Because Macs are hideously expensive for the level of hardware you get compared to the level of hardware you can get for a PC for the same price. If you can't see the difference between $899 (tops) and $1149 for an iMac and $2300 for a Mac Pro (minimums)*, well, you either have entirely too much money to throw around or you're just a horrible fanboi.
/me puts on idiot cap. BMW's are hideously expensive for the level of car you get compared to the level of car you can get with a Chevy for the same price. Check for yourself. /me removes idiot cap.
/me puts on flame-retardant rubber asshole suite. What the frak does level of hardware/car mean? I have no god-damned clue. HP, MPG, handling, weight, maintenance costs, options, warranties, appearance, subjective value XYZfoobar, GHz, MB, GB, fill rate? I don't run around like a douche bag claiming people threw away money on nice cars, and you shouldn't for PC's either. Both markets are too damned competitive, and you get SOMETHING for your money. Do you get more than what you really needed? Fuck you, it's exactly what I wanted, don't tell others what they need you socialist prick.
* These prices pulled from their website as of the time of this posting.
Fuck off.
Don't like my attitude? Fuck off. And don't say retarded things like
well, you either have entirely too much money to throw around or you're just a horrible fanboi.
First, the company posted a profit in the first quarter, which surprised analysts, but net profit is down a whopping 94% from the same period last year. And the company recorded a large operating loss for hte company.
Um, in case Apple has confused you, a Mac is made of commodity hardware. Other then perhaps EFI, nothing about the computer is a Mac, a Mac is simply a configuration of a PC installed with OS X by default.
Please mod this garbage down. You can easily say pre-Intel Macs were made of commodity hardware also, and the argument would just boil down to "is a PowerPC processor a commodity?" What the hell does that matter? That is the among the LAST parts anyone would be considering when talking of consumer level OS/hardware integration. We all know Apple doesn't manufacture hard drives, DIMMs, and processors. Thanks for the info anyway.
Sure, OS X was designed with only one or two configurations for a Mac but with third party drivers its possible to extend it to almost any modern configuration in existence. There is nothing special about a Mac.
So, how would you describe your level of experience with Apple hardware? Or are you repeating what you've learned on/.? Please, for the love of GOD, don't repeat stuff you heard on/., ON/., and feel good about your +5 informative. There is so much misinformation here, it's retarded.
Before anyone starts, I'm not a fucking fanboy. There is a LOT to hardware/software integration other than "has drivers", and that goes for all PC's, electronics, etc. Maybe that's the Linux definition of 'integration', 'works at some level'. Ohhh, no I didn't. Yes I did.
If you like doing that sort of thing, that's great. But don't try to tell me everyone has to act like yourself to be "secure". Security has always been about managing the risk, not about creating a perfect impenetrable system. All systems have flaws, it's the nature of the beast.
Well, you aren't going to mitigate risk by doing nothing, so what is your point? There will always be risk, so you should take it as-is? Sorry, no. "Managing the risk" means measuring it, and doing something about it. That includes regular trips to US-CERT and CVE (or at least/.), and a proactive security policy. The alternative is to just accept the risk, placing your full trust in others, and that isn't in any way called "security" in the computer sense, where the terrain is extremely not in your favor.
Maybe you're not worried about security, so good for you then. I grew up in a place we felt safe enough to never lock our front door. Then some kid stole my SNES, the little fuck. I think your perception of security might be like ours was, a big hockey stick from "nothing will happen" to "oh shit, it just did, do something about it." Accepting the risk requires trust, in this case trusting people with no legal, monetary, or other obligation to provide you with security. Your placing trust other people's self-pride. That's not good enough for everyone.
I'm going to A/C this for a coupla reasons. But I (and most psycologists) call bullshit on this
The best analogy I can draw is hamburger. Most people won't think twice munching on a hamburger. Some get a little squeamish at boning a joint. Many people lose their appetite if they have to skin and gut their dinner. Few are happy sticking a pig.
If you're not a psycopath, it's easier to kill if you aren't going to see/smell the blood.
I think the parent was correct. Also, hamburger is made from beef, as in cows, not pigs. Your analogy is crap anyway. You switched an enemy combatant - someone whose intent is to flat out kill you - with a farm animal. Paaaaahleeaaase.
Compare killing a pissed-off bull bearing down on you with an assault rifle, up close and personal with pushing a button, killing any number of good or bad cattle in a field far away with second, or third hand intelligence passed to you. Either way, you don't escape all the guilt. At least the excuses are better up close: "He was going to kill me" vs. "Well, I hope they all did something to deserve it"
Christ, haven't you pussies read Ender's Game? You all had better just shut up about ethics of robots at war if you can't wrap your head around the realities of war first.
If you'd have said you QA'd a Canon LiDE scanner, or a fucking USB wireless stick, I wouldn't be calling you a moron right now
Just how do you expect this to happen? IBM should devote resources to this?
oblivious of the issues under discussion at the same time
Whose issue is it? I bet you're making the parent feel just awesome for pitching in at all now.
Linux goes where people want to drag its sorry ass. Who do you think is supposed to shoulder that burden? So, either an outstanding group of volunteers will need to jump in to make it happen, or.. show us the money.
If people assume that the safety measures in their car will prevent them from being killed, they'd likely accept an accident instead of trying to avoid it.
I think I know where you were really going with this, but accepting that you will crash (safety measures easing that) and exercising every last bit of control to minimize damage is a better strategy for everyone than trying to avoid an accident at all costs which could result in panicky, fearful, uncontrolled movements. Imagine how many more accidents would result in flipped, spun out cars because panicked drivers tried to avoid being impaled:P
With email, I can send a message expecting that the receiver will get around to it whenever they want. IM is the opposite; the receiver is expected to respond immediately. Each of these has its place in the world... if not, email would have died many years ago.
I understand this, but it is not IM, it's how we use it. ICQ had the best both worlds back in the day. A queue where unacknowledged messages went, and real time chat windows. You could keep doing what you were doing before getting interrupted by just closing the chat window and letting messages queue. Messages would queue when you were offline too, it worked similar to email. The AIM model that is most widely adopted today is like having someone walk up behind you and start talking while you were using the computer. You feel guilty by looking away, and pretty much have to stop what you were doing. That is bull crap for a computer application.
There is no reason at all you can't have an email replacement with rich, push messaging that works in both a delayed mode and real time, other than the retarded UI models that all got inherited from AIM. Well, that and server side IM queueing, but that's not exactly a high hurdle to jump.
First, only a complete idiot would ignore the fact that one of Linux's primary strengths lies in the embedded market. Refusing to fix a relatively easy bug because it "only" affects that market sounds like something Microsoft would force on us "for your own good", such as DRM or the UAC.
Honest question, why should the glibc maintainer be concerned with which market Linux is strong in, or what direction it takes, or if there even is a Linux tomorrow? This seems to happen a often now, long time free software developers are basically ostracized for not putting Linux at the center of the universe or supporting its cause - whatever that is, and it most certainly is separate from GNU's goals. I'm not suggesting this particular problem is specific to Linux, you did that. In general though, this seems to be the case.
It also kind of makes you wonder if the OSS crowd realized that openness does not excuse you from the politics of dealing with throngs of people and instead exposes you to more of it.
Go ahead.. what if everyone, and I mean EVERYONE used OSS (more to the point, YOUR) software? Would testing requirements change? How would developers start responding to millions of user complaints vs. thousands? Could individuals realistically contribute in that environment with the higher testing costs (in time & resources)? The "don't like it, fork/write it yourself" model doesn't scale. The only way I can imagine it is if OSS development eventually evolves into a corporate-like hierarchy where responsibility and ownership trickle downward through multiple layers. We've already figured that out though.... *ahem* commercial software *cough* and people say that model isn't really open, even when it is.. OpenOffice, OpenSolaris, any OSS project with commercial backing pretty much. Maybe non-profit OSS organizations are the answer to this. They'd face the obvious problem of reminding everyone that free != free or find some other method of funding. Ugh, OSS really digs itself a hole leading people to think free == free. Good luck with that.
I'm pretty sure this is only for trade-ins for P-series, which are not cheap. This is no different than trading in a car for a new one. They're still taking your money, one way or another.
So go ahead, buy a bunch of second hand SPARC systems, I'll get a better deal on ebay down the line.
So is it Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory or Return to Castle Wolfenstein?
RtCW is the game ID developed. ET is a online-only sequel to RtCW's online component, developed by Splash Damage. I'm not sure if they also worked on RtCW's original multiplayer mode or not.
Basically, RtCW is your typical ID fps, while its multiplayer mode was a wild, class based, multiple objective, online game. ET is an expansion of that part, but also a standalone game. Free too, also with Mac & Linux ports. Go check it out.
Church goers I know have moral objections to Apple
I would say religion is bad for society here, but in its defense instead I'll say it's just a symptom of a much worse problem plaguing people's minds.
They often think of Apple as a stiffling, greedy, arrogant, lying, nasty little entity and often refuse to buy from it.
To continue this pattern, religion is a stifling, greedy (helping vs. spreading), arrogant, lying, nasty entity and I refuse to buy any of it. It's all true, but a very childish thing to make summary judgements based on a personification of something so complex. A person could easily be all those things, but something more complex could even easier be described as multiple things yet not all at once. Only a fool would argue all the above points as a whole, and those are still not valid reasons to ignore something that benefits other people in ways we cannot see, while not really affecting us. I understand this about religion, and your churchgoers should understand that in regard to corporations.
Ok, and how many people are going to run a desktop on it? It's server hardware.
That is really a matter of implementation, you can build a SPARC chip without expensive RAS stuff. See Itanium vs Xeon vs consumer Intel procs.
Pretty much all other architectures are unimportant in comparison, because they're used in embedded hardware, or are technically outdated. If anybody is going to buy this thing, I doubt they're going to put it into a modern Sun server.
SPARC isn't outdated, and I thought the other guy was talking about building new open desktops, not using existing server equipment. With all this talk of ARM being the next best thing for netbooks, I surprised anyone would take this stance against non-x86 architectures. What would you lose? Proprietary, binary x86 blobs? Hahaha, typically not a problem for the "open" bunch.
Speaking of outdated, SPARC was developed around the time of the 386.:)
It's already a project that's going to find it hard to get wide adoption, why would you make it even harder for it to find an use, by making it incompatible with the most common by far hardware it could be plugged into?
So.. (emphasis mine) Did you not know we plug the exact same RAM, and exact same expansion cards into SPARC systems that we do PCs? What is this about?
Linux is whatever it is. Just because there is not a prime time desktop environment for the average person sitting at a keyboard does not mean it is not supposed to be or never will be.
= Oh I LOVE these ones. The classic "Linux has no form, and whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you" defense.
Linux sucks. But Linux is just a kernel, blame the distro maintainer. Linux sucks on desktop. But Linux is really a server OS. Linux sucks on servers. But we're UNIX and it's proooooven! Oh, you were comparing it to Solaris.. well we don't know anything about that, go away. Linux doesn't have foobarqux. Only because you haven't written it yet, slacker!
You're going to have to suck it up folks. Claiming Linux has no form or direction, therefore can't be criticized is BULL SHIT. It is not "what it is". It is very much what RedHat, IBM, Novell, Canonical, and the rest of the "community" are trying to make it, and we CAN criticize THAT, and we CAN criticize each and every single component of Linux and any other OSS regardless of how lost it's direction or focus is.
I can't figure out the "accidentally" add a USB drive to a local disk pool part. Why would mixing removable with non-removable devices in ANY volume manager ever be a good idea, and why would preventing cases where people "accidentally" do so be a priority? When you plug in a USB disk, does a little dialog ask "Would you like to add this removable disk to a logical volume including fixed disks?" Didn't think so.
I know what feature you're talking about, but this attempt to make it a big deal is pathetic.
Furthermore, I found that when I started using OS X, the mouse is significantly slower and less precise than windows or ubuntu, again causing me to mis-click. I've tried several different wired mice, high-res mice, the USB-overdrive utility, but nothing seems to help.
I know what you're talking about. It's not precision, it's the way OS X does mouse acceleration. I think it uses a curve instead of accelerating linearly. I'm not sure if I just got used to it, or if my tracking speed is not at the default. Try turning it up a bit.
I have noticed that I can whip out a really good looking signature on OS X, and I don't remember ever being able to write decent shorthand on Windows or Linux. OTOH, trying to reposition very, very quickly, as in a game, on OS X I always land short because the speed drops off so quickly near the end of the movement. Makes sense, using a curve would give better precision at low speeds, but the sharp drop makes quick movement harder. For desktop usage I don't even notice it any more. For that matter, I can play C&C3 just fine, but WC3 when I just bought my Mac felt very awkward.
I read somewhere that OS X uses two different drivers for clicking and movement -- to me, that's insanity
That does not make any sense at all. Trust me, what you're feeling is the different acceleration technique. You do get used to it, but at high speeds it does still have tradeoffs.
I think mice with two AA batteries are a little bit too heavy for gaming, for my tastes anyway. I switch back and forth between a wired, lightweight logitech mouse and a wireless Mighty Mouse with dual batteries. A lighter, shorter lifetime, single battery mouse might be a good compromise for gamers.
About ten years ago, $100 was the norm for a very solid video card. Not coincidentally, there was a lot more competition in the market. Then came the dot-com collapse. ATI and nVidia emerged from the rubble, and people have been accusing them of price collusion for years. It would be pretty easy to do so, now that 3DFX, Matrox, S3, Rendition and the rest are largely out of the way in this sector of the market, or gone completely.
I remember that. That's when the $300 video card became standard, almost overnight. I wanted a Voodoo 5 so bad:\
It was around that time MySQL GPL'd all drivers, and changed their syntax so that it would only work on their servers. That way it is a GPL binding as per the court case.
So is the question of whether the GPL is viral or not even up in the air anymore? I've never heard this before, but it's f'ing nuts. More power to MySQL devs, leave, fork, whatever, and take your damned OSS purism ideals with you, it wont be missed.
Well, for one thing, javascript isn't putting databases or storage on the client, maybe you mistyped that. I love to pull this quote out when talking about Web 1/2/3/4/5/6 whatever. Try to think if it applies more to Web 2.0, or whatever your idea of Web 3.0 is.
Soon every desk will have a computer on it. Software to do mundane things such as payroll, mail, and text processing exists and as a by-product produces vast quantities of on-line in-formation. Many users want to manipulate this data, often in unanticipated ways. These unexpected uses cannot justify substantial programming costs. This paper argues that the relational data model and operators combined with a screen-oriented forms design and display system answers many of the needs of such users. In such a system, all data are represented in terms of records and fields. The user defines the screens (forms) he wants to see, and then specifies the mapping between fields of these screens and fields of the data base records in terms of predicates and relational operators.
Could user defined views to remote data be our Web 3.0? Who knows.
That's my favorite part. The Internet is such a baby. I'm way too young to know it first hand, so I read old computer literature. It's interesting how all this remote application stuff has already been done, and bugs ironed out long ago, while we basically reinvent stuff over and over.
Slashdot Mirror
Because Macs are hideously expensive for the level of hardware you get compared to the level of hardware you can get for a PC for the same price. If you can't see the difference between $899 (tops) and $1149 for an iMac and $2300 for a Mac Pro (minimums)*, well, you either have entirely too much money to throw around or you're just a horrible fanboi.
/me puts on idiot cap.
/me removes idiot cap.
/me puts on flame-retardant rubber asshole suite.
BMW's are hideously expensive for the level of car you get compared to the level of car you can get with a Chevy for the same price. Check for yourself.
What the frak does level of hardware/car mean? I have no god-damned clue. HP, MPG, handling, weight, maintenance costs, options, warranties, appearance, subjective value XYZfoobar, GHz, MB, GB, fill rate? I don't run around like a douche bag claiming people threw away money on nice cars, and you shouldn't for PC's either. Both markets are too damned competitive, and you get SOMETHING for your money. Do you get more than what you really needed? Fuck you, it's exactly what I wanted, don't tell others what they need you socialist prick.
* These prices pulled from their website as of the time of this posting.
Fuck off.
Don't like my attitude? Fuck off. And don't say retarded things like
well, you either have entirely too much money to throw around or you're just a horrible fanboi.
Say that on the street asshole.
So hows that been working out?
First, the company posted a profit in the first quarter, which surprised analysts, but net profit is down a whopping 94% from the same period last year. And the company recorded a large operating loss for hte company.
http://www.liliputing.com/2009/04/asus-posts-profit-has-no-plans-for-arm-android-netbooks-this-year.html
Um, in case Apple has confused you, a Mac is made of commodity hardware. Other then perhaps EFI, nothing about the computer is a Mac, a Mac is simply a configuration of a PC installed with OS X by default.
Please mod this garbage down. You can easily say pre-Intel Macs were made of commodity hardware also, and the argument would just boil down to "is a PowerPC processor a commodity?" What the hell does that matter? That is the among the LAST parts anyone would be considering when talking of consumer level OS/hardware integration. We all know Apple doesn't manufacture hard drives, DIMMs, and processors. Thanks for the info anyway.
Sure, OS X was designed with only one or two configurations for a Mac but with third party drivers its possible to extend it to almost any modern configuration in existence. There is nothing special about a Mac.
So, how would you describe your level of experience with Apple hardware? Or are you repeating what you've learned on /.? Please, for the love of GOD, don't repeat stuff you heard on /., ON /., and feel good about your +5 informative. There is so much misinformation here, it's retarded.
Before anyone starts, I'm not a fucking fanboy. There is a LOT to hardware/software integration other than "has drivers", and that goes for all PC's, electronics, etc. Maybe that's the Linux definition of 'integration', 'works at some level'. Ohhh, no I didn't. Yes I did.
stepping back and taking a broader than just technical view, does zfs even have a future with Oracle takeover? answer is, who knows?
Is that a fucking joke?
This is like "Ford buys GM, is the Corvette doomed?"
Yah, Solaris is totally behind Linux. Oh wait, it isn't.
If you like doing that sort of thing, that's great. But don't try to tell me everyone has to act like yourself to be "secure". Security has always been about managing the risk, not about creating a perfect impenetrable system. All systems have flaws, it's the nature of the beast.
Well, you aren't going to mitigate risk by doing nothing, so what is your point? There will always be risk, so you should take it as-is? Sorry, no. /.), and a proactive security policy.
"Managing the risk" means measuring it, and doing something about it. That includes regular trips to US-CERT and CVE (or at least
The alternative is to just accept the risk, placing your full trust in others, and that isn't in any way called "security" in the computer sense, where the terrain is extremely not in your favor.
Maybe you're not worried about security, so good for you then. I grew up in a place we felt safe enough to never lock our front door. Then some kid stole my SNES, the little fuck. I think your perception of security might be like ours was, a big hockey stick from "nothing will happen" to "oh shit, it just did, do something about it." Accepting the risk requires trust, in this case trusting people with no legal, monetary, or other obligation to provide you with security. Your placing trust other people's self-pride. That's not good enough for everyone.
3. an adverse critic; faultfinder.
Fuck it, ALL of you are censors then.
I'm going to A/C this for a coupla reasons. But I (and most psycologists) call bullshit on this
The best analogy I can draw is hamburger. Most people won't think twice munching on a hamburger. Some get a little squeamish at boning a joint. Many people lose their appetite if they have to skin and gut their dinner. Few are happy sticking a pig.
If you're not a psycopath, it's easier to kill if you aren't going to see/smell the blood.
I think the parent was correct.
Also, hamburger is made from beef, as in cows, not pigs.
Your analogy is crap anyway.
You switched an enemy combatant - someone whose intent is to flat out kill you - with a farm animal. Paaaaahleeaaase.
Compare killing a pissed-off bull bearing down on you with an assault rifle, up close and personal with pushing a button, killing any number of good or bad cattle in a field far away with second, or third hand intelligence passed to you. Either way, you don't escape all the guilt. At least the excuses are better up close: "He was going to kill me" vs. "Well, I hope they all did something to deserve it"
Christ, haven't you pussies read Ender's Game? You all had better just shut up about ethics of robots at war if you can't wrap your head around the realities of war first.
If you'd have said you QA'd a Canon LiDE scanner, or a fucking USB wireless stick, I wouldn't be calling you a moron right now
Just how do you expect this to happen? IBM should devote resources to this?
oblivious of the issues under discussion at the same time
Whose issue is it? I bet you're making the parent feel just awesome for pitching in at all now.
Linux goes where people want to drag its sorry ass. Who do you think is supposed to shoulder that burden?
So, either an outstanding group of volunteers will need to jump in to make it happen, or.. show us the money.
If people assume that the safety measures in their car will prevent them from being killed, they'd likely accept an accident instead of trying to avoid it.
I think I know where you were really going with this, but accepting that you will crash (safety measures easing that) and exercising every last bit of control to minimize damage is a better strategy for everyone than trying to avoid an accident at all costs which could result in panicky, fearful, uncontrolled movements. Imagine how many more accidents would result in flipped, spun out cars because panicked drivers tried to avoid being impaled :P
With email, I can send a message expecting that the receiver will get around to it whenever they want. IM is the opposite; the receiver is expected to respond immediately. Each of these has its place in the world... if not, email would have died many years ago.
I understand this, but it is not IM, it's how we use it. ICQ had the best both worlds back in the day. A queue where unacknowledged messages went, and real time chat windows. You could keep doing what you were doing before getting interrupted by just closing the chat window and letting messages queue. Messages would queue when you were offline too, it worked similar to email. The AIM model that is most widely adopted today is like having someone walk up behind you and start talking while you were using the computer. You feel guilty by looking away, and pretty much have to stop what you were doing. That is bull crap for a computer application.
There is no reason at all you can't have an email replacement with rich, push messaging that works in both a delayed mode and real time, other than the retarded UI models that all got inherited from AIM. Well, that and server side IM queueing, but that's not exactly a high hurdle to jump.
First, only a complete idiot would ignore the fact that one of Linux's primary strengths lies in the embedded market. Refusing to fix a relatively easy bug because it "only" affects that market sounds like something Microsoft would force on us "for your own good", such as DRM or the UAC.
Honest question, why should the glibc maintainer be concerned with which market Linux is strong in, or what direction it takes, or if there even is a Linux tomorrow? This seems to happen a often now, long time free software developers are basically ostracized for not putting Linux at the center of the universe or supporting its cause - whatever that is, and it most certainly is separate from GNU's goals. I'm not suggesting this particular problem is specific to Linux, you did that. In general though, this seems to be the case.
It also kind of makes you wonder if the OSS crowd realized that openness does not excuse you from the politics of dealing with throngs of people and instead exposes you to more of it.
Go ahead.. what if everyone, and I mean EVERYONE used OSS (more to the point, YOUR) software? Would testing requirements change? How would developers start responding to millions of user complaints vs. thousands? Could individuals realistically contribute in that environment with the higher testing costs (in time & resources)? The "don't like it, fork/write it yourself" model doesn't scale. The only way I can imagine it is if OSS development eventually evolves into a corporate-like hierarchy where responsibility and ownership trickle downward through multiple layers. We've already figured that out though.... *ahem* commercial software *cough* and people say that model isn't really open, even when it is.. OpenOffice, OpenSolaris, any OSS project with commercial backing pretty much. Maybe non-profit OSS organizations are the answer to this. They'd face the obvious problem of reminding everyone that free != free or find some other method of funding. Ugh, OSS really digs itself a hole leading people to think free == free. Good luck with that.
I'm pretty sure this is only for trade-ins for P-series, which are not cheap.
This is no different than trading in a car for a new one. They're still taking your money, one way or another.
So go ahead, buy a bunch of second hand SPARC systems, I'll get a better deal on ebay down the line.
So is it Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory or Return to Castle Wolfenstein?
RtCW is the game ID developed.
ET is a online-only sequel to RtCW's online component, developed by Splash Damage. I'm not sure if they also worked on RtCW's original multiplayer mode or not.
Basically, RtCW is your typical ID fps, while its multiplayer mode was a wild, class based, multiple objective, online game. ET is an expansion of that part, but also a standalone game. Free too, also with Mac & Linux ports. Go check it out.
Church goers I know have moral objections to Apple
I would say religion is bad for society here, but in its defense instead I'll say it's just a symptom of a much worse problem plaguing people's minds.
They often think of Apple as a stiffling, greedy, arrogant, lying, nasty little entity and often refuse to buy from it.
To continue this pattern, religion is a stifling, greedy (helping vs. spreading), arrogant, lying, nasty entity and I refuse to buy any of it. It's all true, but a very childish thing to make summary judgements based on a personification of something so complex. A person could easily be all those things, but something more complex could even easier be described as multiple things yet not all at once. Only a fool would argue all the above points as a whole, and those are still not valid reasons to ignore something that benefits other people in ways we cannot see, while not really affecting us. I understand this about religion, and your churchgoers should understand that in regard to corporations.
Ok, and how many people are going to run a desktop on it? It's server hardware.
That is really a matter of implementation, you can build a SPARC chip without expensive RAS stuff. See Itanium vs Xeon vs consumer Intel procs.
Pretty much all other architectures are unimportant in comparison, because they're used in embedded hardware, or are technically outdated. If anybody is going to buy this thing, I doubt they're going to put it into a modern Sun server.
SPARC isn't outdated, and I thought the other guy was talking about building new open desktops, not using existing server equipment. With all this talk of ARM being the next best thing for netbooks, I surprised anyone would take this stance against non-x86 architectures. What would you lose? Proprietary, binary x86 blobs? Hahaha, typically not a problem for the "open" bunch.
Speaking of outdated, SPARC was developed around the time of the 386. :)
It's already a project that's going to find it hard to get wide adoption, why would you make it even harder for it to find an use, by making it incompatible with the most common by far hardware it could be plugged into?
So.. (emphasis mine) Did you not know we plug the exact same RAM, and exact same expansion cards into SPARC systems that we do PCs? What is this about?
It's a lot like Linux; a decade behind, but still useful.
Obviously the mods aren't doing their job right.
Because there isn't a +1 True option?
That's a lie.
Linux is whatever it is. Just because there is not a prime time desktop environment for the average person sitting at a keyboard does not mean it is not supposed to be or never will be.
=
Oh I LOVE these ones. The classic "Linux has no form, and whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you" defense.
Linux sucks. But Linux is just a kernel, blame the distro maintainer.
Linux sucks on desktop. But Linux is really a server OS.
Linux sucks on servers. But we're UNIX and it's proooooven! Oh, you were comparing it to Solaris.. well we don't know anything about that, go away.
Linux doesn't have foobarqux. Only because you haven't written it yet, slacker!
You're going to have to suck it up folks. Claiming Linux has no form or direction, therefore can't be criticized is BULL SHIT. It is not "what it is". It is very much what RedHat, IBM, Novell, Canonical, and the rest of the "community" are trying to make it, and we CAN criticize THAT, and we CAN criticize each and every single component of Linux and any other OSS regardless of how lost it's direction or focus is.
I can't figure out the "accidentally" add a USB drive to a local disk pool part. Why would mixing removable with non-removable devices in ANY volume manager ever be a good idea, and why would preventing cases where people "accidentally" do so be a priority? When you plug in a USB disk, does a little dialog ask "Would you like to add this removable disk to a logical volume including fixed disks?" Didn't think so.
I know what feature you're talking about, but this attempt to make it a big deal is pathetic.
Furthermore, I found that when I started using OS X, the mouse is significantly slower and less precise than windows or ubuntu, again causing me to mis-click. I've tried several different wired mice, high-res mice, the USB-overdrive utility, but nothing seems to help.
I know what you're talking about. It's not precision, it's the way OS X does mouse acceleration. I think it uses a curve instead of accelerating linearly. I'm not sure if I just got used to it, or if my tracking speed is not at the default. Try turning it up a bit.
I have noticed that I can whip out a really good looking signature on OS X, and I don't remember ever being able to write decent shorthand on Windows or Linux. OTOH, trying to reposition very, very quickly, as in a game, on OS X I always land short because the speed drops off so quickly near the end of the movement. Makes sense, using a curve would give better precision at low speeds, but the sharp drop makes quick movement harder. For desktop usage I don't even notice it any more. For that matter, I can play C&C3 just fine, but WC3 when I just bought my Mac felt very awkward.
I read somewhere that OS X uses two different drivers for clicking and movement -- to me, that's insanity
That does not make any sense at all. Trust me, what you're feeling is the different acceleration technique. You do get used to it, but at high speeds it does still have tradeoffs.
I think mice with two AA batteries are a little bit too heavy for gaming, for my tastes anyway. I switch back and forth between a wired, lightweight logitech mouse and a wireless Mighty Mouse with dual batteries. A lighter, shorter lifetime, single battery mouse might be a good compromise for gamers.
So, most people have no idea that AT&T's "3G" technology uses CDMA?
Verizon is not switching away from CDMA.
CDMA IS the future. It is a lot better technology than GSM.
Errm.. maybe he was talking about the various 3+G CDMA based contenders, not CDMA/GSM.
You know.. EVDO/W-CDMA/HSDPA/UMTS/whatever.
GSM/CDMA are "2G"
About ten years ago, $100 was the norm for a very solid video card. Not coincidentally, there was a lot more competition in the market. Then came the dot-com collapse. ATI and nVidia emerged from the rubble, and people have been accusing them of price collusion for years. It would be pretty easy to do so, now that 3DFX, Matrox, S3, Rendition and the rest are largely out of the way in this sector of the market, or gone completely.
I remember that. That's when the $300 video card became standard, almost overnight. I wanted a Voodoo 5 so bad :\
It was around that time MySQL GPL'd all drivers, and changed their syntax so that it would only work on their servers. That way it is a GPL binding as per the court case.
So is the question of whether the GPL is viral or not even up in the air anymore? I've never heard this before, but it's f'ing nuts. More power to MySQL devs, leave, fork, whatever, and take your damned OSS purism ideals with you, it wont be missed.
Well, for one thing, javascript isn't putting databases or storage on the client, maybe you mistyped that.
I love to pull this quote out when talking about Web 1/2/3/4/5/6 whatever.
Try to think if it applies more to Web 2.0, or whatever your idea of Web 3.0 is.
Soon every desk will have a computer on it. Software to do mundane things such as payroll, mail, and text processing exists and as a by-product produces vast quantities of on-line in-formation. Many users want to manipulate this data, often in unanticipated ways. These unexpected uses cannot justify substantial programming costs. This paper argues that the relational data model and operators combined with a screen-oriented forms design and display system answers many of the needs of such users. In such a system, all data are represented in terms of records and fields. The user defines the screens (forms) he wants to see, and then specifies the mapping between fields of these screens and fields of the data base records in terms of predicates and relational operators.
Could user defined views to remote data be our Web 3.0? Who knows.
Copyright © 1981 D. Reidel Publishing Company. Originally appeared as a chapter of "Data Base Management and Applications", Andrew Whinston Ed., D. Reidel Publishing, 1981
That's my favorite part. The Internet is such a baby. I'm way too young to know it first hand, so I read old computer literature. It's interesting how all this remote application stuff has already been done, and bugs ironed out long ago, while we basically reinvent stuff over and over.