G5 NEEDS that ultra-fast FSB since it does it's RAM access through it. Athlon64/Opteron does not, since the CPU talks with the RAM directly via the integrated mem-controller. While 2GHz G5 has 1GHZ bus, it's NOT one bit better than the 800Mhz bus on A64, since on A64 that 800Mhz is 100% available to NIC's, PCI-devices, HD's etc. etc., since RAM-access does not eat in to the bandwidth (like it does on the G5).
G5 is a fine CPU, but it's not the be all end all CPU some people make it out to be. In some cases it's considerably behind A64 (where's the integrated mem-controller huh?)
Athlons are up to 800 something Mhz, and Xeons are stuck around 400Mhz, at the top end.
Yes but:
a) Only 2GHz G5's have 1GHz FSB. 1.8GHz has 900Mhz and 1.6GHz has 800MHz bus
b) When G5 accesses the RAM, it goes through that bus. And that can eat ALOT of bandwidth. On the Opteron/Athlon64, the CPU talks directly with the RAM, it does not go through the bus. That reduces latency ALOT and it means that the 800Mhz the A64/Opteron-bus runs at is completely available to other I/O-tasks, unlike on the G5 where it's used for RAM-access all the time.
So, in the end, G5 is NOT the I/O-monster you make it out to be. Compared to Intel it's pretty good, but when comparing it to A64/Opteron, it loses. when G5 gets integrated mem-controller, THEN we can talk.
Oh, more than that. There is also the freedesktop.org project, the one where Keith Packard is doing really cool things with a composition manager. And there may be others.
Xserver (the project you are referring to) is not really a fork of Xfree. Xserver is based on Kdrive.
Now, you DO realize that just about everything on your list is a shortcoming of _Xfree_ and not _X_? X is is a protocol and it kicks ass. Xfree is an implementation of X. And it's Xfree that could use some improving. And, luckily, people are working on improving it (see the subject of this discussion). If you want better graphics right now, you might want to invest in one of the commercial X-implementations.
What's wrong with the old UNIX systems? Solaris still boasts of some functionality that Linux will probably take a few months:) to program and test. Think 128-cpu scalability, hot-swap CPU...
What does this have to do with the KDE + Konqueror vs. Windows + IE? Just because KDE doesn't include the kernel, it's not an "entire turnkey solution"? It's practically everything the user interacts with!
The user is free to choose from any number of UI's, KDE is just one of them. The user could just as well use GNOME, Enlightenment, Fluxbox etc. etc.
Yes, some distros prefers some UI over the others. But even in that case, the user can STILL use a different UI. For example, SUSE offers KDE by default. But they also offer GNOME for those who want it instead. And besides, the user is 100% free to choose the distro they want to use. Want a desktop-agnostic distro? Use Debian or Gentoo (for example). Want a GNOME-centric distro? Use Fedora! Want a KDE-centric distro? Use SUSE or Mandrake!
Oh, well, I must not be typing this in in Firefox, while my email is open in Thunderbird, while Gaim is sitting in my system tray, all in Windows 2000.
Just because YOU do something does not mean that everyone will do it as well. Joe Sixpack will continue to use IE, because that's the thing that came with his computer (regardless of the fact that when compared to it's competitors (Opera, Firefox etc.) IE is the crappies browser there is!). He wouldn't even know what Firefox is ("isn't that the movie with Clint Eastwood?")
3) and 4) are irrelevant to Win+IE vs. KDE+Konq. Just because it is free and open, and they've never strong-armed OEMs, doesn't change the fact that they bundle a browser with their desktop environment, and configure other KDE applications, by default, to run smoothly with it.
When MS forced OEM's to remove competing browsers, they were abusing their monopoly, while KDE has not done so (hell, they couldn't do so even if they wanted to!). So yes, it is relevant.
And in Linux-land (and *BSD as well) you are free to choose from numerous competing distros. And you can choose from numerous competing UI's. And you can choose from numerous competing browsers. With Windows, you have one source for the OS (Microsoft) and it ships with MS-software only (because MS does not allow OEM's to ship competing software). Yes, there are competing browsers out there, but they are handicapped by default, because their primary compatitor (IE) is already in front of the end-user when he turns on his computer.
And neither did IE. I'm using Firefox under XP to type this.
Well, whoopee! Just because YOU use Firefox, it automatically means that Joe Sixpack will also use Firefox? Chances are that he doesn't even know what it is! I have migrated my in-laws to Mozilla. When I told them what I was doing, they were puzzled. They weren't even aware they were using IE, they were just "surfing the net". And like it or not, that describes majority of net-users perfectly.
Neither does Windows. Even if it did, just install Netscape yourself. What's the problem? Obviously a company doesn't want to be forced to advertise its competitors.
MS did two things to Netscape:
a) MS saturated over 90% of the market with their product (by bundling IE with Windows) b) They denied OEM's from shipping Netscape with their computers, denying Netscape one of their most important distribution-channels
Do you still claim that Netscapes problems were entirely due to their product or management, and not due the fact that MS leveraged (illegally I might add) their monopoly in order to crush them?
All companies have e-mail conversations about cutting off their competitors' air supply.
Aggressive competing is more or less standard in business. Unless you are a monopoly. Monopolies are kept on a short leash (at least in theory), because there is a very fine line between "aggressive competing" and "illegal abuse of monopoly", if the company in question has a monopoly. MS is a monopoly, they abused that monopoly to crush their competitor (Netscape in this case. Other examples are Go/PenPoint for example)
You barely showed me any differences between IE being integrated into Windows and Konquerer being integrated into KDE.
Difference is that MS has a monopoly, KDE does not. And even if KDE had a monopoly, you could still easily remove Konqueror and/or the distros could ship with some other browser instead (Netscape/Mozilla/Opera/Firefox etc.). You cannot remove IE and MS denies OEM's from shipping a competing browser with their computers.
If you really can't see the problem here, I can't help but think that you are seriously low on intelligence.
What on Earth are you blabbering about?? Qt is GPL-licensed. If you use it to write GPL'ed software, you are absolutely, 100% safe. You are 100% in compliance with the license, there's NOTHING TT could do to screw you over! What they could do is to change the license on the new version of their toolkit (they could start using the "Trolltech ownz j00!-license (TOJ) which says that developers using Qt must sacrifice their first-born child to TT). But if developers are not comfortable with the new license, they will stick to the old GPL-licensed version of Qt, and fork it.
The extent of the GPL is not limited by TT, it's limited by GPL itself. Basically you get the GPL'ed Qt by default, and you can use it in ways the GPL allows you to use it. If you want to use it in some other way (like, writing closed proprietary software), then you have to pay TT to get a different license. TT is free to alter their commercial license, but they cannot start changing the GPL. If they do that, then the license is not GPL enymore, but some other license. If developers don't like the new license, they can stick to the older version of Qt.
I think the "rest of the world hates the USA because we are so big and strong!" is a comment made by/for simpletons. If you really think that the reason why USA is disliked around the world is simply because you happen to be the only superpower around, you are way off.
But I guess it's simpler to use simple explanations like that ("they hate USA because they hate freedom!") instead of thinking about the real issues behind their feelings, eh?
The Kyoto treaty was specifically designed to hamstring the American economy. Its stated purpose, to reduce world pollution, is nothing more than a cover story.
Uh-huh. Then how do you explain the fact that EU is required to cut their emissions more than USA is required to? Add to that the fact that EU has already been reducing their emissions, so there's not much left to do, whereas USA is full of polluting SUVs, inefficient and old steel-mills etc. etc. So it should be alot more easier for USA to cut their emissions than it is for EU, since EU has to do more, and since they have already done so much. Yeah, it's clearly a conspiracy against USA!
The difference between God and the Giant Burnt Umber Crayon (GBUC) or the Sneeze of the Great Green Arkleseizure is that these are arbitrary, and God is not.
How come God is not arbitary? Is this a case of circular reasoning?
"God exists!" "How do you know?" "Because it says so in the Bible!" "What if the Bible is wrong?" "It's not" "How come?" "Because it's Word of God and free of errors!" "How do you know?" "Because it says so in the Bible!"
1. Voter goes to the booth, where he votes for his candidate using electronic voting-machine 2. The machine prints a receipt showing which candidate the voter voted 3. Voter checks that the information on the receipt is correct 4. Voter then drops the receipt in to a ballot-box
That way we could get instant results after the polls-close, AND we could do a manual counting of the votes. If there are inconsistensies (spelling?) between the e-votes and paper-ballots, the paper-ballots are the ones that matter.
and it takes ages to get the votes counted. With electronic voting, you could get results in a matter of seconds. Afterwards you could still do a manual counting, by counting the paper-ballots the voting-system prints (at least that's how it should work)
Because the French refused to risk the lives of their soldiers, they risked the lives of their civilians instead. It was a risk that did not pay off.
In WW1 civians didn't usually get caught in the crossfire, the French had no reason to believe that things would be different this time around.
Can you imagine how popular a French politician might have been back in the day had he brought about the invasion of Germany and marched the French army straight to Berlin in 1940?
You make it sound like their line of thinking went something like this: "Hmmmm.... We have two alternatives: Either we attack immediately and utterly defeat the Germans while they are fighting the Poles. Or we sit here and just wait to be defeated". In reality it didn't quite work that way. If the French (or the British, they were there too, remember?) would have though that they would have won, they would have attacked.
But, like I said, they were still stuck at WW1-era thinking. They saw Siegfried-line just waiting for them. They obviously thought that attacking the line would be a suicide (and it might have been)
The way I see it, the French should have had every reason in the world to want to take the fight STRAIGHT to the Germans as soon as the opportunity presented itself
Through the Siegfried-line? Memories of attacking entrenched enemy in fortified positions during WW1 was something that the French had NOT forgotten. Instead, they decided to let the Germans drain their power attacking the Maginot-line, but that plan failed when the Germans went through the BeNeLux. It might have worked though, French troops that manned the line were the last ones to surrender, even though they were surrounded and sustaining heavy point-blank fire. That shows how difficult invasion through the Siegfried (or Maginot)-line would have been.
I maintain that the French were cowards and the German myth of invisibility is just that. Feel free to prove me wrong.
Your arguments are based on hindsight, nothing more. We have had good 50 years to study the war, it's causes and reasons. So it's easy for us to say that "they should have done this instead of that". But back then it wasn't so obvious.
Was France reluctant to go to war? Absolutely! And that does not mean that they were "cowards". Anyone who is eager to go to war, is someone who is as far away from the front-lines as possible. France had just lost ALOT of men fighting the Germans in WW1 (were they cowards then?), they had no desire to go through with it again. It's easy for you to say that "they should have fought more aggressively!", when it's not YOUR ass on the line. It's not YOUR sons and brothers who are going to do the fighting.
Why didn't France attack? They (and rest of the world, excluding Germans) were still stuck in the WW1-era military-thinking. They believed in static defence-lines (Maginot-line), and that belief was ultimately their downfall.
One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
Every single modern country on this planet has the means to develop WMD's. Chemical weapons? Not a problem. Biological weapons? Also, not a problem. Nukes? That would take some time, but it's also doable. Is USA going to invade every one of those (excluding Israel of course) countries?
The Neuros Audio Player supports Ogg, has a 20Gb hard disk, Linux version of its software and is only $200. You couldn't really ask for more, but if you did want to ask for more they also have a very active community forum and listen to your suggestions and stuff.
That thing looks pretty huge, so no thanks. And besides, if I wanted something with geek-appeal, I would buy Rio Karma
- Supports Ogg Vorbis - Supports FLAC - Has _Ethernet_ plug - Has 20GB HDD
Neuros might have a Linux-version of it's software, but if the player appears as a regural HD to the OS, why would you need dedicated software?
Older Via-CPU's were REALLY slow. They had half-speed FPU's for example. Current 1GHz CPU's are considerably better. They have SSE-support and full-speed FPU's. No, they are not speed-monsters when compared to Intel or AMD (even when comparing clock-for-clock), but they are "fast enough", while running really cool. And the built-in encryption-engine is REALLY fast (fater than hi-end P4 for example).
Slashdot Mirror
G5 NEEDS that ultra-fast FSB since it does it's RAM access through it. Athlon64/Opteron does not, since the CPU talks with the RAM directly via the integrated mem-controller. While 2GHz G5 has 1GHZ bus, it's NOT one bit better than the 800Mhz bus on A64, since on A64 that 800Mhz is 100% available to NIC's, PCI-devices, HD's etc. etc., since RAM-access does not eat in to the bandwidth (like it does on the G5).
G5 is a fine CPU, but it's not the be all end all CPU some people make it out to be. In some cases it's considerably behind A64 (where's the integrated mem-controller huh?)
Yes but:
a) Only 2GHz G5's have 1GHz FSB. 1.8GHz has 900Mhz and 1.6GHz has 800MHz bus
b) When G5 accesses the RAM, it goes through that bus. And that can eat ALOT of bandwidth. On the Opteron/Athlon64, the CPU talks directly with the RAM, it does not go through the bus. That reduces latency ALOT and it means that the 800Mhz the A64/Opteron-bus runs at is completely available to other I/O-tasks, unlike on the G5 where it's used for RAM-access all the time.
So, in the end, G5 is NOT the I/O-monster you make it out to be. Compared to Intel it's pretty good, but when comparing it to A64/Opteron, it loses. when G5 gets integrated mem-controller, THEN we can talk.
Xserver (the project you are referring to) is not really a fork of Xfree. Xserver is based on Kdrive.
Now, you DO realize that just about everything on your list is a shortcoming of _Xfree_ and not _X_? X is is a protocol and it kicks ass. Xfree is an implementation of X. And it's Xfree that could use some improving. And, luckily, people are working on improving it (see the subject of this discussion). If you want better graphics right now, you might want to invest in one of the commercial X-implementations.
We have been using TCP/IP for something like 20-30 years now. OMG, TCP/IP-developement is stagnant! We must work faster!
Of what? X? To my knowledge: zero. X is a protocol, nothing more. If you are talking about Xfree, the answer would be: two. Xouvert and Xorg.
SGI is using Linux in their supercomputer with 256 Itanium2-processors. So what was that about 128-CPU scalability?
The user is free to choose from any number of UI's, KDE is just one of them. The user could just as well use GNOME, Enlightenment, Fluxbox etc. etc.
Yes, some distros prefers some UI over the others. But even in that case, the user can STILL use a different UI. For example, SUSE offers KDE by default. But they also offer GNOME for those who want it instead. And besides, the user is 100% free to choose the distro they want to use. Want a desktop-agnostic distro? Use Debian or Gentoo (for example). Want a GNOME-centric distro? Use Fedora! Want a KDE-centric distro? Use SUSE or Mandrake!
Just because YOU do something does not mean that everyone will do it as well. Joe Sixpack will continue to use IE, because that's the thing that came with his computer (regardless of the fact that when compared to it's competitors (Opera, Firefox etc.) IE is the crappies browser there is!). He wouldn't even know what Firefox is ("isn't that the movie with Clint Eastwood?")
When MS forced OEM's to remove competing browsers, they were abusing their monopoly, while KDE has not done so (hell, they couldn't do so even if they wanted to!). So yes, it is relevant.
And in Linux-land (and *BSD as well) you are free to choose from numerous competing distros. And you can choose from numerous competing UI's. And you can choose from numerous competing browsers. With Windows, you have one source for the OS (Microsoft) and it ships with MS-software only (because MS does not allow OEM's to ship competing software). Yes, there are competing browsers out there, but they are handicapped by default, because their primary compatitor (IE) is already in front of the end-user when he turns on his computer.
Well, whoopee! Just because YOU use Firefox, it automatically means that Joe Sixpack will also use Firefox? Chances are that he doesn't even know what it is! I have migrated my in-laws to Mozilla. When I told them what I was doing, they were puzzled. They weren't even aware they were using IE, they were just "surfing the net". And like it or not, that describes majority of net-users perfectly.
MS did two things to Netscape:
a) MS saturated over 90% of the market with their product (by bundling IE with Windows)
b) They denied OEM's from shipping Netscape with their computers, denying Netscape one of their most important distribution-channels
Do you still claim that Netscapes problems were entirely due to their product or management, and not due the fact that MS leveraged (illegally I might add) their monopoly in order to crush them?
Aggressive competing is more or less standard in business. Unless you are a monopoly. Monopolies are kept on a short leash (at least in theory), because there is a very fine line between "aggressive competing" and "illegal abuse of monopoly", if the company in question has a monopoly. MS is a monopoly, they abused that monopoly to crush their competitor (Netscape in this case. Other examples are Go/PenPoint for example)
Difference is that MS has a monopoly, KDE does not. And even if KDE had a monopoly, you could still easily remove Konqueror and/or the distros could ship with some other browser instead (Netscape/Mozilla/Opera/Firefox etc.). You cannot remove IE and MS denies OEM's from shipping a competing browser with their computers.
If you really can't see the problem here, I can't help but think that you are seriously low on intelligence.
KDE has had that for a long time already ;)
What on Earth are you blabbering about?? Qt is GPL-licensed. If you use it to write GPL'ed software, you are absolutely, 100% safe. You are 100% in compliance with the license, there's NOTHING TT could do to screw you over! What they could do is to change the license on the new version of their toolkit (they could start using the "Trolltech ownz j00!-license (TOJ) which says that developers using Qt must sacrifice their first-born child to TT). But if developers are not comfortable with the new license, they will stick to the old GPL-licensed version of Qt, and fork it.
The extent of the GPL is not limited by TT, it's limited by GPL itself. Basically you get the GPL'ed Qt by default, and you can use it in ways the GPL allows you to use it. If you want to use it in some other way (like, writing closed proprietary software), then you have to pay TT to get a different license. TT is free to alter their commercial license, but they cannot start changing the GPL. If they do that, then the license is not GPL enymore, but some other license. If developers don't like the new license, they can stick to the older version of Qt.
I think the "rest of the world hates the USA because we are so big and strong!" is a comment made by/for simpletons. If you really think that the reason why USA is disliked around the world is simply because you happen to be the only superpower around, you are way off.
But I guess it's simpler to use simple explanations like that ("they hate USA because they hate freedom!") instead of thinking about the real issues behind their feelings, eh?
Uh-huh. Then how do you explain the fact that EU is required to cut their emissions more than USA is required to? Add to that the fact that EU has already been reducing their emissions, so there's not much left to do, whereas USA is full of polluting SUVs, inefficient and old steel-mills etc. etc. So it should be alot more easier for USA to cut their emissions than it is for EU, since EU has to do more, and since they have already done so much. Yeah, it's clearly a conspiracy against USA!
Explain that one, Einstein.
How come God is not arbitary? Is this a case of circular reasoning?
"God exists!"
"How do you know?"
"Because it says so in the Bible!"
"What if the Bible is wrong?"
"It's not"
"How come?"
"Because it's Word of God and free of errors!"
"How do you know?"
"Because it says so in the Bible!"
Ad Infinitum...
To my knowledge, he did not invent the assembly-line. He was merely the first one to use it in automobile-industry.
How it should be done is very simple:
1. Voter goes to the booth, where he votes for his candidate using electronic voting-machine
2. The machine prints a receipt showing which candidate the voter voted
3. Voter checks that the information on the receipt is correct
4. Voter then drops the receipt in to a ballot-box
That way we could get instant results after the polls-close, AND we could do a manual counting of the votes. If there are inconsistensies (spelling?) between the e-votes and paper-ballots, the paper-ballots are the ones that matter.
Well, they have fined European companies in the past (Volkswagen for example), so your "theory" does not hold water.
and it takes ages to get the votes counted. With electronic voting, you could get results in a matter of seconds. Afterwards you could still do a manual counting, by counting the paper-ballots the voting-system prints (at least that's how it should work)
Is it just me, or are the *BSD-guys generally speaking assholes who suffer from somekind of superiority-complex towards Linux-users?
To answer your question: Yes it has been surpassed. in 1998! So you are only about 6 years behind the times!
In WW1 civians didn't usually get caught in the crossfire, the French had no reason to believe that things would be different this time around.
You make it sound like their line of thinking went something like this: "Hmmmm.... We have two alternatives: Either we attack immediately and utterly defeat the Germans while they are fighting the Poles. Or we sit here and just wait to be defeated". In reality it didn't quite work that way. If the French (or the British, they were there too, remember?) would have though that they would have won, they would have attacked.
But, like I said, they were still stuck at WW1-era thinking. They saw Siegfried-line just waiting for them. They obviously thought that attacking the line would be a suicide (and it might have been)
Through the Siegfried-line? Memories of attacking entrenched enemy in fortified positions during WW1 was something that the French had NOT forgotten. Instead, they decided to let the Germans drain their power attacking the Maginot-line, but that plan failed when the Germans went through the BeNeLux. It might have worked though, French troops that manned the line were the last ones to surrender, even though they were surrounded and sustaining heavy point-blank fire. That shows how difficult invasion through the Siegfried (or Maginot)-line would have been.
Your arguments are based on hindsight, nothing more. We have had good 50 years to study the war, it's causes and reasons. So it's easy for us to say that "they should have done this instead of that". But back then it wasn't so obvious.
Was France reluctant to go to war? Absolutely! And that does not mean that they were "cowards". Anyone who is eager to go to war, is someone who is as far away from the front-lines as possible. France had just lost ALOT of men fighting the Germans in WW1 (were they cowards then?), they had no desire to go through with it again. It's easy for you to say that "they should have fought more aggressively!", when it's not YOUR ass on the line. It's not YOUR sons and brothers who are going to do the fighting.
Why didn't France attack? They (and rest of the world, excluding Germans) were still stuck in the WW1-era military-thinking. They believed in static defence-lines (Maginot-line), and that belief was ultimately their downfall.
Since WW2, USA has invaded more countries than anyone else on this planet. So yes, you ARE "warlike".
Every single modern country on this planet has the means to develop WMD's. Chemical weapons? Not a problem. Biological weapons? Also, not a problem. Nukes? That would take some time, but it's also doable. Is USA going to invade every one of those (excluding Israel of course) countries?
That thing looks pretty huge, so no thanks. And besides, if I wanted something with geek-appeal, I would buy Rio Karma
- Supports Ogg Vorbis
- Supports FLAC
- Has _Ethernet_ plug
- Has 20GB HDD
Neuros might have a Linux-version of it's software, but if the player appears as a regural HD to the OS, why would you need dedicated software?
Is it really? From what I have heard, close to 50% of world lawyers are in USA.
Older Via-CPU's were REALLY slow. They had half-speed FPU's for example. Current 1GHz CPU's are considerably better. They have SSE-support and full-speed FPU's. No, they are not speed-monsters when compared to Intel or AMD (even when comparing clock-for-clock), but they are "fast enough", while running really cool. And the built-in encryption-engine is REALLY fast (fater than hi-end P4 for example).