This is great, now they're claiming IRIX is their property as well. Specifically targeting XFS as "improperly" transferred to linux.
Which begs the question, is there any operating system or code anywhere, written by anyone, which SCO doesn't claim ownership of? Is there any limit to their claims?
Next thing you know, they'll go after CMU for "illegally contributing coda filesystem to linux".. oops, just gave them ideas! sorry:-o
This is great, now they're claiming IRIX is their property as well. Specifically targeting XFS as "improperly" transferred to linux.
Which begs the question, is there any operating system or code anywhere, written by anyone, which SCO doesn't claim ownership of? Is there any limit to their claims?
Next thing you know, they'll go after CMU for "illegally contributing coda filesystem to linux".. oops, just gave them ideas! sorry:-o
there *are* numerous tools to help spot buffer overflows, a lot of excellent ones. i use them regularly.
it's obvious microsoft has never even *tried* to proactively examine their code for problems.
as long as microsoft continues to focus on application looks rather than application security, they will continue to be a source of critical widespread exploits about once a month.
"And most people are too stuck in the x86 mindset to even see it."
bullshit.
most people look at the $1400 price tag (for the cpu alone! not even including the motherboard and other hardware) with poor software support and say "fuck it".
if it were cheap and fast, people would buy it. itanic is neither.
They might LOOK efficient, because LEDs output most of their energy in a narrow beam. But overall efficiency is not any better than an incandescent bulb. In fact LEDs are about 4 times LESS efficient than fluorescent lighting in lumens/watt.
The current efficiency champion is high pressure sodium lighting, roughly twice as efficient as fluorescent.
It will be a long, long, long time before LEDs replace fluorescent lighting in terms of efficiency.
mars is high risk. they should have known better by now. there are enough data points to show they made they wrong decision even before they launched...
sadly the most likely failure mode is beagle 2 strewn in little pieces across the martian landscape. key systems in the lander went untested before launch, I guess they're tested now.:P
there are other 64 bit archs which are cheaper than alpha. mips comes to mind, as well as ppc. ppc is much better price/performance than alpha, by miles.
and now there's opteron. no way alpha can touch this price/performance.
cray no longer uses alphas. and those supercomputers that rely on the 5-7 year old design, *are* themselves 5-7 years old.
nobody is deploying new supercomputers using alphas.
alpha is a dead end arch, it remains to be seen how long it takes dec to wake up and smell the silicon.
the alpha was (and is) an expensive chip to produce. they continue to pound on an architecture which hasnt been able to scale in a cost effective manner.
what are you going to boost against? the moon? its feeble gravity hardly makse such a maneuver worth the effort.
boost vs inner planets like venus? you've lengthened the trip and made the mission much more complex by an order of magnitude or more.
plus -- venus is *much* closer to earth. the delta-v required to reach venus is *much* lower than that to reach mars. a much simpler, easier, shorter trip. a lighter, simpler spacecraft. less fuel required, fewer things to go wrong.
plus, most of the failed missions have been landers. orbiting a planet is simple in comparison. landing on ANY body is HARD.
Slashdot Mirror
...is hardly a reputable source for ANYTHING.
This is great, now they're claiming IRIX is their property as well. Specifically targeting XFS as "improperly" transferred to linux.
:-o
Which begs the question, is there any operating system or code anywhere, written by anyone, which SCO doesn't claim ownership of? Is there any limit to their claims?
Next thing you know, they'll go after CMU for "illegally contributing coda filesystem to linux".. oops, just gave them ideas! sorry
This is great, now they're claiming IRIX is their property as well. Specifically targeting XFS as "improperly" transferred to linux.
:-o
Which begs the question, is there any operating system or code anywhere, written by anyone, which SCO doesn't claim ownership of? Is there any limit to their claims?
Next thing you know, they'll go after CMU for "illegally contributing coda filesystem to linux".. oops, just gave them ideas! sorry
no it wont, because it's not +x
From what I hear, there won't be one -- only a linux server.
there *are* numerous tools to help spot buffer overflows, a lot of excellent ones. i use them regularly.
it's obvious microsoft has never even *tried* to proactively examine their code for problems.
as long as microsoft continues to focus on application looks rather than application security, they will continue to be a source of critical widespread exploits about once a month.
...darl and his droogies doing prison terms on criminal insider trading and stock fraud charges...
that was nixon actually.
"Cisco uses ASICs and other hardware level goop for much of their routing"
only the most expensive ones do. Anything less than $10k does everything in software and cpu.
"a lot of the routing logic is hardware based"
No it isnt. Not in a $2000 cisco.
You need a (starting at)$15k cisco for that.
The $2k ciscos are all bottom-end ciscos which do everything in CPU and software.
"And most people are too stuck in the x86 mindset to even see it."
bullshit.
most people look at the $1400 price tag (for the cpu alone! not even including the motherboard and other hardware) with poor software support and say "fuck it".
if it were cheap and fast, people would buy it. itanic is neither.
ac transformers tend to vibrate. the same kind of effect that you hear from the giant transformers on telephone poles humming at 60hz.
the typical television or monitor transformer hums at 15khz. typical human hearing is ~15hz - 20khz.
you arent hearing EMI. you are hearing normal sound waves. nothing special.
i hear it too, many people can -- with or without adhd.
so no, it has absolutely no relationship to adhd. sorry.
Sure, Linux zealots are loud, annoying and arrogant. Sort of like pat robertson and jerry falwell.
But BSD zealots are downright militant like islamic fundamentalists.
They might LOOK efficient, because LEDs output most of their energy in a narrow beam. But overall efficiency is not any better than an incandescent bulb. In fact LEDs are about 4 times LESS efficient than fluorescent lighting in lumens/watt.
The current efficiency champion is high pressure sodium lighting, roughly twice as efficient as fluorescent.
It will be a long, long, long time before LEDs replace fluorescent lighting in terms of efficiency.
http://humbabe.arc.nasa.gov/mgcm/faq/sky.html
s /b lusky.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/atmo
The martian sky color comes primarily from dust, which overpowers any rayleigh effects from the pitifully thin atmosphere (1% of earth's)
mars is high risk. they should have known better by now. there are enough data points to show they made they wrong decision even before they launched ...
the parachute at least. probably the airbags, possibly the parachute lines, and the heat shield.
sadly the most likely failure mode is beagle 2 strewn in little pieces across the martian landscape. key systems in the lander went untested before launch, I guess they're tested now. :P
transistors dont involve antimatter particles.
:-)
I don't think CPUs emitting hundreds of rads of gamma rays would go over very well anyway
there are other 64 bit archs which are cheaper than alpha. mips comes to mind, as well as ppc. ppc is much better price/performance than alpha, by miles.
and now there's opteron. no way alpha can touch this price/performance.
cray no longer uses alphas. and those supercomputers that rely on the 5-7 year old design, *are* themselves 5-7 years old.
nobody is deploying new supercomputers using alphas.
alpha is a dead end arch, it remains to be seen how long it takes dec to wake up and smell the silicon.
it had nothing to do with markeing.
the alpha was (and is) an expensive chip to produce. they continue to pound on an architecture which hasnt been able to scale in a cost effective manner.
price/performance, dec alpha sucks. nobody is building NEW alpha systems, they're mostly legacy installs.
unless of course, life arose with a biochemistry in which such reactive materials was essential.
what are you going to boost against? the moon? its feeble gravity hardly makse such a maneuver worth the effort.
boost vs inner planets like venus? you've lengthened the trip and made the mission much more complex by an order of magnitude or more.
plus -- venus is *much* closer to earth. the delta-v required to reach venus is *much* lower than that to reach mars. a much simpler, easier, shorter trip. a lighter, simpler spacecraft. less fuel required, fewer things to go wrong.
plus, most of the failed missions have been landers. orbiting a planet is simple in comparison. landing on ANY body is HARD.
a direct path to landing is much simpler than trying to make an orbit insertion and then a deorbit to landing.