reusability isnt a requirement of the CEV and none of the proposals say anything about reusability. if the current proposal is intended to be reusable it doesnt say it anywhere.
the talk about titanium is insurance to make sure something like a columbia disaster (eg burn-through) doesnt happen again -- makes sense to me.
this isnt a reusable craft though. so refurbishing would seem a moot point.
ablative heat shielding is used on all current space probes because it's ultra reliable. it's also able to withstand temperatures that non-ablative simply can't. this would seem to imply ablative shielding has greater margins than non-ablative.
the main advantage i am aware of for non-ablative is its light weight, but the tradeoff is technical complexity, in some cases extreme as well as extreme cost (as in the shuttle tiles).
mantis has support for multiple projects, and has an excellent interface. very fast, simple and easy to use. the only thing its missing is cvs/svn integration.
mantis is very nice (the interface is only 10,000,000x better than bugzilla). its also trivial to install and configure, and its very fast. the only thing its lacking is svn/cvs integration.
"With CVS you don't know that two files were changed at once and that these changes belong together: with SubVersion you instantly know because you see that at revision XY two files where changed."
This is so huge it deserves mentioning twice. Combing through CVS logs for specific changesets is a major pita.
I actually converted some CVS repositories to SVN just so I could use SVN to read through commit logs and diff out changesets so I could apply patchsets to other trees. In SVN it is trivial. 'svn diff -r1679:1683' etc. With CVS -- it is hopeless.
Oh yes, and branches/tags don't suck in SVN like they do in CVS.
the problem is what christians define as "evil" -- which is the same problem islam has.
Re:Do the new models replace or confuse old ones?
on
A Review of GCC 4.0
·
· Score: 1
the rockbox project are porting to iriver (cf5249) and have done some work getting gcc to properly support it. i know they have emac macros, dont know what it would take to get them working in the gcc backend.
Re:Do the new models replace or confuse old ones?
on
A Review of GCC 4.0
·
· Score: 1
yes it does, but the support is poor. not only for coldfire but for 68k in general. gcc tends to make poor use of register-rich architectures. you can see this in eg powerpc assembly output. there is also no MAC/EMAC support in gcc afaik, so no autovectorization...
Also, gwb makes a lot of fuss about 'totalitarian' and 'undemocratic' regimes. Well, you dont get any more totalitarian and undemocratic than saudi arabia (except maybe north korea). Even iran and pakistan are sorta democratic now.
Re:Do the new models replace or confuse old ones?
on
A Review of GCC 4.0
·
· Score: 1
coldfire is becoming an increasingly important architecture, and gcc could do well to support it. problem is there's a lot of coldfire variants with all sorts of nifty stuff, all different. ("you are in a maze of twisty passages, all different. you might get eaten by a grue.")
a simplified backend would help greatly in porting to these architectures. especially if the autovectorization could be mangled to support the EMAC in some of the coldfire variants.
this is why apple should adopt Qt as an official framework, and work to get it tightly integrated with aqua. Why? Because it makes it simple to port applications from other platforms -- one of the things which is killing ports like openoffice atm.
Right now you can use Qt, but it requires xdarwin and it does not integrate with aqua, no way no how. not to mention the heavy lifting required by xdarwin (which also hurts performance).
2. And what is the price differential vs a non-rackmount dual G5?
3. Depends on if it was cost competetive or not. I'm actually architecture-agnostic. price/performance is whats important to me, if apple can provide a cost competitive quad cpu system, i'll buy one.
I will point out ISPs hate the powermac cases. You can't stack them like you can PCs (they are extremely unstable if you try). In fact with apple, you don't get a choice in the matter. It's dictated for you. Don't like the case? Want a rack case instead? Tough noogies.
Also, if you're really audacious you can build a quad opteron for under $2500. Does apple even offer a quad CPU system?
You can put together a dual opteron pretty cheaply. Opteron 250's (2.4ghz smp) are $700 ea. and a good dual opteron mobo will run you $300. If you're willing to do with Opteron 244's (1.8ghz smp) those are $200 ea.
A case + PS will run you $100 max. The rest you get to blow on memory/disks/etc.
It's pretty easy to see you can make a rather hefty machine for $2500 with dual 1800 opterons.
Check out newegg. As a mac user you're simply not used to reasonable prices for hardware.:-)
What has hardware manufacturing got to do with entering the x86 arena? Even microsoft doesn't make PCs. They make operating systems.
Apple could sell OSX for x86, and benefit from the cutthroat pricing of x86 hardware, and the incredible choice of peripherals -- instead of the elitist pricing of mac hardware and the incredible lack of peripherals.
Apple is already competing with microsoft. Selling OSX for x86 would change nothing (except let OSX leverage hardware it doesnt currently have access to).
hopefully xcode is no longer the crashy pile of doggie poo it is in panther. hopefully they also improved the UI -- xcode is the most unpleasant IDE i've ever used -- it's worse than kdevelop, and that takes real talent.
Slashdot Mirror
linux's dominance in the server OS market hasn't brought down microsoft's server OS pricing nor has it made microsoft's server OSes suck any less.
i don't see why google would change anything.
google innovates. this is a completely alien concept to microsoft, and it is why google is successful and microsoft is completely lost.
but it also means the moment google pauses even for a split second, microsoft will overwhelm them with copying.
quite funny to see google putting a bug up billy's butt though. suffer, bill. suffer.
since when has microsoft innovated, ever ?
microsoft is good at only one thing - copying. innovating is a completely alien concept to them.
if they can't copy something, they assimilate it. the borg analogy works very well.
reusability isnt a requirement of the CEV and none of the proposals say anything about reusability. if the current proposal is intended to be reusable it doesnt say it anywhere.
the talk about titanium is insurance to make sure something like a columbia disaster (eg burn-through) doesnt happen again -- makes sense to me.
this isnt a reusable craft though. so refurbishing would seem a moot point.
ablative heat shielding is used on all current space probes because it's ultra reliable. it's also able to withstand temperatures that non-ablative simply can't. this would seem to imply ablative shielding has greater margins than non-ablative.
the main advantage i am aware of for non-ablative is its light weight, but the tradeoff is technical complexity, in some cases extreme as well as extreme cost (as in the shuttle tiles).
why the fuss about non-ablative heat shielding? ablative heat shielding is tried and true and very reliable, plus it's cheap.
darcs' dependence on haskell means it is a non-starter for most. it is also very slow.
mantis has support for multiple projects, and has an excellent interface. very fast, simple and easy to use. the only thing its missing is cvs/svn integration.
mantis is very nice (the interface is only 10,000,000x better than bugzilla). its also trivial to install and configure, and its very fast. the only thing its lacking is svn/cvs integration.
how does trac compare?
"With CVS you don't know that two files were changed at once and that these changes belong together: with SubVersion you instantly know because you see that at revision XY two files where changed."
This is so huge it deserves mentioning twice . Combing through CVS logs for specific changesets is a major pita.
I actually converted some CVS repositories to SVN just so I could use SVN to read through commit logs and diff out changesets so I could apply patchsets to other trees. In SVN it is trivial. 'svn diff -r1679:1683' etc. With CVS -- it is hopeless.
Oh yes, and branches/tags don't suck in SVN like they do in CVS.
the problem is what christians define as "evil" -- which is the same problem islam has.
the rockbox project are porting to iriver (cf5249) and have done some work getting gcc to properly support it. i know they have emac macros, dont know what it would take to get them working in the gcc backend.
yes it does, but the support is poor. not only for coldfire but for 68k in general. gcc tends to make poor use of register-rich architectures. you can see this in eg powerpc assembly output. there is also no MAC/EMAC support in gcc afaik, so no autovectorization...
Also, gwb makes a lot of fuss about 'totalitarian' and 'undemocratic' regimes. Well, you dont get any more totalitarian and undemocratic than saudi arabia (except maybe north korea). Even iran and pakistan are sorta democratic now.
coldfire is becoming an increasingly important architecture, and gcc could do well to support it. problem is there's a lot of coldfire variants with all sorts of nifty stuff, all different. ("you are in a maze of twisty passages, all different. you might get eaten by a grue.")
a simplified backend would help greatly in porting to these architectures. especially if the autovectorization could be mangled to support the EMAC in some of the coldfire variants.
this is why apple should adopt Qt as an official framework, and work to get it tightly integrated with aqua. Why? Because it makes it simple to port applications from other platforms -- one of the things which is killing ports like openoffice atm.
Right now you can use Qt, but it requires xdarwin and it does not integrate with aqua, no way no how . not to mention the heavy lifting required by xdarwin (which also hurts performance).
1. They're as relevant as yours were.
2. And what is the price differential vs a non-rackmount dual G5?
3. Depends on if it was cost competetive or not. I'm actually architecture-agnostic. price/performance is whats important to me, if apple can provide a cost competitive quad cpu system, i'll buy one.
what's wrong with zen buddhism? it's certainly a lot less violent than genuine christianity.
opposition to Middle Eastern and other states that are perceived to support terrorism
Lollerskates!
News flash:
11 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia
The current administration and neocons are staunch supporters of Saudi Arabia.
I guess we can just chalk it up to a "perception problem" then.
If you want to go after states which support terrrorism, go after Saudi Arabia , not Iraq.
I will point out ISPs hate the powermac cases. You can't stack them like you can PCs (they are extremely unstable if you try). In fact with apple, you don't get a choice in the matter. It's dictated for you. Don't like the case? Want a rack case instead? Tough noogies.
Also, if you're really audacious you can build a quad opteron for under $2500. Does apple even offer a quad CPU system?
You can put together a dual opteron pretty cheaply. Opteron 250's (2.4ghz smp) are $700 ea. and a good dual opteron mobo will run you $300. If you're willing to do with Opteron 244's (1.8ghz smp) those are $200 ea.
:-)
A case + PS will run you $100 max. The rest you get to blow on memory/disks/etc.
It's pretty easy to see you can make a rather hefty machine for $2500 with dual 1800 opterons.
Check out newegg. As a mac user you're simply not used to reasonable prices for hardware.
What has hardware manufacturing got to do with entering the x86 arena? Even microsoft doesn't make PCs. They make operating systems.
Apple could sell OSX for x86, and benefit from the cutthroat pricing of x86 hardware, and the incredible choice of peripherals -- instead of the elitist pricing of mac hardware and the incredible lack of peripherals.
Apple is already competing with microsoft. Selling OSX for x86 would change nothing (except let OSX leverage hardware it doesnt currently have access to).
hopefully xcode is no longer the crashy pile of doggie poo it is in panther. hopefully they also improved the UI -- xcode is the most unpleasant IDE i've ever used -- it's worse than kdevelop, and that takes real talent.
Wrong.
Apple has two OS product lines. Targeted differently and priced differently.
OS X - $129 (equivalent I guess, to XP Home)
OS X Server - $499 (equivalent to XP Pro).
So really, apple is doing exactly the same thing microsoft is doing.
I'd rather the CEO of MS/P&G oppose anti-gay bills on an ethical/moral basis rather than a purely economic one.