Yes, but Linux has no commercial company that will cancel the projcet.
That is the key to understanding how Wine can work with Linux in a cooperative manner. Linux users can use Windows programs under a stable, free operating system. If it works out, then why would anybody buy Windows any more? Linux would be able to run all off-the-shelf software, albiet written to Win32. Take that situation and fast forward it 5 or 10 years and what do we have? Linux applications being written for Linux. Look at the 68k software for MacOS when the PowerMac came out. By your arguments, nobody would have written PowerMac software because 68k software worked "just fine" on all the machines; the same thing is happening right now with Cocoa and Carbonized applications. The truth is, development happens on the most predominate platform -- having Wine helps Linux garner more platforms, and the logical result is that free UNIX wins in the end (Wine runs on more than just Linux).
OS/2 is a red herring in this argument; back then there were 2 competing standards tyring to woo DOS users. People had to pay more for OS/2 with Windows 3.11; when they could buy the "real thing" from Microsoft for less. Now, in the current situatio which one costs less?
The margin of thrown out ballots in the USA for the presidential eleciton in the year 2000 was about 2.5 million.
This means that 2.5 million ballots didn't "count" (using Vice President Gore's terminology).
Do we really want to hand recount 2.5 million ballots without any sort of uniform standard at all? Before election day, nobody knows what the margin of victory is and can vote their concience. There is a bit of fraud (dead people voting, zealots voting for their family, bribing with cigarettes, etc.) that cannot be fully eliminated, but it probably evens out over all political sides.
The electoral college buys us the "Florida Recount" situation, in which we only need to worry about a few, specific, locations. If this were a popular vote, this problem woult be about 50 times worse because we'd have these cases in all states, and in all obscure counties. Was Pricislla Prinsley disenfranchised in Pensylvania? Was Indy Irvine disenfranchies in Idaho? Let's find out. We'd see Bush and Gore on television every night proclaiming that they need to ask for a recount in two dozen more counties and that they are contesting the certified recounts in half a score of others.
It would be insanity.
The electoral college is a fair compromise. It gives smaller states a little more power than they otherwise would have (and perhaps deserve), but at the same time it limits the scope of contests, as a sort of damage control. It is a firewall, if you will, for federal elections; it's not perfect, but it's much better than a popular vote in a relatively close election. As a side note: elections are always close.
Now, if we could get funding to create an electronic voting system with touch screens that print out paper ballots; we could probably get rid of all the ambiguity in the system and satisfy everyone. Those that don't trust technology could still have their paper ballots, while those that need huge type and pictures could have them. If you throw in enforced voter registration, we would never have undercounts, and this whole problem could go away.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Re:Okay so it's fun, but isn't it rather old?
on
Linux Sin Demo
·
· Score: 2
What I'm waiting for is the moment Linux binaries will be shipped with the official version of games at the same release date.
The only problem witth the "all or nothing" mentality is that it will always be "nothing" unless smaller steps are successful. Most game developers aren't going to support the latest versions of their games without some incentive. They are for-profit companies. You have two basic choices:
Buy the games that come out for Linux
Forget about commercial support at all
If you don't subscribe to #1, then your choice is #2, which may be just fine (I don't imagine RMS is losing any sleep over this). But please stop whinning about the current situation -- either buckle in and do something to support these Linux game companies (Hyperion could use all the support they can get; they are a very small group) or just forget about it.
I was/am a beta tester for SiN and Shogo under Linux. Personally, I found Shogo to be more enjoyable (or at least, more my kind of game. Anyway, you can download the Linux version of Shogo: Mobile Armor Division here:
I know that this may be off topic, but Sourceforge is one of the s l o w e s t sites on the internet. I wouldn't mind so much, if they hadn't co-opted so many open source projects. The other day I was trying to download Galeon and the FTP download kept timing out. An Australian mirror site handed out the goods in less than 10 seconds (we have very fast internet connections here). I doubt this is a side effect of using MySQL's table locking, but I suppose it could be; regardless it is frustrating to see more and more projects moved to an already incapable system.
Their HTTP serving seems to be a quick as can be, it's only while attempting to access download.sourceforge.net that it becomes unusable.
Futurama is everything the Simpsons used to be and MORE! A geek haven with sublte jokes that your sister "doesn't get". It's great. I love it. Besides, who can beat the _hilarious_ MP3s you can get off Napster featuring Fry, Bender, Leela and the gang. I love it!
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Re:Well, I've been using the nightlies for ���
on
Send Some Mo' Zilla
·
· Score: 1
While I would prefer Mozilla to adopt my GTK+ theme
When I first heard of of Mozilla I was under the impression that it was trying to fix all of NS's mistakes (a big one being bloat) and to be open source. It seems to have missed the first goal by a large margin
I've been running last night's build all day (and, of course, it isn't "integrated" into my system; I can swap it out for any other browser I want to) without a single problem. Everything works just great (I haven't used the e-mail or composition stuff; just browsing). My system is a Celron 400A with 128MB of RAM. Mozilla is quick and responsive. It uses about 10MB of RAM while running and about as much shared (it is a GTK app, complete with GTK themes; so my Mozilla looks like Aqua now).
I don't understand your complaints. Perhaps the Windows version is worse, but I doubt it. Internet Explorer is a cool product, but not one that I'd point to as any epitome of good design. You can crash your Windows system by highlighting a bunch of pictures (on my system it takes about 30), right-click on them and then click 'open'; as long as IE is your default picture viewer, which it does by default upon installation. IE doesn't tell you what it's doing on the status line, so you have no idea if it is hanging on a DNS query or simply loading from a slow site. IE has ugly buttons, which cannot be themed (apart from the lame Windows color "themes"). IE takes control of all "multimedia" mime-types every time you install it. IE's channel bar doesn't do one-tenth of what the new sidebar does under Netscape (try using the Google integration, it's very cool). IE hangs EXPLORE.EXE under Windows; so if it crashes it takes the entire desktop environment down with it (Start Menu and all); Mozilla does no such thing. IE waits too long to display pages; Mozilla will draw any page as soon as it can -- the picture sizes be damned. IE has special extensions developed by Microsoft for internet exploring; Mozilla is (ahem, *will* be) fully compliant. IE's ultimate goal is to get you to rent your software over Microsoft.NET -- Mozilla just wants to do what YOU want it to do.
I don't see any speed problems on my system. I haven't crashed it at all today (which is more than I can say for IE, half the time I use it). I don't understand your complaints.
This sounds very similar to the FreeBSD jail() capability which is a very nice feature. Sounds good that linux may be getting a similar capability.
You may be able to use them for the same purpose, but they really are different beasts. BSD's jail() doesn't require/use a second kernel -- so it's usless for playing with alternate or development kernels. Userland Linux, on the other hand, will be slower but will allow you to play with different kernels. I imagine that kernel developers will use the userland Linux more than your average BSD jail() user does, because BSD people use it for security reasons instead.
I'm curious about the SMP capabilities of this thing; can you emulate multiple processors to debug re-entrant code?
Anyway, journaling filesystems are not magic -- they can lose data. Read that again: they can lose data, just like any filesystem. They just recover much faster because
they guarantee the integrity of the metadata.
Actually, a fully-journaled filesystem will journal the actual data as well as the meta-data (JFS can do this, for example). NTFS has muddled the current terms used to describe "journaling filesystems" a bit; at least according to the dinosaur book a "journaled filesystem" should journal all data, and not just meta-data. A journaling filesystem that only does one (or the other, I suppose) is partially journaling.
I believe that your claim of Reiserfs being only part of the picture is the cause of it not being in 2.4. My read on the situation is that Linus (or Viro, if you will) isn't upset with the featureset of the filesystem but with it's interface with VM. If IBM's offering uses the same techniques that reiserfs does, then we should be angry that it is "being considered" while reiserfs was told to wait until 2.4.x to enter as an experimental. However, if JFS plays well with the VM system then that would explain the disparity between allowing one and not the other.
Linux uses a monolithic kernel, that is a fact. Sure, Linux has LKMs, but those were only a hack because the kernel was growing too big...
... and QNX has to have a filesystem + a disk subsystem compiled in otherwise it will be unable to load additional servers. Let's be fair.
Sure, you can switch *some* hardware without recompiling, but only that which is already a module...
And QNX modules don't need to be compiled? News to me...
I think I'll go back to work now, on my Linux box running GNOME with the micoGUI Photon-esque theme installed. I'm sure QNX is great and all, but
It's about 5 years too late for the free UNIX
market.
It works like a dream with proper hardware under Linux.
Translation: It's dog-slow unless you have 192 MB of RAM and at least a 400Mhz processor.
I've tried using it on a 32MB P5/200 and it literally took 3 minutes to fire up the IDE (this is before doing any work at all). It refused to install with JDK newer than 1.2, and under the latest libc releases (although this is half Sun's fault -- their xfs recognition is *really* bad in jdk 1.3.
On a good note, Borland's support personnel in thier newsgroups are VERY VERY helpful; JBuilder is actually a good product (although, I like Simplicity better).
The.DOC phenomenon is just recent at microsoft.com. I suppose that some manager decided that if they distributed Word documents on the web, everyone else would follow suit. It's a pain for me to read Windows technical documents under Linux, so I just don't anymore. I used to be interested in new technologies, but I'm not going to change operating systems just so I can read about them at microsoft.com. I'm calling their bluff; I'm not going to use Windows -- I'm not going to "browser" word documents.
GNU emacs can do all of these things to (including harboring document virii). What's the diff?
That's not true. Emacs does not execute arbitrary lisp code embedde in a document. It certainly doesn't follow hyperlinks and set up cookies transparently. You have to explicitly do all of these things.
Now we just need to send them a letter detailing their culpability and demand that they remove the link. Seriously! Perhaps if they see the insanity of these actions they will reconsider (yeah, riiiiight...).
So, when someone asks you for an HTML server would you give them a database as well? I mean, after all, it's just data that needs to be stored -- don't worry about all those small implemenation details (like importing MERC records and communicating with neighboring libraries for book checkouts and such). I'm sure it could be built on top of a database, but a databse is worthless by itself.
Hmmm, Nintendo has always been the perpetrator of bit-ness = greatness:
SNES: "Nintendo's revolutionary 16-bit console"
N64: "Why get a 32-bit console (ie, Saturn and PSX) when you can get a SIXTY-FOUR bit one (Ultra, er I mean Nintendo 64)?
And now they want us to buy a slow, crappy 32-bit machine? At least the PS2 has a 128 bit chip in it (no doubt just so they could fight Nintendo FUD when they started throwing it around).
At least we don't have to deal with cartridges again.:) (this is a parody on Nintendo's past marketing campaigns, for the humor impaired)
We all know that RISC processors (i.e. Alpha) are faster and better than CISC processors (i.e. x86)
Not true, not true. The x86 processor family provides the highest SpecINT rating and has for some time now. We can argue about benchmarks all day, but Spec is the industry standard.
I noticed you left out SpecFP... (could it be because the IA32 is absolutely *horrible* at FP operations; not to mention it's low performance most other units that are common in the CPU nowadays) Adding 144 new instructions to the CPU isn't going to help them in the long run either (see: MMX, KNI, 3d-Now!, etc). Anyone and their dog can make a fast integer unit; most operations inside them run at a single clock, and it is the most well-understood unit (arguably) in the history of CPUs; it's just Intel's brute force that keeps the IA32 performing so well.
"... Code causes computers to perform desired functions. Its expressive element no more immunizes its functional aspects from regulation than the expressive motives of an assassin immunize the assassin's action.
In an era in which the transmission of computer viruses -- which, like DeCSS, are simply computer code and thus to some degree expressive--can disable systems upon which the nation depends and in which other computer code also is capable of inflicting other harm, society must be able to regulate the use and dissemination of code in appropriate circumstances. The Constition, after all, is a framework for building a just and democratic society. It is not a suicide pact."
What the hell is he talking about here? With this rationale one can make any first ammendment violation go away. It's a fatalistic approach to the problem: "Well, an assasin cannot kill the president as a form of expression, so therefore we can limit whatever we want to limit." I can't believe he is using this as justification for his finding!
It's fine that he found for the plantiffs, but please give us some real reasons why instead of liking a small group of people interested in viewing licensed DVD discs on their DVD drives to cold-war presidential assasination freaks. Could this judge be more biased?
Slashdot Mirror
That is the key to understanding how Wine can work with Linux in a cooperative manner. Linux users can use Windows programs under a stable, free operating system. If it works out, then why would anybody buy Windows any more? Linux would be able to run all off-the-shelf software, albiet written to Win32. Take that situation and fast forward it 5 or 10 years and what do we have? Linux applications being written for Linux. Look at the 68k software for MacOS when the PowerMac came out. By your arguments, nobody would have written PowerMac software because 68k software worked "just fine" on all the machines; the same thing is happening right now with Cocoa and Carbonized applications. The truth is, development happens on the most predominate platform -- having Wine helps Linux garner more platforms, and the logical result is that free UNIX wins in the end (Wine runs on more than just Linux).
OS/2 is a red herring in this argument; back then there were 2 competing standards tyring to woo DOS users. People had to pay more for OS/2 with Windows 3.11; when they could buy the "real thing" from Microsoft for less. Now, in the current situatio which one costs less?
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
This means that 2.5 million ballots didn't "count" (using Vice President Gore's terminology).
Do we really want to hand recount 2.5 million ballots without any sort of uniform standard at all? Before election day, nobody knows what the margin of victory is and can vote their concience. There is a bit of fraud (dead people voting, zealots voting for their family, bribing with cigarettes, etc.) that cannot be fully eliminated, but it probably evens out over all political sides.
The electoral college buys us the "Florida Recount" situation, in which we only need to worry about a few, specific, locations. If this were a popular vote, this problem woult be about 50 times worse because we'd have these cases in all states, and in all obscure counties. Was Pricislla Prinsley disenfranchised in Pensylvania? Was Indy Irvine disenfranchies in Idaho? Let's find out. We'd see Bush and Gore on television every night proclaiming that they need to ask for a recount in two dozen more counties and that they are contesting the certified recounts in half a score of others.
It would be insanity.
The electoral college is a fair compromise. It gives smaller states a little more power than they otherwise would have (and perhaps deserve), but at the same time it limits the scope of contests, as a sort of damage control. It is a firewall, if you will, for federal elections; it's not perfect, but it's much better than a popular vote in a relatively close election. As a side note: elections are always close.
Now, if we could get funding to create an electronic voting system with touch screens that print out paper ballots; we could probably get rid of all the ambiguity in the system and satisfy everyone. Those that don't trust technology could still have their paper ballots, while those that need huge type and pictures could have them. If you throw in enforced voter registration, we would never have undercounts, and this whole problem could go away.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
The only problem witth the "all or nothing" mentality is that it will always be "nothing" unless smaller steps are successful. Most game developers aren't going to support the latest versions of their games without some incentive. They are for-profit companies. You have two basic choices:
- Buy the games that come out for Linux
- Forget about commercial support at all
If you don't subscribe to #1, then your choice is #2, which may be just fine (I don't imagine RMS is losing any sleep over this). But please stop whinning about the current situation -- either buckle in and do something to support these Linux game companies (Hyperion could use all the support they can get; they are a very small group) or just forget about it.The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
http://www.hyperion-software.com/_linux/news_00110 4.html
Enjoy!
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Their HTTP serving seems to be a quick as can be, it's only while attempting to access download.sourceforge.net that it becomes unusable.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Have you *really* been using Mozilla lately? It does use the GTK theme; some idiot even submitted a bug about it to Bugzilla: http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show _bu g.cgi?id=53723
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
I've been running last night's build all day (and, of course, it isn't "integrated" into my system; I can swap it out for any other browser I want to) without a single problem. Everything works just great (I haven't used the e-mail or composition stuff; just browsing). My system is a Celron 400A with 128MB of RAM. Mozilla is quick and responsive. It uses about 10MB of RAM while running and about as much shared (it is a GTK app, complete with GTK themes; so my Mozilla looks like Aqua now).
I don't understand your complaints. Perhaps the Windows version is worse, but I doubt it. Internet Explorer is a cool product, but not one that I'd point to as any epitome of good design. You can crash your Windows system by highlighting a bunch of pictures (on my system it takes about 30), right-click on them and then click 'open'; as long as IE is your default picture viewer, which it does by default upon installation. IE doesn't tell you what it's doing on the status line, so you have no idea if it is hanging on a DNS query or simply loading from a slow site. IE has ugly buttons, which cannot be themed (apart from the lame Windows color "themes"). IE takes control of all "multimedia" mime-types every time you install it. IE's channel bar doesn't do one-tenth of what the new sidebar does under Netscape (try using the Google integration, it's very cool). IE hangs EXPLORE.EXE under Windows; so if it crashes it takes the entire desktop environment down with it (Start Menu and all); Mozilla does no such thing. IE waits too long to display pages; Mozilla will draw any page as soon as it can -- the picture sizes be damned. IE has special extensions developed by Microsoft for internet exploring; Mozilla is (ahem, *will* be) fully compliant. IE's ultimate goal is to get you to rent your software over Microsoft.NET -- Mozilla just wants to do what YOU want it to do.
I don't see any speed problems on my system. I haven't crashed it at all today (which is more than I can say for IE, half the time I use it). I don't understand your complaints.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq .ht ml#3.3
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
You may be able to use them for the same purpose, but they really are different beasts. BSD's jail() doesn't require/use a second kernel -- so it's usless for playing with alternate or development kernels. Userland Linux, on the other hand, will be slower but will allow you to play with different kernels. I imagine that kernel developers will use the userland Linux more than your average BSD jail() user does, because BSD people use it for security reasons instead.
I'm curious about the SMP capabilities of this thing; can you emulate multiple processors to debug re-entrant code?
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Actually, a fully-journaled filesystem will journal the actual data as well as the meta-data (JFS can do this, for example). NTFS has muddled the current terms used to describe "journaling filesystems" a bit; at least according to the dinosaur book a "journaled filesystem" should journal all data, and not just meta-data. A journaling filesystem that only does one (or the other, I suppose) is partially journaling.
Of course, it's expensive to journal all data...
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Sure, you can switch *some* hardware without recompiling, but only that which is already a module...
And QNX modules don't need to be compiled? News to me...
I think I'll go back to work now, on my Linux box running GNOME with the micoGUI Photon-esque theme installed. I'm sure QNX is great and all, but It's about 5 years too late for the free UNIX market.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Translation: It's dog-slow unless you have 192 MB of RAM and at least a 400Mhz processor.
I've tried using it on a 32MB P5/200 and it literally took 3 minutes to fire up the IDE (this is before doing any work at all). It refused to install with JDK newer than 1.2, and under the latest libc releases (although this is half Sun's fault -- their xfs recognition is *really* bad in jdk 1.3.
On a good note, Borland's support personnel in thier newsgroups are VERY VERY helpful; JBuilder is actually a good product (although, I like Simplicity better).
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
http://www.mozilla.org/roadmap-im ages/branching.gif
Look at the "Netscape 6 RTM". See it flash? Why? Is there a subliminal 'RATS' in there? Hmmm.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
That's not true. Emacs does not execute arbitrary lisp code embedde in a document. It certainly doesn't follow hyperlinks and set up cookies transparently. You have to explicitly do all of these things.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
And now they want us to buy a slow, crappy 32-bit machine? At least the PS2 has a 128 bit chip in it (no doubt just so they could fight Nintendo FUD when they started throwing it around). At least we don't have to deal with cartridges again. :) (this is a parody on Nintendo's past marketing campaigns, for the humor impaired)
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Not true, not true. The x86 processor family provides the highest SpecINT rating and has for some time now. We can argue about benchmarks all day, but Spec is the industry standard.
I noticed you left out SpecFP... (could it be because the IA32 is absolutely *horrible* at FP operations; not to mention it's low performance most other units that are common in the CPU nowadays) Adding 144 new instructions to the CPU isn't going to help them in the long run either (see: MMX, KNI, 3d-Now!, etc). Anyone and their dog can make a fast integer unit; most operations inside them run at a single clock, and it is the most well-understood unit (arguably) in the history of CPUs; it's just Intel's brute force that keeps the IA32 performing so well.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
http://www.ibm.com/servers/monterey/overview/
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
"... Code causes computers to perform desired functions. Its expressive element no more immunizes its functional aspects from regulation than the expressive motives of an assassin immunize the assassin's action.
In an era in which the transmission of computer viruses -- which, like DeCSS, are simply computer code and thus to some degree expressive--can disable systems upon which the nation depends and in which other computer code also is capable of inflicting other harm, society must be able to regulate the use and dissemination of code in appropriate circumstances. The Constition, after all, is a framework for building a just and democratic society. It is not a suicide pact."
What the hell is he talking about here? With this rationale one can make any first ammendment violation go away. It's a fatalistic approach to the problem: "Well, an assasin cannot kill the president as a form of expression, so therefore we can limit whatever we want to limit." I can't believe he is using this as justification for his finding!
It's fine that he found for the plantiffs, but please give us some real reasons why instead of liking a small group of people interested in viewing licensed DVD discs on their DVD drives to cold-war presidential assasination freaks. Could this judge be more biased?
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.