When you run as an admin, it works. When you run as a non-admin you get an error (EACCESS) trying to send or receive from the raw socket.
To put it simply, GRC is lying to you for the purposes of selling his own products and you got suckered. The rules for raw sockets are exactly the same as on Win2k and Linux - you gotta be root.
WinNT, Win2k, WinXP. If you persist on using crappy software don't blame me.
as for "or perhaps you missed Bill at COMDEX)..."
You honestly think Win98 betas blowing up is a problem? Duh!! That's what "beta" means. I've never once had Win98 blow up from switching USB connections. Had it blow up for a lot of other reasons, but strangely about the same frequencey as my pre-OSX versions of MacOS.
And it's still a buggy, unreliable OS, that MS kept adding features to instead of worrying about stability.
Agreed. Just like the MacOS line pre-X.
Of course, in the future, MS's products won't even be available in upgrade form. You won't "own" anything, you'll just have to pay them, year after year, day in, day out, simple to use your system. Then pay more to have some applications to use on that OS you don't own.
This is unfounded rhetoric and hype. There's no reason to think Apple would do any different.
BTW, if you're still using the same hardware you installed NT 3.1 on back in 1992, I feel sorry for you. 1993 actually, and yes I am (486/33). It runs Linux happily in the corner and acts as a firewall - still plenty of years of life left in it. You mean to tell me you can't run a modern OS on your 1993 Mac?
Just explain to me why I'd have to be an idiot to want to run Linux instead of MacOS? Do you honestly believe that Linux PPC has so little to offer that you need to be an idiot to run it?
But beyond that, exactly how are they supposed to develop new hardware without having an OS to run on it and verify it's working as planned?
I never once said they shouldn't develop an OS for their hardware. I just said they shouldn't charge you for it if you don't want to use it.
In other words, there is no "tax" since they would still have to expand the MacOS to work on that hardware.
If I don't want their OS then why should I pay for it do be developed?
If you don't want to use the MacOS, goody for you, but they still need to make it work on that hardware so they can verify the hardware _really_ works.
Actually, you don't need a full OS to do this. Why should I be paying for development of DVD editing software when I want to use the machine for Linux PPC. Basically it is just Apple charging me for something I'm not using - exactly the same as the "Microsoft tax".
Or are you like one of those idiot-child engineers I work with, who sits around designing hardware and then is amazed that, once their nice, efficient, perfect design is actually USED that it doesn't work?
No. I'm someone who thinks that you shouldn't have to pay for something you don't want. If I don't want Windows I don't pay for it. Why should I pay for MacOS if *I* don't want it?
By your own arguments, Microsoft has the right to charge everyone for Windows because how else can they test their PCs really work?
Same reason you are repeating rumors. I've obviously just heard a different set of rumours. What gives you more rights than me to repeat rumors?
FUD is a powerful weapon. So glad to see you wield it with such gusto.
Oh come off it. How was the rumors about Apple making OS 10.1 available damaging to Apple? I wasn't even using it as a negative point. Perhaps if you weren't so paranoid about someone possibly criticizing you then we could have a rational debate?
Now run off kid, go harass Mister Wilson for a change.
Oooohhhh. Run out of arguments so your just gonna call me names. That's a good way to win arguments. Come back with some facts next time why don't you?
I wasn't referring to bugfix upgrades. I was referring to the simple fact you can buy the OS off the shelf for about $100.
Also, from what I've heard 10.1 will not be available for download but will be about $20 from an Apple Dealer. It's all speculation and unfounded rumor though.
Can you run Xwindows rootless on WindowsME? Yes. What's your point?
I should have been more clear - I was referring to major version upgrades being charged for. The original post said there was no value on the OS software and therefore there was no "Apple Tax". This is fairly clearly incorrect as you can see the price of the software (£70 - £100) which could be saved from the price of a new Mac if you only wanted to run Linux.
Ok, I should have been more clear in my post. Apple charge you for major version upgrades and charge you to buy the system outright (if you have nothing to upgrade from). That means the previous poster's assertion that the software has no value is simply false. There is an Apple Tax and unless I can buy a Mac without MacOS there will continue to be one.
As for the posters who got their knickers in a knot because you get minor version upgrades for free, so what? That's no different to Microsoft or any other major software vendor - bugfix upgrades are free anywhere.
Since 1994 I've had NT3.51 sp 0,1,2,3,4,5,6; NT4.0 sp 0,1,2,3,4,5,6; Win2k sp0,1,2; WinXP. That's about the same as Apple's upgrade path and has had the same number (or possibly one less) of "paid" upgrades as well.
You couldn't save any money by not having Mac OS bundled, because Apple doesn't have to pay a licensing fee to anybody for including Mac OS; thus no cost is being passed on to you.
If that's true, then why don't they offer OS upgrades for free as well (in fact, why can't I just download it)? In that case, the software would truly be zero cost and your argument would make sense.
The fact of the matter is you can't buy an Apple machine without MacOS even if you want to only run Linux on the box. MacOS has a value (go to Apple's web store and you'll see it), so you are paying money for a product you may not want.
This isn't about Apple's cost structure, it's about paying for software you don't want and won't use.
Don't be so freaking stupid. Sites get paid for the number of hits on the advert. If you use junkbuster then the ad never gets hit and the site doesn't get paid.
This has nothing to do with actually READING the ad, so strawman somewhere else, please.
Wow - someone responding to the actual post and not the troll.
That's exactly what I'm afraid of - a "cold war" between the browser developers and the web advertisers. Slowly web ads will become so complex that getting any content will mean clicking on all sorts of advertisers, or running spyware plugins.
Like I said - it's not a bad thing that they've done this, just I can see the stakes being raised and things just getting ugly.
I want to see what I want to see and don't want to see what i don't want to see
My point exactly (even though it was a troll). In both cases the addition and deletion of content is user controlled, explicitly installed and optional. The only difference is turning off ads will deprive the web site of revenue from your hit, and the webmaster doesn't have the option to force you to view them (he has the option of turning smart tags off). If you don't mind ripping people off for their hard work then junkbusters and popup removers are certainly useful.
Now, in the inevitable war between the annoying ad companies and the poor downtrodden browser users we'll get no more popups, but click-thrus or something even more insidious instead.
I can't wait for "This site cannot be viewed without the EvilPopupsAndPersonalInfoCollector plugin installed".
Don't get me wrong, this is a good interim effort but web advertising is going to continue.
<obtroll>
I also find it interesting that the/. crowd decries the use of Smart Tags (because they change content) but is more than happy to change content they DON'T like (popups and banner ads). Do I smell a note of hypocrisy here?
</obtroll>
Re:Yes, you are not 100% correct.
on
MenuetOS Debuts
·
· Score: 2
Umm... learn to read before you flame.
I never said *I* had a couple of years experience, I said that the original poster should wait for a couple of years experience outside school (which makes it more than a degree).
Now if you'll take your head out of your butt, you may be actually able to write some sense instead of spouting unfounded derision.
Writing an OS in assembly is kinda "cool", but completely useless. In fact, why didn't he forget assembly and code it all in hex - that would be more than "cool". Personally I write code to get the job done as best I can for the client and writing in pure assembly is almost never the correct answer - especially not for an OS.
...and no, they don't call me Einstein. They use my real name. I'm sure they call you things too, but they aren't really worth repeating.:-P
Re:Yes, you are not 100% correct.
on
MenuetOS Debuts
·
· Score: 2
What is this mythical compiler of which you speak? Both MSVC7 and Intel's VTune are both very good compilers for x86. gcc has and probably will always be a dog. Sun, HP and IBM all make optimising compilers for their architectures as well.
The only dogma I see is the myth that humans coding in assembly are automatically going to know everything about the chips pipelines and register reservations.
As for "hundreds of dollars", don't make me laugh. Show me one software company that can't afford a few hundred dollars on a compiler that they could save on the chairs.
Re:You are not 100% correct either.
on
MenuetOS Debuts
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
If you have a high degree of control, it does not necessarily mean you will make proportionately more errors if you know what you are doing.
Knowing what you are doing is actually most of the problem with assembly coding. Remembering where on the stack you threw things, figuring out calling conventions, string handling, collection classes and other icky stuff that if you have a decent C++ compiler with a nice STL library you are going to be far more efficient. I admit there are plenty of times I drop down from C++ into assembly for debugging of a program, but very rarely to actually write code (why isn't there a 'bitwise rotate' operation in C?).
To be honest, I find it easier to debug an ASM program. How complex a program are we talking here? I'm used to working on projects that are in excess of 100,000 lines of C++ code. That easily translates to well over a million lines of assembly and probably closer to ten million once template expansion has taken place. I defy anyone to take a non-trivial program and say that the ASM code is easier to debug than the C code - of course using an IDE which allows you to view variables, stack traces, commented assembly and edit and resume the program on the fly helps a lot.
You write the code, you know what precisely what is going on. I debate that of any programmer - especially in assembly. The limited syntax and complete lack of any high level data structures make it a nightmare in the end.
C compilers can (depending on the programmer) generate some really impressive, logical, clean code - but not usually something that can compete with an ASM programmer. Ah, but the point is that fast assembly code is neither logical nor clean. You deliberately move loads up the instruction stack, precompute results that you may not use for many cycles, drop stores in (for zeroing memory) now and again when you have a pipe free and do it all differently depending on your target architecture (P5, P6, K7, P4 etc.) If you have a chance, look at the output of Intel's VTune compiler at some stange with all the optimizations turned on - you'll find the assembly unintelligible but faster than you thought possible.
Just curious - are you talking strictly x86 here or do you believe that this is valid across all CPU architectures? Have you any real plans to try to write faster code than a compiler can on IA64 - if so, I'd be interested on hearing your strategies.
Yes, you are not 100% correct.
on
MenuetOS Debuts
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Actually, if you had a couple of years of experience (ie non-university) CompSci or EE under your belt then you'd realize just how correct the original poster is.
Saying that it simply won't work and therefore is easier to debug is foolish on a grand scale. If anything, writing in assembly code gives you FAR more failure modes because you don't have a compiler which is running at least some sanity checks on your code. If anything, you'll find that it is higher level languages that "won't work" and assembly code that will do something obscurely weird when you trash the wrong memory address.
If there is anyone humiliated, it should be the previous poster who obviously has no idea about the complexity added in writing something directly in assembly rather than a higher level language. All you end up doing is trading portability for increased development time. There is even no guarantee that the code will run faster - C compilers are pretty good these days and can do magical things with intrinsic functions with superscalar scheduling.
To sum it up, YES!! You are not 100% correct. You are actually 100% incorrect.
Yep - that's exactly what I'm saying. If you define a standard unit of energy (pick a photon - any photon) then you implicitly end up with a standard definition of mass.
The biggest shock to me was the Berlin team decided to use CORBA. Despite several instances in the FAQ of people gasping in astonishment and wanting to know what possessed them to use this heavyweight logic in a display layer, they gloss over any performance issues and seem to shrug off any suggestions of overhead (by either saying the function calls themselves are "almost" native without mentioning the setup times, or comparing to other CORBA based systems). I'd be interested to see some comparisons in display speed between this and XF86 4.0 or Windows just to get an idea of their true overhead.
If I recall correctly the KDE team were originally intending to use CORBA for all their communications but quickly dropped back to their own KOM (based on Microsoft's COM) for their local communication to improve speed and memory usage of the system. Surely Berlin has come up against at least some of the problems the KDE team did and I wonder what their defense for sticking out with CORBA is?
Secondly, the idea of running EVERYTHING through OpenGL is particularly bothering. Most video hardware has some very specific optimisations for 2D work and by going through a specific 3D interface you are tossing all those performance advantages out the window. Sure, ok they want to create the ability to play with Windows in 3D - my question would have to be "Why".
Most people have a hard enough time keeping a 2D desktop organised that they'd hardly want things at arbitrary 3D angles!! Wouldn't a far better way to go be to leave at least the current window square with the screen (and possibly tap into the 2D performance of your hardware) and at least have some methodical way to place other windows in 3D (if you must), while having severe restrictions on their ability to update...
While very cute and all, I just don't see this becoming a successor to X, Windows or Mac user interfaces.
Following up on this, given that we know the relationship between mass and energy (E = mc^2) for rest mass, doesn't the problem for a definition of mass become a problem for the definition of energy (given that the value 'c' is fixed)?
So, define the energy of a photon from the above caesium clock and you've then defined the kilogram.
So emulation slows down applications? Do applications compiled for Linux x86 even run on the IA64 version of Linux? Personally I though the whole backward compatibility thing was a good idea (within reason).
But saying an Onyx3800 is faster than a P4 isn't exactly the same as saying that we shouldn't be buying x86 machines because a Sun Blade 100 is $995.
Personally I can't understand why ANYONE would want a Sun Blade 100. It's underpowered, overpriced, old technology and doesn't really fill any market you'd need a Sun Workstation in. The original poster's comment that SPARC (in this case an UltraSPARC IIe) kicks anything in the x86 world was just false any way you looked at the number.
An Onyx3800 on the other hand has some very good reasons that people would want to buy it. Shame it's a little more expensive than $995.
To summarize, I think you'll find the x86 has the "biggest dick" (at least as a result of these comparisons), but it's pretty goddam ugly and no woman who wasn't paid would go near it.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's some code for you to run:
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
SOCKET s;
WSADATA wsadata;
WSAStartup(MAKEWORD(2,2), &wsadata);
s = WSASocket(AF_INET, SOCK_RAW, IPPROTO_IP, NULL, 0, 0);
printf("%d\n", s);
SOCKADDR from;
int fromlen = sizeof(from);
struct sockaddr_in to;
ZeroMemory(&from, sizeof(from));
ZeroMemory(&to, sizeof(from));
char buf[4096];
to.sin_family = AF_INET;
to.sin_addr.S_un.S_addr = 0x0100007F;
to.sin_port = 0;
int sb = sendto(s, buf, 0, 0, (SOCKADDR *)&to, sizeof(to));
DWORD sbe = GetLastError();
int cb = recvfrom(s, buf, sizeof(buf), 0, &from, &fromlen);
DWORD cbe = GetLastError();
printf("%d, %d\n", sb, cb);
printf("%d, %d\n", sbe, cbe);
closesocket(s);
scanf("\n");
}
When you run as an admin, it works. When you run as a non-admin you get an error (EACCESS) trying to send or receive from the raw socket.
To put it simply, GRC is lying to you for the purposes of selling his own products and you got suckered. The rules for raw sockets are exactly the same as on Win2k and Linux - you gotta be root.
Tell me what bug fixes were available for Win9x?
WinNT, Win2k, WinXP. If you persist on using crappy software don't blame me.
as for "or perhaps you missed Bill at COMDEX)..."
You honestly think Win98 betas blowing up is a problem? Duh!! That's what "beta" means. I've never once had Win98 blow up from switching USB connections. Had it blow up for a lot of other reasons, but strangely about the same frequencey as my pre-OSX versions of MacOS.
And it's still a buggy, unreliable OS, that MS kept adding features to instead of worrying about stability.
Agreed. Just like the MacOS line pre-X.
Of course, in the future, MS's products won't even be available in upgrade form. You won't "own" anything, you'll just have to pay them, year after year, day in, day out, simple to use your system. Then pay more to have some applications to use on that OS you don't own.
This is unfounded rhetoric and hype. There's no reason to think Apple would do any different.
BTW, if you're still using the same hardware you installed NT 3.1 on back in 1992, I feel sorry for you.
1993 actually, and yes I am (486/33). It runs Linux happily in the corner and acts as a firewall - still plenty of years of life left in it. You mean to tell me you can't run a modern OS on your 1993 Mac?
Which only an idiot would do.
Just explain to me why I'd have to be an idiot to want to run Linux instead of MacOS? Do you honestly believe that Linux PPC has so little to offer that you need to be an idiot to run it?
But beyond that, exactly how are they supposed to develop new hardware without having an OS to run on it and verify it's working as planned?
I never once said they shouldn't develop an OS for their hardware. I just said they shouldn't charge you for it if you don't want to use it.
In other words, there is no "tax" since they would still have to expand the MacOS to work on that hardware.
If I don't want their OS then why should I pay for it do be developed?
If you don't want to use the MacOS, goody for you, but they still need to make it work on that hardware so they can verify the hardware _really_ works.
Actually, you don't need a full OS to do this. Why should I be paying for development of DVD editing software when I want to use the machine for Linux PPC. Basically it is just Apple charging me for something I'm not using - exactly the same as the "Microsoft tax".
Or are you like one of those idiot-child engineers I work with, who sits around designing hardware and then is amazed that, once their nice, efficient, perfect design is actually USED that it doesn't work?
No. I'm someone who thinks that you shouldn't have to pay for something you don't want. If I don't want Windows I don't pay for it. Why should I pay for MacOS if *I* don't want it?
By your own arguments, Microsoft has the right to charge everyone for Windows because how else can they test their PCs really work?
And you're repeating the rumors... why?
Same reason you are repeating rumors. I've obviously just heard a different set of rumours. What gives you more rights than me to repeat rumors?
FUD is a powerful weapon. So glad to see you wield it with such gusto.
Oh come off it. How was the rumors about Apple making OS 10.1 available damaging to Apple? I wasn't even using it as a negative point. Perhaps if you weren't so paranoid about someone possibly criticizing you then we could have a rational debate?
Now run off kid, go harass Mister Wilson for a change.
Oooohhhh. Run out of arguments so your just gonna call me names. That's a good way to win arguments. Come back with some facts next time why don't you?
I wasn't referring to bugfix upgrades. I was referring to the simple fact you can buy the OS off the shelf for about $100.
Also, from what I've heard 10.1 will not be available for download but will be about $20 from an Apple Dealer. It's all speculation and unfounded rumor though.
Can you run Xwindows rootless on WindowsME?
Yes. What's your point?
I should have been more clear - I was referring to major version upgrades being charged for. The original post said there was no value on the OS software and therefore there was no "Apple Tax". This is fairly clearly incorrect as you can see the price of the software (£70 - £100) which could be saved from the price of a new Mac if you only wanted to run Linux.
Ok, I should have been more clear in my post. Apple charge you for major version upgrades and charge you to buy the system outright (if you have nothing to upgrade from). That means the previous poster's assertion that the software has no value is simply false. There is an Apple Tax and unless I can buy a Mac without MacOS there will continue to be one.
As for the posters who got their knickers in a knot because you get minor version upgrades for free, so what? That's no different to Microsoft or any other major software vendor - bugfix upgrades are free anywhere.
Since 1994 I've had NT3.51 sp 0,1,2,3,4,5,6; NT4.0 sp 0,1,2,3,4,5,6; Win2k sp0,1,2; WinXP. That's about the same as Apple's upgrade path and has had the same number (or possibly one less) of "paid" upgrades as well.
You couldn't save any money by not having Mac OS bundled, because Apple doesn't have to pay a licensing fee to anybody for including Mac OS; thus no cost is being passed on to you.
If that's true, then why don't they offer OS upgrades for free as well (in fact, why can't I just download it)? In that case, the software would truly be zero cost and your argument would make sense.
The fact of the matter is you can't buy an Apple machine without MacOS even if you want to only run Linux on the box. MacOS has a value (go to Apple's web store and you'll see it), so you are paying money for a product you may not want.
This isn't about Apple's cost structure, it's about paying for software you don't want and won't use.
Don't be so freaking stupid. Sites get paid for the number of hits on the advert. If you use junkbuster then the ad never gets hit and the site doesn't get paid.
This has nothing to do with actually READING the ad, so strawman somewhere else, please.
Wow - someone responding to the actual post and not the troll.
That's exactly what I'm afraid of - a "cold war" between the browser developers and the web advertisers. Slowly web ads will become so complex that getting any content will mean clicking on all sorts of advertisers, or running spyware plugins.
Like I said - it's not a bad thing that they've done this, just I can see the stakes being raised and things just getting ugly.
I want to see what I want to see and don't want to see what i don't want to see
My point exactly (even though it was a troll). In both cases the addition and deletion of content is user controlled, explicitly installed and optional. The only difference is turning off ads will deprive the web site of revenue from your hit, and the webmaster doesn't have the option to force you to view them (he has the option of turning smart tags off). If you don't mind ripping people off for their hard work then junkbusters and popup removers are certainly useful.
Now, in the inevitable war between the annoying ad companies and the poor downtrodden browser users we'll get no more popups, but click-thrus or something even more insidious instead.
/. crowd decries the use of Smart Tags (because they change content) but is more than happy to change content they DON'T like (popups and banner ads). Do I smell a note of hypocrisy here?
I can't wait for "This site cannot be viewed without the EvilPopupsAndPersonalInfoCollector plugin installed".
Don't get me wrong, this is a good interim effort but web advertising is going to continue.
<obtroll>
I also find it interesting that the
</obtroll>
Umm... learn to read before you flame.
:-P
I never said *I* had a couple of years experience, I said that the original poster should wait for a couple of years experience outside school (which makes it more than a degree).
Now if you'll take your head out of your butt, you may be actually able to write some sense instead of spouting unfounded derision.
Writing an OS in assembly is kinda "cool", but completely useless. In fact, why didn't he forget assembly and code it all in hex - that would be more than "cool". Personally I write code to get the job done as best I can for the client and writing in pure assembly is almost never the correct answer - especially not for an OS.
...and no, they don't call me Einstein. They use my real name. I'm sure they call you things too, but they aren't really worth repeating.
What is this mythical compiler of which you speak?
Both MSVC7 and Intel's VTune are both very good compilers for x86. gcc has and probably will always be a dog. Sun, HP and IBM all make optimising compilers for their architectures as well.
The only dogma I see is the myth that humans coding in assembly are automatically going to know everything about the chips pipelines and register reservations.
As for "hundreds of dollars", don't make me laugh. Show me one software company that can't afford a few hundred dollars on a compiler that they could save on the chairs.
If you have a high degree of control, it does not necessarily mean you will make proportionately more errors if you know what you are doing.
Knowing what you are doing is actually most of the problem with assembly coding. Remembering where on the stack you threw things, figuring out calling conventions, string handling, collection classes and other icky stuff that if you have a decent C++ compiler with a nice STL library you are going to be far more efficient. I admit there are plenty of times I drop down from C++ into assembly for debugging of a program, but very rarely to actually write code (why isn't there a 'bitwise rotate' operation in C?).
To be honest, I find it easier to debug an ASM program.
How complex a program are we talking here? I'm used to working on projects that are in excess of 100,000 lines of C++ code. That easily translates to well over a million lines of assembly and probably closer to ten million once template expansion has taken place. I defy anyone to take a non-trivial program and say that the ASM code is easier to debug than the C code - of course using an IDE which allows you to view variables, stack traces, commented assembly and edit and resume the program on the fly helps a lot.
You write the code, you know what precisely what is going on.
I debate that of any programmer - especially in assembly. The limited syntax and complete lack of any high level data structures make it a nightmare in the end.
C compilers can (depending on the programmer) generate some really impressive, logical, clean code - but not usually something that can compete with an ASM programmer.
Ah, but the point is that fast assembly code is neither logical nor clean. You deliberately move loads up the instruction stack, precompute results that you may not use for many cycles, drop stores in (for zeroing memory) now and again when you have a pipe free and do it all differently depending on your target architecture (P5, P6, K7, P4 etc.) If you have a chance, look at the output of Intel's VTune compiler at some stange with all the optimizations turned on - you'll find the assembly unintelligible but faster than you thought possible.
Just curious - are you talking strictly x86 here or do you believe that this is valid across all CPU architectures? Have you any real plans to try to write faster code than a compiler can on IA64 - if so, I'd be interested on hearing your strategies.
Actually, if you had a couple of years of experience (ie non-university) CompSci or EE under your belt then you'd realize just how correct the original poster is.
Saying that it simply won't work and therefore is easier to debug is foolish on a grand scale. If anything, writing in assembly code gives you FAR more failure modes because you don't have a compiler which is running at least some sanity checks on your code. If anything, you'll find that it is higher level languages that "won't work" and assembly code that will do something obscurely weird when you trash the wrong memory address.
If there is anyone humiliated, it should be the previous poster who obviously has no idea about the complexity added in writing something directly in assembly rather than a higher level language. All you end up doing is trading portability for increased development time. There is even no guarantee that the code will run faster - C compilers are pretty good these days and can do magical things with intrinsic functions with superscalar scheduling.
To sum it up, YES!! You are not 100% correct. You are actually 100% incorrect.
Wasn't Digital a hardware company primarily (like Sun, HP and Apple)?
Yep - that's exactly what I'm saying. If you define a standard unit of energy (pick a photon - any photon) then you implicitly end up with a standard definition of mass.
...for those microbes!!! They are going to be RICH!
The biggest shock to me was the Berlin team decided to use CORBA. Despite several instances in the FAQ of people gasping in astonishment and wanting to know what possessed them to use this heavyweight logic in a display layer, they gloss over any performance issues and seem to shrug off any suggestions of overhead (by either saying the function calls themselves are "almost" native without mentioning the setup times, or comparing to other CORBA based systems). I'd be interested to see some comparisons in display speed between this and XF86 4.0 or Windows just to get an idea of their true overhead.
If I recall correctly the KDE team were originally intending to use CORBA for all their communications but quickly dropped back to their own KOM (based on Microsoft's COM) for their local communication to improve speed and memory usage of the system. Surely Berlin has come up against at least some of the problems the KDE team did and I wonder what their defense for sticking out with CORBA is?
Secondly, the idea of running EVERYTHING through OpenGL is particularly bothering. Most video hardware has some very specific optimisations for 2D work and by going through a specific 3D interface you are tossing all those performance advantages out the window. Sure, ok they want to create the ability to play with Windows in 3D - my question would have to be "Why".
Most people have a hard enough time keeping a 2D desktop organised that they'd hardly want things at arbitrary 3D angles!! Wouldn't a far better way to go be to leave at least the current window square with the screen (and possibly tap into the 2D performance of your hardware) and at least have some methodical way to place other windows in 3D (if you must), while having severe restrictions on their ability to update...
While very cute and all, I just don't see this becoming a successor to X, Windows or Mac user interfaces.
Following up on this, given that we know the relationship between mass and energy (E = mc^2) for rest mass, doesn't the problem for a definition of mass become a problem for the definition of energy (given that the value 'c' is fixed)?
So, define the energy of a photon from the above caesium clock and you've then defined the kilogram.
...or am I missing something?
So emulation slows down applications? Do applications compiled for Linux x86 even run on the IA64 version of Linux? Personally I though the whole backward compatibility thing was a good idea (within reason).
Go to Amazon - it's $16.80 there as opposed to $19.20 at Fatbrain.
Hell yeah.
But saying an Onyx3800 is faster than a P4 isn't exactly the same as saying that we shouldn't be buying x86 machines because a Sun Blade 100 is $995.
Personally I can't understand why ANYONE would want a Sun Blade 100. It's underpowered, overpriced, old technology and doesn't really fill any market you'd need a Sun Workstation in. The original poster's comment that SPARC (in this case an UltraSPARC IIe) kicks anything in the x86 world was just false any way you looked at the number.
An Onyx3800 on the other hand has some very good reasons that people would want to buy it. Shame it's a little more expensive than $995.
To summarize, I think you'll find the x86 has the "biggest dick" (at least as a result of these comparisons), but it's pretty goddam ugly and no woman who wasn't paid would go near it.