* UV light. If you can see a glow from them, then they're giving off regular light as well. Or, alternatively, a light could be giving off only UV, but normal light could be produced from nearby objects (like your shirt).
It most certainly could.
Nah, I tried that once... Evidently it's still illegal to booby-trap your consumer products. What the hell is that about?
Why not just do that with your PC now?
Or Joe Free Software Hacker could opt to release the software unsigned, and then the IT department at said company could sign it themselves, authorizing it for use in the department. It's not complicated, it's just less anonymous than the process is now. Besides, it's not like there's never been a platform that you've had to pay to develop on before. Think consoles, anyway.
That's right it is tied to the executable. The 'signing' process is the combination of the executable and the digital-signature. However, my point still stands -- you can use the same signature on multiple files; you don't have to pay for new ones every time you release.