Otherwise, I'd stick with iOS - also iOS (like Windows and Metro) has a hybrid kernel, unlike Android or Linux.
ZOMG SOME RANDOM BITS OF DARWIN LIVE IN USERLAND AND GET MESSAGES FROM THE KERNEL THAT'S SO KOOL!!!!!!1111ONE!!!!!!!!!
And, whilst NT has a bit more such stuff, neither of them are sufficiently different from an Old Fashioned Monolithic Kernel to be particularly interesting in that regard.
I've asked said people what they think of ascorbic acid, to which most of them effectively say they'd avoid anything containing it. Not a very good idea to completely shut out one of the most important amino acids from your diet.
sound, at best, like an odd combination of two sentences talking about different unrelated things.
If you set out to work out how humans will try to abuse and take advantage of any given political system, you will start to sound like a neoreactionary.
...who wants to return to a political system that humans can try to abuse and take advantage of?
If you set out to work out how humans will try to abuse and take advantage of any given political system, you will start to sound like a misanthrope. HTH.
but are they redesigning every detail of the ARM for higher performance like Qualcomm does w/ Snapdragon?
yes. Apple has purchased several companies that specialize in ASIC design and the latest A6 CPU is the fruit of their labor. It is very different from other ARM processors on the market so this should not be much of a surprise.
The latest CPU is the A7, which is also different from other ARM processors on the market (for one thing, by implementing the ARMv8-A 64-bit architecture; I think it's the only currently-shipping 64-bit ARM processor).
"Fix the compiler" presumably meaning "change the compiler not to support non-SSE x86 processors" or, at least, "change the compiler not to *default* to supporting non-SSE processors".
I think this really is the best option, all things considered.
Or, if the CPU on which you're running supports SSE (i.e., is a Pentium III or nower), default to SSE, so if you have an old machine it still defaults to something that'll run. If you're targeting some old no-SSE processor and building on some shiny "new" system, you have to use some -m option or whatever, but, well, get over it....
Why didn't they compare it to a 12 or 16 core CPU to show that it is only marginally better and requires programming in OpenCL or CUDA?
"Compared to a six core CPU, the speed up from using a GPU was threefold." If the 12-core CPU is twice as fast, that's 1.5x, and for a 16-core, that's 1.12x.
"Fix the compiler" presumably meaning "change the compiler not to support non-SSE x86 processors" or, at least, "change the compiler not to *default* to supporting non-SSE processors". Sounds good to me, these days, but I'm not responsible for making those decisions about GCC, so there's not much I can do about it.
or stop compiling for 32 bit. RAM is cheap, especially when you're talking about the cost per GiB of hundreds of gibibytes of it.
At this point, I don't know how many *desktop/laptop* 32-bit x86 boxes there are out there, but, in any case, somebody got concerned that the tests didn't pass on a 32-bit machine, so.... Personally, I don't care, as 99 44/100% of the arithmetic done by packet sniffers such as tcpdump is integer arithmetic, where it doesn't matter, but....
Intel x87 scalar FP instructions use an 80 bit internal format for higher precision. Intel SSE2 vector FP instructions use 64 bits. You will see last bit variations depending on which instructions the compiler chooses.
Even so we still have an "instruction set architecture" (ISA) in the modern x86 case. This ISA limits the underlying hardware architecture's (micro-ops) view of the software's intent. We still have the case where optimizing at the ISA level can also improve performance at the micro-op level. Furthermore understanding the underlying micro-op architecture can help to write more efficient code at the ISA or C level. This level is not documented
...and it can (and, I suspect, does) differ from one generation of x86 processor to another.
Of course we are still living with the effects of the 4004 design architecture that lives on with the laptop I'm using right now (and is opcode compatible with the 4004 instruction set still capable of being used as a strict sub-set of the opcodes used by my laptop's CPU).
Well, you have a crappy laptop then. Most laptops out there have a CPU with an instruction set such that assembler-language code for the Intel 8080 could be mechanically translated to assembler-language code for that instruction set (although the machine codes were not compatible), although the instruction set in current CPUs have been at least extended significantly to a 32-bit version and, in most cases, to a 64-bit version.
(I.e., you've confused the 4-bit 4004 with the 8-bit 8080 and you've confused "similar instruction sets to the extent that you can mechanically translate assembler-language code" with "superset of the same instruction set".)
Qt also gives the application native look and feel, for the most part - it just achieves the same by using low-level primitives (e.g. uxtheme.dll on Windows).
But some of its standard dialogs don't exactly look like the native dialogs in all cases; for example, on OS X, its "file open" dialog is most definitely different from the native one. (I'm not sure about Windows, but I suspect Gerald had a reason to continue to use the native dialog in Wireshark rather than relying on Qt's dialog.)
Yeah but do you see major companies or major players using it? I see a bunch of research labs from major universities, minor products from some corps, and miscellaneous small companies. Is there a major user / well known product?
Google?
What do they use it for? (No, "Google Earth" is not the correct answer; that's Qt-based.)
Sounds like a different implementation that does the same thing as QT.
Not exactly. Both Qt (not QT) and wxWidgets are cross-platform, but wxWidgets uses native widgets wherever possible (as their home page says, "Unlike other cross-platform toolkits, wxWidgets gives its applications a truly native look and feel because it uses the platform's native API rather than emulating the GUI."), whereas Qt primarily uses its own widgets.
The solution is capitalism: The control of resources (i.e., ownership) derived through voluntary interaction (i.e., not coercion).
So, starting with a situation in which "nobody owns the waters or the fish", how do we progress to a situation where they do? Have the fishing community collectively decide to divide up the regions of the water, give each fisherman a region in which they're allowed to fish, provide a mechanism to enforce that rule, and allow people to sell their license to fish in that region? In order to avoid coercion, that would have to be a unanimous decision.
If, as you say, it's good for each individual, then it must—by definition—be good for the group.
Action X, if undertaken by individual A, might be good for individual A, but might not be so good for individuals B, C, and D, who are members of the same group of which A is a member.
"...leads each individual to do what's in their own best interest" means "for each individual a in group G, leads individual a to do what's in the best interest of individual a", not "for each individual a in group G, for each individual b in group G, leads individual a to do what's in the best interest for individual b". Doing the latter might be good for the group, but doing the former is most definitely not "by definition" good for the group.
Paraphrased from within the link, "We have a lot of privacy information, we just don't connect it together." How flattering Apple, you know, this reminds me of (insert country here) that is collecting a ton of (insert commodity here). They don't plan to use it of course. They just like collecting it, and doing nothing interesting with it. No, nothing special all. Isn't that right, Apple?
No, it's not. They do things with it, such as:
using your credit card information to charge you when you make a purchase;
using your name and address to, I suspect, check whether it really is your credit card;
using your e-mail address to send you whatever messages you ask them to send;
using your friends' e-mail addresses and names to send them messages when you share pictures/URLs/etc. with them or ask them to join you on a forum;
using your friends' mailing addresses if you buy a gift for them and ask Apple to deliver it to them;
etc..
No, this doesn't say that they would never use it for other purposes, but, in the case of the stuff they're talking about, it's pretty much all stuff that they need in order to do something you ask them to do. They're basically saying "yes, some stuff our software and Web sites do require you to supply information, so we're telling that just in case you didn't realize that".
Talking to a coward I realize but the thing is Apple by virtue of the Apple id has much more specific user info than probably anyone but Facebook. They make you login to get free apps and such so it isn't just your purchases it is every interaction in their store, what you chose to download onto your device etc. all tied to a real person.
Whereas Google has, if you have a Google account, a bunch of information about what Web searches you do, for example. Apple does have a bunch of information about your interaction with them; whether they have more such information than, say, Google is another matter.
When you share your content with family and friends using Apple products, send gift certificates and products, or invite others to join you on Apple forums, Apple may collect the information you provide about those people such as name, mailing address, email address, and phone number.
One might reasonably expect that if you're having Apple send an e-mail message to somebody else (such as "here's a URL", "here's a picture", "join me on this forum", etc.), they would need to collect that person's e-mail address at minimum (and a name so that the From: line doesn't look quite so cheesy), and that if they're going to send someone a physical product, they would need to collect that person's name and mailing address at minimum. I don't know about the phone number, unless that might be used if you "send" them a product to be delivered to an Apple store rather than to their home and you specify that they should be sent a text message when the product arrives (which is an option they offer).
When you create an Apple ID, register your products, apply for commercial credit, purchase a product, download a software update, register for a class at an Apple Retail Store, or participate in an online survey, we may collect a variety of information, including your name, mailing address, phone number, email address, contact preferences, and credit card information.
At least when purchasing things, they'd need credit card information if you're purchasing stuff online. Most if not all sites where I've used my credit card want my mailing address (perhaps to make sure that credit card really belongs to the person at 111 Penny Lane, Anytown, USA), my name (perhaps to make sure that the credit card really belongs to Jane Doe), and some want the phone number (perhaps to call me if there's a problem).
So, yes, in some sense, their business, like many other businesses, requires that you provide them with some amount of personal data so that they can send you messages, bill your credit card, etc.. Apple's claim, for what it's worth, appears to be "the personal data is not of value to us for other purposes", e.g. "Safari doesn't keep track of where you go online so that we can send you e-mail about Apple products that our analysis of that data suggests you might like".
Slashdot Mirror
Personally I always preferred calling C functions from machine code it's easy just push your parameters or pointers to your parameters onto the stack
...except for the ones you pass in registers.
You mean kind of like POS. Point of Sale. Geeez! What were you thinking of?
Even better - what was NCR thinking of?
So how come the new hotness of the Windows video system is only as good as this apparently old and knackered XWindows system
Did the tests in question go through the X server, or were they rendering images by directly talking to the graphics hardware and largely bypassing the X server, using the X server mainly for 2D stuff?
This is the problem with using DRM and other 3-letter acronyms in the article body; they become quite ambiguous.
Yup. Direct Rendering Manager, not Digital Rights Management.
(Having worked on Server Message Block protocol implementations, seeing "SMB" stand for "Small and Medium Businesses" gives my brain heartburn. :-))
Otherwise, I'd stick with iOS - also iOS (like Windows and Metro) has a hybrid kernel, unlike Android or Linux.
ZOMG SOME RANDOM BITS OF DARWIN LIVE IN USERLAND AND GET MESSAGES FROM THE KERNEL THAT'S SO KOOL!!!!!!1111ONE!!!!!!!!!
And, whilst NT has a bit more such stuff, neither of them are sufficiently different from an Old Fashioned Monolithic Kernel to be particularly interesting in that regard.
Even if it was, does the source of information make it any less true?
No, but the fact that ascorbic acid isn't an amino acid makes
sound, at best, like an odd combination of two sentences talking about different unrelated things.
If you set out to work out how humans will try to abuse and take advantage of any given political system, you will start to sound like a neoreactionary.
...who wants to return to a political system that humans can try to abuse and take advantage of?
If you set out to work out how humans will try to abuse and take advantage of any given political system, you will start to sound like a misanthrope. HTH.
but are they redesigning every detail of the ARM for higher performance like Qualcomm does w/ Snapdragon?
yes. Apple has purchased several companies that specialize in ASIC design and the latest A6 CPU is the fruit of their labor. It is very different from other ARM processors on the market so this should not be much of a surprise.
The latest CPU is the A7, which is also different from other ARM processors on the market (for one thing, by implementing the ARMv8-A 64-bit architecture; I think it's the only currently-shipping 64-bit ARM processor).
No, the white ages!
No, the aluminum ages.
"Fix the compiler" presumably meaning "change the compiler not to support non-SSE x86 processors" or, at least, "change the compiler not to *default* to supporting non-SSE processors".
I think this really is the best option, all things considered.
Or, if the CPU on which you're running supports SSE (i.e., is a Pentium III or nower), default to SSE, so if you have an old machine it still defaults to something that'll run. If you're targeting some old no-SSE processor and building on some shiny "new" system, you have to use some -m option or whatever, but, well, get over it....
Why didn't they compare it to a 12 or 16 core CPU to show that it is only marginally better and requires programming in OpenCL or CUDA?
"Compared to a six core CPU, the speed up from using a GPU was threefold." If the 12-core CPU is twice as fast, that's 1.5x, and for a 16-core, that's 1.12x.
So fix the compiler
"Fix the compiler" presumably meaning "change the compiler not to support non-SSE x86 processors" or, at least, "change the compiler not to *default* to supporting non-SSE processors". Sounds good to me, these days, but I'm not responsible for making those decisions about GCC, so there's not much I can do about it.
or stop compiling for 32 bit. RAM is cheap, especially when you're talking about the cost per GiB of hundreds of gibibytes of it.
At this point, I don't know how many *desktop/laptop* 32-bit x86 boxes there are out there, but, in any case, somebody got concerned that the tests didn't pass on a 32-bit machine, so.... Personally, I don't care, as 99 44/100% of the arithmetic done by packet sniffers such as tcpdump is integer arithmetic, where it doesn't matter, but....
Intel x87 scalar FP instructions use an 80 bit internal format for higher precision. Intel SSE2 vector FP instructions use 64 bits. You will see last bit variations depending on which instructions the compiler chooses.
And the compiler may choose differently depending on whether it's compiling for 32-bit or 64-bit x86.
Even so we still have an "instruction set architecture" (ISA) in the modern x86 case. This ISA limits the underlying hardware architecture's (micro-ops) view of the software's intent. We still have the case where optimizing at the ISA level can also improve performance at the micro-op level. Furthermore understanding the underlying micro-op architecture can help to write more efficient code at the ISA or C level. This level is not documented
...and it can (and, I suspect, does) differ from one generation of x86 processor to another.
Of course we are still living with the effects of the 4004 design architecture that lives on with the laptop I'm using right now (and is opcode compatible with the 4004 instruction set still capable of being used as a strict sub-set of the opcodes used by my laptop's CPU).
Well, you have a crappy laptop then. Most laptops out there have a CPU with an instruction set such that assembler-language code for the Intel 8080 could be mechanically translated to assembler-language code for that instruction set (although the machine codes were not compatible), although the instruction set in current CPUs have been at least extended significantly to a 32-bit version and, in most cases, to a 64-bit version.
(I.e., you've confused the 4-bit 4004 with the 8-bit 8080 and you've confused "similar instruction sets to the extent that you can mechanically translate assembler-language code" with "superset of the same instruction set".)
The file dialog used by Qt for Windows is the native one.
Even if you add extra widgets to the dialog, as Wireshark does?
Qt also gives the application native look and feel, for the most part - it just achieves the same by using low-level primitives (e.g. uxtheme.dll on Windows).
But some of its standard dialogs don't exactly look like the native dialogs in all cases; for example, on OS X, its "file open" dialog is most definitely different from the native one. (I'm not sure about Windows, but I suspect Gerald had a reason to continue to use the native dialog in Wireshark rather than relying on Qt's dialog.)
What do they use it for? (No, "Google Earth" is not the correct answer; that's Qt-based.)
Google Drive, as per the wxWidgets home page, which says "The recently released Google Drive system desktop client uses wxPython."
Yeah but do you see major companies or major players using it? I see a bunch of research labs from major universities, minor products from some corps, and miscellaneous small companies. Is there a major user / well known product?
Google?
What do they use it for? (No, "Google Earth" is not the correct answer; that's Qt-based.)
Sounds like a different implementation that does the same thing as QT.
Not exactly. Both Qt (not QT) and wxWidgets are cross-platform, but wxWidgets uses native widgets wherever possible (as their home page says, "Unlike other cross-platform toolkits, wxWidgets gives its applications a truly native look and feel because it uses the platform's native API rather than emulating the GUI."), whereas Qt primarily uses its own widgets.
The solution is capitalism: The control of resources (i.e., ownership) derived through voluntary interaction (i.e., not coercion).
So, starting with a situation in which "nobody owns the waters or the fish", how do we progress to a situation where they do? Have the fishing community collectively decide to divide up the regions of the water, give each fisherman a region in which they're allowed to fish, provide a mechanism to enforce that rule, and allow people to sell their license to fish in that region? In order to avoid coercion, that would have to be a unanimous decision.
If, as you say, it's good for each individual, then it must—by definition—be good for the group.
Action X, if undertaken by individual A, might be good for individual A, but might not be so good for individuals B, C, and D, who are members of the same group of which A is a member.
"...leads each individual to do what's in their own best interest" means "for each individual a in group G, leads individual a to do what's in the best interest of individual a", not "for each individual a in group G, for each individual b in group G, leads individual a to do what's in the best interest for individual b". Doing the latter might be good for the group, but doing the former is most definitely not "by definition" good for the group.
Paraphrased from within the link, "We have a lot of privacy information, we just don't connect it together." How flattering Apple, you know, this reminds me of (insert country here) that is collecting a ton of (insert commodity here). They don't plan to use it of course. They just like collecting it, and doing nothing interesting with it. No, nothing special all. Isn't that right, Apple?
No, it's not. They do things with it, such as:
etc..
No, this doesn't say that they would never use it for other purposes, but, in the case of the stuff they're talking about, it's pretty much all stuff that they need in order to do something you ask them to do. They're basically saying "yes, some stuff our software and Web sites do require you to supply information, so we're telling that just in case you didn't realize that".
Talking to a coward I realize but the thing is Apple by virtue of the Apple id has much more specific user info than probably anyone but Facebook. They make you login to get free apps and such so it isn't just your purchases it is every interaction in their store, what you chose to download onto your device etc. all tied to a real person.
Whereas Google has, if you have a Google account, a bunch of information about what Web searches you do, for example. Apple does have a bunch of information about your interaction with them; whether they have more such information than, say, Google is another matter.
When you share your content with family and friends using Apple products, send gift certificates and products, or invite others to join you on Apple forums, Apple may collect the information you provide about those people such as name, mailing address, email address, and phone number.
One might reasonably expect that if you're having Apple send an e-mail message to somebody else (such as "here's a URL", "here's a picture", "join me on this forum", etc.), they would need to collect that person's e-mail address at minimum (and a name so that the From: line doesn't look quite so cheesy), and that if they're going to send someone a physical product, they would need to collect that person's name and mailing address at minimum. I don't know about the phone number, unless that might be used if you "send" them a product to be delivered to an Apple store rather than to their home and you specify that they should be sent a text message when the product arrives (which is an option they offer).
When you create an Apple ID, register your products, apply for commercial credit, purchase a product, download a software update, register for a class at an Apple Retail Store, or participate in an online survey, we may collect a variety of information, including your name, mailing address, phone number, email address, contact preferences, and credit card information.
At least when purchasing things, they'd need credit card information if you're purchasing stuff online. Most if not all sites where I've used my credit card want my mailing address (perhaps to make sure that credit card really belongs to the person at 111 Penny Lane, Anytown, USA), my name (perhaps to make sure that the credit card really belongs to Jane Doe), and some want the phone number (perhaps to call me if there's a problem).
So, yes, in some sense, their business, like many other businesses, requires that you provide them with some amount of personal data so that they can send you messages, bill your credit card, etc.. Apple's claim, for what it's worth, appears to be "the personal data is not of value to us for other purposes", e.g. "Safari doesn't keep track of where you go online so that we can send you e-mail about Apple products that our analysis of that data suggests you might like".