No, that's the opposite of what you want to do. I gather that kernel 2.4.18 is the first one that infringes, so just look at what was added in that release.
FS1 is undoubtably better. It consumes less CPU and IO time. Yet noobs would complain about the high CPU usage of FS1. The truth is, CPU usage is higher only because IO is more efficient.
I can think of no corresponding pathological case in which CPU load would be a more appropriate predictor than CPU time.
if you have a mostly idle CPU and your task is more & more waiting for the disk to complete, you don't care about 11 or 30 % if the other 89 or 70 % of the CPU are idle.
Exactly. That's why CPU load doesn't matter.
Comparing CPU cycles needed is NOT a fair benckmark, unless your task is CPU _AND_ IO Bound
No, CPU cycles matters for CPU-bound tasks. I think that's pretty self-evident.
(if it's not io bound, take whatever fs you have, it doesn't matter.)
Wrong. In a compute-bound task, CPU time adds directly to the total execution time of the task, so you should choose the FS with the lower total CPU time.
...you do make any software based on GPL'd software, you have to release it in a near-identical license to the GPL...
...whereas, if you don't agree to the GPL, you can't release it at all. Hence, agreeing to the GPL does not revoke any of your rights; it only grants rights.
The fact that they continue to distribute GPL'ed code containing their own changes means they must have agreed to the GPL according to clause 5. Therefore they must license their own changes at no charge under the GPL according to clause 2b. Therefore the $699 licensing fee is optional.
The only explanation I can find for SCO's lunacy is that they are setting themselves up to lose a court case against the GPL. Isn't this what we always wanted--a "test case" to set a precedent for the GPL?
Darl McBride is a hero, and I think we should all stop...
Damn, I nearly got through that with a straight face.
The GPL is eminently enforceable because it doesn't take away any rights. It only grants rights.
NO.
The GPL gives a net benefit of rights, but to say "it only grants rights" is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Name one right that the GPL revokes from those who have agreed to it. Hint: there aren't any, because the GPL is strictly more liberal than copyright law, which is the fallback for those who do not agree to the GPL's terms.
For easy comparison with your GPL In A Nutshell, here is Copyright Law In A Nutshell:
Point 0: Anyone can download and use this work.
Point 1: You cannot make derivitive works off of this work, aside from "fair use", without express permission from the copyright holder.
Point 2: There is no Point 2. (Please refer to Point 1.)
I can hear my CPU via my fan. When my CPU usage increases, I think it's drawing more power, leaving slightly less power for the fans, and therefore making an audible change in the speed it turns. I'm talking on a time scale of milliseconds. I can hear my CPU load quite distincly.
Sorry, my mistake. I know what a short is, I just didn't clue in that the particular transaction he described was a short. Never heard of a Put Option tho.
See, lacking a put option source, all I see is a scenario that looks like: Sell $5000 in shares... wait 2 years, buy back $500. Profit, 4500. 90% ROI in 2 years isn't shabby...
Check this one out: Sell $5000 in shares. Profit, $5000. That's a 100% ROI considering the shares in this company of clowns are essentially worthless.
Ok, fair enough. I just think there's a common misconception that the GPL forces people to publish the source to their modifications, and that's not true if the mods are not distributed.
Re:What I always wondered
on
OpenGL 1.5
·
· Score: 1
Nope. If the.h file is generated, then it is not source code, according to the definition in the GPL, because it is not the "preferred form of the work for making modifications to it".
Woah, easy there fella. There's a difference between an unsubstantiated assertion and a "sweeping generalization". He could easily say "how about you get off your lazy butt and do the experiment yourself and prove me wrong".
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, that's a pretty good idea.
Your ranking only affects your own search results.
No, that's the opposite of what you want to do. I gather that kernel 2.4.18 is the first one that infringes, so just look at what was added in that release.
Ok, that's true. So it's not totally irrelevant. But I'd certainly consider CPU time first.
Besides, your P3 550 would have a slower disk.
-
FS1: 1sec CPU time, 1sec IO time. CPU usage=50%.
-
FS2: 2sec CPU time, 6sec IO time. CPU usage=25%.
FS1 is undoubtably better. It consumes less CPU and IO time. Yet noobs would complain about the high CPU usage of FS1. The truth is, CPU usage is higher only because IO is more efficient.I can think of no corresponding pathological case in which CPU load would be a more appropriate predictor than CPU time.
Exactly. That's why CPU load doesn't matter. No, CPU cycles matters for CPU-bound tasks. I think that's pretty self-evident. Wrong. In a compute-bound task, CPU time adds directly to the total execution time of the task, so you should choose the FS with the lower total CPU time.I didn't want to get into an argument about that one; I figured I was ok on the other two. :-)
The fact that they continue to distribute GPL'ed code containing their own changes means they must have agreed to the GPL according to clause 5. Therefore they must license their own changes at no charge under the GPL according to clause 2b. Therefore the $699 licensing fee is optional.
The only explanation I can find for SCO's lunacy is that they are setting themselves up to lose a court case against the GPL. Isn't this what we always wanted--a "test case" to set a precedent for the GPL?
Darl McBride is a hero, and I think we should all stop...
Damn, I nearly got through that with a straight face.
For easy comparison with your GPL In A Nutshell, here is Copyright Law In A Nutshell:
Point 0: Anyone can download and use this work.
Point 1: You cannot make derivitive works off of this work, aside from "fair use", without express permission from the copyright holder.
Point 2: There is no Point 2. (Please refer to Point 1.)
I can hear my CPU via my fan. When my CPU usage increases, I think it's drawing more power, leaving slightly less power for the fans, and therefore making an audible change in the speed it turns. I'm talking on a time scale of milliseconds. I can hear my CPU load quite distincly.
Sorry, my mistake. I know what a short is, I just didn't clue in that the particular transaction he described was a short. Never heard of a Put Option tho.
I don't think it works like that. If it did, why wouldn't a company buy one share of Microsoft and then use all its OS and Office products for free?
That was the single best article I have ever read on this topic. If any post ever deserved a "6, Informative", this is is.
That's a great idea.
Worst font ever.
Ok, fair enough. I just think there's a common misconception that the GPL forces people to publish the source to their modifications, and that's not true if the mods are not distributed.
Thanks for the link!
Now stop being all gushy and modest and just take your Karma like a good whore. :-)
Nope. If the .h file is generated, then it is not source code, according to the definition in the GPL, because it is not the "preferred form of the work for making modifications to it".
Woah, easy there fella. There's a difference between an unsubstantiated assertion and a "sweeping generalization". He could easily say "how about you get off your lazy butt and do the experiment yourself and prove me wrong".