Of course IBM are making a big play on Open Source. They are terrible at making software and marketing it. They've learned in the 80's that they're not good at the ISV thing, and struggled mightily in the early 90's until they could find a way to bump up those services number and lo and behold Linux comes to their rescue. Funny how they weren't pushing other *nix OSes until a 'free' one came along, LOL.
The software side of IBM is a service company at heart because everything else died.
As for your statement "Of course they will support an area into which they can expand their services" you're simply re-iterating my point. IBM is in this 100% for the money. Just like they used to be in the operating system business, then the ISV business (remember, hack, lotus?), and finally they're in the services business and now they're all about 'open source.' They're support for open source will last just as long as they can make profits off of it, no longer.
People, like yourself, need to stop attributing anthromophic properties to public companies. They're not good, they're not evil, they're in search of the (once) almighty dollar. That's it. The minute you become a public company that's the only thing that matters. Look at Google for an example. The wool has finally come off of many people's eyes and they realize that Google aren't the "good guys" (they're not "bag guys" either) they're a large powerful public company entirely motivated by greed and the need to make a profit.
If you don't realize that public companies only care about one thing, you're being naive. Now, when these companies make profits they sure throw around money and resources for the sake of PR, but you can rest assured that if the profits dry up, so does the committment to "open source."
Get over what? I'm not stuck on anything, you sound like a fanbois. You simply can't help but attribute 'values' to public companies whereas I see them exactly as they are. Companies owned by stockholders who care only about their investments.
Micro$oft pretends to want an open format but really wants an 'open but biased' format they can contrive to make Word the best implementation of. The don't care about being 'open' except when it may benefit their bottom line.
IBM pretends to like Open Source, but really makes an enormous percentage of their income from services directly related to such endeavors. They only like Open Source because they benefit financially from it, no other reason. The don't care about being 'open' except when it may benefit their bottom line.
Now, IBM's greed benefits more people than Micro$oft's currently.
I certainly think that stepping through is by far the most valuable method; however, it can be difficult when dealing with asynchronicity and/or parallelism. In those cases, commenting is the only solution that seems to help me... LOL.
Yeah, I forgot to mention that one. I just couldn't understand, in the WWF case, the purpose of it (by which I mean why is it necessary? You can solve all the same problems with far more mature/documented/respected approaches already.)
It's almost like there are senior guys at Micro$oft with nothing much to do and they're churning out research ideas. That's not a bad thing except when you pretend that "this is the way it will be done from now on" when you know it'll fade out in a couple of years.
They certainly produced some fantastic stuff with.NET, but it's like they're muddying the waters themselves. It is seriously annoying that they disconnected managed code from DirectX as well, but that may make a return. I'm a real-time graphics professional and I can't really tell you what the difference between DX9 managed and XNA are, or what XNA has/doesn't have in comparison to DX10, or will have, yadda ^ 3. LOL.
...security fixes that will be added to Silverlight after it is pushed into the glaring sunlight of a serious web site LOL. The Silverlight team must be dropping eggrolls right now. Is it just me or is M$ just trying to push out too many UI related things at the same time? The presentation foundation, other.NET 3.0 UI moves, dumping.NET support in DirectX and thereby separating C++ advanced UI development from.NET advanced UI development, Silverlight, various other weird (imho) implementations of abstraction layers over.NET and C++ through things like XAML. I know that Silverlight,.NET 3.0 and WPF are all intricately related, but they still operate differently, have different development approaches and toolsets, and seemed to be 'marketed' as 'different' from each other. All very confusing. Thank God I only have to deal with Qt on Linux and MFC on Windows. I may spend a little time getting back into Java as well. I've heard the UI frameworks are more mature these past couple of years now.
...tracking of instruments and equipment (to avoid leaving them in patients as well as 'shrinkage') use embedded semi-active RFID. This not only makes the the patient beep if they leave the room with a tool in 'em (lol), it also keeps idiot staff from moving a dirty kidney pump from one patient's room to another without having first taken it to maintenance for servicing.
...measuring the drop in growth/profitibility from the first years these jerks started claiming stupendous losses due to piracy? They've always seemed to claim billions in losses, and yet they're industry doesn't seem to feel the effects. The past few years they've been losing money due to iTunes, so that's why I ask about the early years they were crying foul...
...it seems very likely that your interest in Linux and/or BSD (presumably FreeBSD) is based primarily upon keeping your costs down both for development, testing, and deployment; ergo, you are potentially making a greater profit because you're using a system others have devoted enormous amounts of time and energy to in the spirit of being 'open' with source.
This doesn't mean you can't do that, but to express surprise/shock/dismay/disappointment that people are going to dislike you because you're going to make money off other people's effort (the operating system kernels, kernel modules, drivers, window managers, desktops, APIs, et cetera) is ridiculously naive.
Now, you may very well claim that you're using BSD/Linux for stability and security reasons and that would just indicate that you don't know what you're doing; therefore, I presume it is an 'out of pocket' expense decision.
"As for Jamie, we've been asking him in multiple emails and conference calls to stop extending (just Express) since before Visual Studio 2005 even shipped. We even got the General Manager of Visual Studio to personally talk to him on the phone to plead with him to remove Express extensibility. Closely following that, Jamie took the violations to heart and removed Visual Studio Express extensibility for several months. Only recently did he decide to add Express support back to TestDriven.NET and only after another round of conversations and close to two years of trying to avoid escalating this situation, we felt compelled to deliver our message in a different form."
...is outbreeding the non-GM version, why? Perhaps we should understand that for an absolute certainty before introducing a 'hardier' version of the mosquito that just happens to also be malaria (or a version of it) free...? I'm no Luddite but that's a bit scary, eh? Laid more eggs than the non-GM? Great... That's wonderful;).
...ads in a game like CrackDown actually (maybe I'm crazy but at least to me) more immersive in that it seems a bit more of a 'real world' setting type. I'm not explaining this very well, but it seems very much in line with the urban setting of CrackDown (heck they have to decorate those boards with something anyhow.) Now, if I see ads for the R600 in Oblivion...
...that makes me wonder if the pulse that was observed exiting before fully entering was 'teleported' in the sense that earlier teleportation (of information) has been exhibited...
...generic purposes, it is that they're (GPUs) suited better for certain types of operations. Image processing, as an example, is very well suited to working on a GPU because the GPU excels at addressing and operating on elements of arrays (textures basically.) I've used it as a proof of concept at work for processing large numbers of video feeds simultaneously for things like photometric normalization, image stabilization, et cetera, and the things are awesome. They work well in this scenario because the problem I'm trying to solve fits the caveats of using the GPU well. Slow upload of data, miraculously fast action upon that data, slow download of the data. Now, slow is relative and getting more and more relative as new chipsets are released.
The actual framework for doing this is relatively simple although it certainly did help that I've a background in OpenGL and DirectXGraphics (so I've done shader work before); however, again, progress is removing those caveats as well. Generic GPU programming toolsets are imminent the only problem being ATI has no interest in their toolsets working with nVidia and nVidia has even less interest in their toolset(s) running ATI hardware. Something we'll just have to learn to deal with.
BTW, DirectX10 will make this a little easier as well with changes to how you have to pipeline data in order to operate on it in a particular fashion.
1.6GB on 2003 server? Something is screwy...
on
Laptops with Big RAM?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
...I'm running 2003 Server with SQL Server 2005, a bunch of our services, and IIS 6.0 all running and I'm using less than 600 MB.
Maybe you should figure out what's wrong with your machine that requires 1.6 GB of RAM just to idle.
They are measure hardware accuracy and blaming the OS? Why?
If I use my precision gaming mouse I get much higher precision than with a standard old ball mouse, so how can I blame the OS?
The fundamental reasoning behind such a test suggests a desire to paint Windows in a bad light (like you need to go to such lenghts to begin with, lol), I mean, what kind of crap passes as a study today?
If I write a driver that interacts with my hardware and I get quality input from the hardware, I'll get quality results mapped to the screen. It's that simple.
You're responsible for your taxes wherever in the world you are. They may claim you don't get taxed, but you do. It's called Foreign Earned Income. The government can be stupid, but when it comes to collecting your money, they're not...
...then it must be an absolute and irrefutable fact. LOL.
Personally, I think that if IBM wanted to discredit SCO they could do so publically with impunity via an IBM affiliation. No need to astro-turf with the Linux community. If your statements have merit the community will shout them out for you.
Who would care if she was a front for IBM anyhow? It doesn't make Groklaw any less accurate.
Prior to the introduction of shaders this was a very likely scenario; however, there are approaches to pixel shading which result in polygonal edges which mitigate this (potentially very well). It is also important to remember that on most models, only certain areas (i.e. on humans look at elbows/forearms, shoulder joints depending upon the animation) where edge issues are actually prominent or provide the ability to become prominent. A greater angle of incidence (which is usually the current solution, and I apologize for using the term angle of incidence this way) results in a lesser likelyhood of the mesh geometry standing out inappropriately. This is often coupled with multiple sets of skin weights which are used for different sets of animations in order to elasticize the skin more appropriately (for example using different skin weight sets for animations where a player lifts both arms up over his/her head than the weights used for when the player is dribbling.)
If it wasn't for all the anti-cheat tech floating around with games nowadays, I'd say you could simply write a hook for the DirectSound calls from the application itself but that's a pain and also looks like a cheater.
I am totally 100% incorrect about this and I apologize. Back when the first DX10 betas shipped, we tested on Vista and found that we got all the HAL layers we expected. I have tested it intermittently over the past year with no problems; however, I just ran our tool again against the latest SDK and found that I get 'Emulation.' (We used to get WDM.)
Apologies again for jumping about 10 meters past the gun.
...and the idiot who wrote that article doesn't even appear to understand how DirectX works. The Windows Vista team could rewrite the audio stack all they want and it would have f*** all to do with DirectSound using HW or not. If the audio stack allows for DirectSound then HW acceleration is up to DirectX and the audio card's device driver, NOT the Windows Vista developers.
...package in detail? If not, you should not have signed it.
Honestly, this is common sense. If you get an employment offer that does not stipulate the exact terms of your employment and compensation, then you do not sign it. If you did not sign an employment offer or receive one prior to accepting in some other factor, you're naive. I don't say that to sound harsh but to re-align your expectations for business behavior. In all honestly it probably isn't a bait and switch as much as a stupid recruiter and poor communication with the company.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course IBM are making a big play on Open Source. They are terrible at making software and marketing it. They've learned in the 80's that they're not good at the ISV thing, and struggled mightily in the early 90's until they could find a way to bump up those services number and lo and behold Linux comes to their rescue. Funny how they weren't pushing other *nix OSes until a 'free' one came along, LOL.
The software side of IBM is a service company at heart because everything else died.
As for your statement "Of course they will support an area into which they can expand their services" you're simply re-iterating my point. IBM is in this 100% for the money. Just like they used to be in the operating system business, then the ISV business (remember, hack, lotus?), and finally they're in the services business and now they're all about 'open source.' They're support for open source will last just as long as they can make profits off of it, no longer.
People, like yourself, need to stop attributing anthromophic properties to public companies. They're not good, they're not evil, they're in search of the (once) almighty dollar. That's it. The minute you become a public company that's the only thing that matters. Look at Google for an example. The wool has finally come off of many people's eyes and they realize that Google aren't the "good guys" (they're not "bag guys" either) they're a large powerful public company entirely motivated by greed and the need to make a profit.
If you don't realize that public companies only care about one thing, you're being naive. Now, when these companies make profits they sure throw around money and resources for the sake of PR, but you can rest assured that if the profits dry up, so does the committment to "open source."
Get over what? I'm not stuck on anything, you sound like a fanbois. You simply can't help but attribute 'values' to public companies whereas I see them exactly as they are. Companies owned by stockholders who care only about their investments.
Micro$oft pretends to want an open format but really wants an 'open but biased' format they can contrive to make Word the best implementation of. The don't care about being 'open' except when it may benefit their bottom line.
IBM pretends to like Open Source, but really makes an enormous percentage of their income from services directly related to such endeavors. They only like Open Source because they benefit financially from it, no other reason. The don't care about being 'open' except when it may benefit their bottom line.
Now, IBM's greed benefits more people than Micro$oft's currently.
I certainly think that stepping through is by far the most valuable method; however, it can be difficult when dealing with asynchronicity and/or parallelism. In those cases, commenting is the only solution that seems to help me... LOL.
Thanks for the link :). I spent some years in the late 90's writing EJB implementations for medical records/transactions startups. I don't miss it ;).
Interesting, thanks for that!
Yeah, I forgot to mention that one. I just couldn't understand, in the WWF case, the purpose of it (by which I mean why is it necessary? You can solve all the same problems with far more mature/documented/respected approaches already.)
.NET, but it's like they're muddying the waters themselves. It is seriously annoying that they disconnected managed code from DirectX as well, but that may make a return. I'm a real-time graphics professional and I can't really tell you what the difference between DX9 managed and XNA are, or what XNA has/doesn't have in comparison to DX10, or will have, yadda ^ 3. LOL.
It's almost like there are senior guys at Micro$oft with nothing much to do and they're churning out research ideas. That's not a bad thing except when you pretend that "this is the way it will be done from now on" when you know it'll fade out in a couple of years.
They certainly produced some fantastic stuff with
...security fixes that will be added to Silverlight after it is pushed into the glaring sunlight of a serious web site LOL. The Silverlight team must be dropping eggrolls right now. Is it just me or is M$ just trying to push out too many UI related things at the same time? The presentation foundation, other .NET 3.0 UI moves, dumping .NET support in DirectX and thereby separating C++ advanced UI development from .NET advanced UI development, Silverlight, various other weird (imho) implementations of abstraction layers over .NET and C++ through things like XAML. I know that Silverlight, .NET 3.0 and WPF are all intricately related, but they still operate differently, have different development approaches and toolsets, and seemed to be 'marketed' as 'different' from each other. All very confusing. Thank God I only have to deal with Qt on Linux and MFC on Windows. I may spend a little time getting back into Java as well. I've heard the UI frameworks are more mature these past couple of years now.
...tracking of instruments and equipment (to avoid leaving them in patients as well as 'shrinkage') use embedded semi-active RFID. This not only makes the the patient beep if they leave the room with a tool in 'em (lol), it also keeps idiot staff from moving a dirty kidney pump from one patient's room to another without having first taken it to maintenance for servicing.
...measuring the drop in growth/profitibility from the first years these jerks started claiming stupendous losses due to piracy? They've always seemed to claim billions in losses, and yet they're industry doesn't seem to feel the effects. The past few years they've been losing money due to iTunes, so that's why I ask about the early years they were crying foul...
...it seems very likely that your interest in Linux and/or BSD (presumably FreeBSD) is based primarily upon keeping your costs down both for development, testing, and deployment; ergo, you are potentially making a greater profit because you're using a system others have devoted enormous amounts of time and energy to in the spirit of being 'open' with source.
This doesn't mean you can't do that, but to express surprise/shock/dismay/disappointment that people are going to dislike you because you're going to make money off other people's effort (the operating system kernels, kernel modules, drivers, window managers, desktops, APIs, et cetera) is ridiculously naive.
Now, you may very well claim that you're using BSD/Linux for stability and security reasons and that would just indicate that you don't know what you're doing; therefore, I presume it is an 'out of pocket' expense decision.
From the Express lead's blog:
"As for Jamie, we've been asking him in multiple emails and conference calls to stop extending (just Express) since before Visual Studio 2005 even shipped. We even got the General Manager of Visual Studio to personally talk to him on the phone to plead with him to remove Express extensibility. Closely following that, Jamie took the violations to heart and removed Visual Studio Express extensibility for several months. Only recently did he decide to add Express support back to TestDriven.NET and only after another round of conversations and close to two years of trying to avoid escalating this situation, we felt compelled to deliver our message in a different form."
Something's rotten in the state of Denmark...
...is outbreeding the non-GM version, why? Perhaps we should understand that for an absolute certainty before introducing a 'hardier' version of the mosquito that just happens to also be malaria (or a version of it) free...? I'm no Luddite but that's a bit scary, eh? Laid more eggs than the non-GM? Great... That's wonderful ;).
...ads in a game like CrackDown actually (maybe I'm crazy but at least to me) more immersive in that it seems a bit more of a 'real world' setting type. I'm not explaining this very well, but it seems very much in line with the urban setting of CrackDown (heck they have to decorate those boards with something anyhow.) Now, if I see ads for the R600 in Oblivion...
...that makes me wonder if the pulse that was observed exiting before fully entering was 'teleported' in the sense that earlier teleportation (of information) has been exhibited...
...faster than this limit." - Well, we already know that entangled photons can 'transfer' information faster than the speed of light.
...generic purposes, it is that they're (GPUs) suited better for certain types of operations. Image processing, as an example, is very well suited to working on a GPU because the GPU excels at addressing and operating on elements of arrays (textures basically.) I've used it as a proof of concept at work for processing large numbers of video feeds simultaneously for things like photometric normalization, image stabilization, et cetera, and the things are awesome. They work well in this scenario because the problem I'm trying to solve fits the caveats of using the GPU well. Slow upload of data, miraculously fast action upon that data, slow download of the data. Now, slow is relative and getting more and more relative as new chipsets are released.
The actual framework for doing this is relatively simple although it certainly did help that I've a background in OpenGL and DirectXGraphics (so I've done shader work before); however, again, progress is removing those caveats as well. Generic GPU programming toolsets are imminent the only problem being ATI has no interest in their toolsets working with nVidia and nVidia has even less interest in their toolset(s) running ATI hardware. Something we'll just have to learn to deal with.
BTW, DirectX10 will make this a little easier as well with changes to how you have to pipeline data in order to operate on it in a particular fashion.
...I'm running 2003 Server with SQL Server 2005, a bunch of our services, and IIS 6.0 all running and I'm using less than 600 MB.
Maybe you should figure out what's wrong with your machine that requires 1.6 GB of RAM just to idle.
They are measure hardware accuracy and blaming the OS? Why?
If I use my precision gaming mouse I get much higher precision than with a standard old ball mouse, so how can I blame the OS?
The fundamental reasoning behind such a test suggests a desire to paint Windows in a bad light (like you need to go to such lenghts to begin with, lol), I mean, what kind of crap passes as a study today?
If I write a driver that interacts with my hardware and I get quality input from the hardware, I'll get quality results mapped to the screen. It's that simple.
You're responsible for your taxes wherever in the world you are. They may claim you don't get taxed, but you do. It's called Foreign Earned Income. The government can be stupid, but when it comes to collecting your money, they're not...
...then it must be an absolute and irrefutable fact. LOL.
Personally, I think that if IBM wanted to discredit SCO they could do so publically with impunity via an IBM affiliation. No need to astro-turf with the Linux community. If your statements have merit the community will shout them out for you.
Who would care if she was a front for IBM anyhow? It doesn't make Groklaw any less accurate.
Prior to the introduction of shaders this was a very likely scenario; however, there are approaches to pixel shading which result in polygonal edges which mitigate this (potentially very well). It is also important to remember that on most models, only certain areas (i.e. on humans look at elbows/forearms, shoulder joints depending upon the animation) where edge issues are actually prominent or provide the ability to become prominent. A greater angle of incidence (which is usually the current solution, and I apologize for using the term angle of incidence this way) results in a lesser likelyhood of the mesh geometry standing out inappropriately. This is often coupled with multiple sets of skin weights which are used for different sets of animations in order to elasticize the skin more appropriately (for example using different skin weight sets for animations where a player lifts both arms up over his/her head than the weights used for when the player is dribbling.)
If it wasn't for all the anti-cheat tech floating around with games nowadays, I'd say you could simply write a hook for the DirectSound calls from the application itself but that's a pain and also looks like a cheater.
I am totally 100% incorrect about this and I apologize. Back when the first DX10 betas shipped, we tested on Vista and found that we got all the HAL layers we expected. I have tested it intermittently over the past year with no problems; however, I just ran our tool again against the latest SDK and found that I get 'Emulation.' (We used to get WDM.)
Apologies again for jumping about 10 meters past the gun.
...and the idiot who wrote that article doesn't even appear to understand how DirectX works. The Windows Vista team could rewrite the audio stack all they want and it would have f*** all to do with DirectSound using HW or not. If the audio stack allows for DirectSound then HW acceleration is up to DirectX and the audio card's device driver, NOT the Windows Vista developers.
...package in detail? If not, you should not have signed it.
Honestly, this is common sense. If you get an employment offer that does not stipulate the exact terms of your employment and compensation, then you do not sign it. If you did not sign an employment offer or receive one prior to accepting in some other factor, you're naive. I don't say that to sound harsh but to re-align your expectations for business behavior. In all honestly it probably isn't a bait and switch as much as a stupid recruiter and poor communication with the company.