I've found that the farther you get away from your early 20's (as oppossed to away from college for those that didn't go...) the harder it is to move from job to job without the piece of paper.
I've got many friends who didn't go that can't move to better jobs or other companies due to the lack of paper. That isn't to say they aren't great engineers - just that they have a harder time commanding decent pay at new jobs because of the lack of a college degree.
Well - the GPL is viral in nature, i.e. if you are creating a derived work from GPL source, or even linking to GPL'd code, then you probably have to release the code in source form as well to comply with the GPL or you aren't allowed to link it. Now there is a VERY specific permission granted by Linus for binary modules. But from my reading of the Kernel traffic report - he's having second thoughts!
Uhm - you sure about this - I'm willing to bet that Adaptec got their driver QUALIFIED before W95 was released to the public, but they wrote it themselves. How do I know - well - uhm... hehehe.
SMP doesn't of itself improve the SINGLE process performance. You CAN write special code on a Beowolf platform (or SMP) and get the answer faster for the single thread via parallelism...but that is a problem that isn't well supported by automatic tools at this time. We DO have the technology to throw more execute units at a single thread and get the answer faster though - that is what Merced is all about.
You can just as easily SMP a Merced class CPU and run multiple threads thru them as you can with a PPC or a Xeon. That isn't the problem that EPIC,VLIW, or Mulitple-issue pipeline(Superscalar) machines are trying to solve.
Think SINGLE threads when talking about these architectures.
There are fundamentally two ways to make a SINGLE thread go faster - you can up the clock rate - or figure out a way to run more than one instruction at a time.
Multi-issue pipelines, VLIW, and EPIC are attempts at solving the problem in the second manner. Once you have an adequate solution in the second space it becomes possible to improve it's performance in via the first method.
Thus, from an architect's point of view - the second method is the first tried!
Now - which is better - multi-issue pipelines or EPIC at a given clock rate. That remains to be seen.
Is JIT reduce to compiling for the hardware the JIT compiler is running on - or a virtual machine?
If it's a virtual machine, then the Machine simulator is all that needs to be run thru the EPIC compiler - cause that's all that would execute - not some intermediate target language. If that's the case, EPIC won't present any real problem.
Intel hasn't innovated - give me break. Just the silicon process technology they've developed would wipe that arguement out - the other detail -managing to get x86 to go as fast as they have generation after generation disproves the statement also.
Also, EPIC as detailed, isn't really even an HP invention, but rather an outgrown of things done by companies in the 80's such as Multiflow and Cydrome.
The author claims that the compiler is a bitch -well it is, but they solved most of the problems with the compiler technology at those earlier companies - and some of the folks doing the IA64 are graduates of same.
I WOULD worry about the scalability of the architecture though - that WAS a problem with the Trace and Cydra architectures. You had to recompile for suceeding generations of hardware. I personally don't know if EPIC solves that problem with VLIW architectures. Anyone know if it does, and how?
For a lawyer - the was saying "Pretty please with sugar on top!"
Now the point made that Theo might consider it worth more than their offering is a valid point - and he may very well have as legitimate a claim to the name as the company.
On the OTHER HAND - if the company has indeed trademarked "Theos" along with "Theos Software" then they are duty bound to protect their trademark or loose it! That is the way the law is written. Most of you folks may be to young to remember the Xerox trademark lawsuit... Xerox had to go to court to keep their name trademarked, even though for all practical purposes the name is used to imply making a copy (which turns out to be both a blessing and a curse if you're Xerox..) If the company DOES have such a trademark then they are merely following what the law demands they do to protect that trademark - no more or less...and again..the letter Theo received doesn't come across in near the same vain as others have received.
If he replies by offering to negotiate because he indeed has proper rights to the name as well -then they have a starting point..that is okay.
I just think that villifying every company because the are acting to protect their name brands is silly, especially in this particular case where they really dont come off sounding like a vengeful bunch -
From reading Theo's tirade - I gather he is really out of sorts cuz they didn't contact him personally - well, alot of things are done by mail in business - maybe the right way would have been a personal phone call - If the company was smart -they'd pick up on that detail and continue from there. BUT I can't fault the company for starting out this way.
Go read their letter - see if it is comes off in a threatening manner.
I read the letter the lawyer sent - to paraphrase -
We don't think you registered this to cause us grief, and we don't want to cause you any. We'll be glad to pay you the $35 registration fee and do the required paperwork... thanks for the cooperation.
That just wasn't your typical "We're gonna sue you socks off" letter from a lawyer. They offer reasonable compensation if you are operating from the assumption that Theo didn't register the domain to hold them hostage. (Which I assume is the case.)
I think Theo is probably ought to go along - I don't see this in the same vane as the "Death Star" threat in the other part of the thread.
Slashdot Mirror
I've found that the farther you get
away from your early 20's (as oppossed
to away from college for those that
didn't go...) the harder it is to
move from job to job without the piece
of paper.
I've got many friends who didn't go that
can't move to better jobs or other
companies due to the lack of paper.
That isn't to say they aren't great
engineers - just that they have a
harder time commanding decent pay at
new jobs because of the lack of a college
degree.
Your mileage may vary.
Well - the GPL is viral in nature, i.e. if
you are creating a derived work from GPL
source, or even linking to GPL'd code, then
you probably have to release the code in
source form as well to comply with the GPL
or you aren't allowed to link it. Now there
is a VERY specific permission granted by Linus
for binary modules. But from my reading of the
Kernel traffic report - he's having second
thoughts!
Uhm - you sure about this - I'm
willing to bet that Adaptec got their
driver QUALIFIED before W95 was released
to the public, but they wrote it
themselves. How do I know - well - uhm...
hehehe.
Naw - Gore will beat him to it.
/*Conversion algorithm.*/
Gore = Democrat(Quayle);
Whoops - forgot AL's GOt NO Rithm..
Maybe ESR, et al, should sue Gore for ;-)
trademark violation??
Steve
This is falacious.
SMP doesn't of itself improve the SINGLE process
performance. You CAN write special code on a
Beowolf platform (or SMP) and get the answer faster
for the single thread via parallelism...but that is
a problem that isn't well supported by automatic
tools at this time. We DO have the technology to
throw more execute units at a single thread and
get the answer faster though - that is what Merced
is all about.
You can just as easily SMP a Merced class CPU and
run multiple threads thru them as you can with a PPC
or a Xeon. That isn't the problem that EPIC,VLIW, or
Mulitple-issue pipeline(Superscalar) machines are
trying to solve.
Think SINGLE threads when talking about these
architectures.
Steve
There are fundamentally two ways to make a
SINGLE thread go faster - you can up the
clock rate - or figure out a way to run more than
one instruction at a time.
Multi-issue pipelines, VLIW, and EPIC are attempts
at solving the problem in the second manner. Once
you have an adequate solution in the second space
it becomes possible to improve it's performance in
via the first method.
Thus, from an architect's point of view - the second
method is the first tried!
Now - which is better - multi-issue pipelines or
EPIC at a given clock rate. That remains to be seen.
Steve
Excuse my ignorance (I know VLIW but not JIT ;-)
Is JIT reduce to compiling for the hardware the
JIT compiler is running on - or a virtual machine?
If it's a virtual machine, then the Machine simulator
is all that needs to be run thru the EPIC compiler -
cause that's all that would execute - not some
intermediate target language. If that's the case,
EPIC won't present any real problem.
Out of ignorance...which is it??
Steve
The interesting point about this is - a large
;-)
number of the folks that DO have such
experience work for Intel and HP.
I know - I worked with about half of em
at Cydrome..
Intel hasn't innovated - give me break. Just the
silicon process technology they've developed would
wipe that arguement out - the other detail -managing
to get x86 to go as fast as they have generation after
generation disproves the statement also.
Also, EPIC as detailed, isn't really even an HP
invention, but rather an outgrown of things done
by companies in the 80's such as Multiflow and
Cydrome.
The author claims that the compiler is a bitch -well it
is, but they solved most of the problems with the
compiler technology at those earlier companies - and
some of the folks doing the IA64 are graduates of same.
I WOULD worry about the scalability of the architecture
though - that WAS a problem with the Trace and
Cydra architectures. You had to recompile for
suceeding generations of hardware. I personally
don't know if EPIC solves that problem with VLIW
architectures. Anyone know if it does, and how?
Steve
Well - try this against
anyting in net 44! These are
amateur radio packet stations,
which might be VERY mobile.
So that is 1/256 of the net
where the concept is bogus.
And anyone that is behind a
corporate firewall is another
place where the IP addresses
have no bearing to location.
Not a practical idea in most
cases.
Go look at the mail the lawyer sent.
For a lawyer - the was saying "Pretty
please with sugar on top!"
Now the point made that Theo might
consider it worth more than their
offering is a valid point - and he
may very well have as legitimate a
claim to the name as the company.
On the OTHER HAND - if the company
has indeed trademarked "Theos" along
with "Theos Software" then they are
duty bound to protect their trademark
or loose it! That is the way the
law is written. Most of you folks
may be to young to remember the Xerox
trademark lawsuit... Xerox had to go to
court to keep their name trademarked,
even though for all practical purposes
the name is used to imply making a copy
(which turns out to be both a blessing
and a curse if you're Xerox..)
If the company DOES have such a trademark
then they are merely following what the
law demands they do to protect that
trademark - no more or less...and
again..the letter Theo received doesn't
come across in near the same vain as
others have received.
If he replies by offering to negotiate
because he indeed has proper rights to
the name as well -then they have a
starting point..that is okay.
I just think that villifying every
company because the are acting to
protect their name brands is silly,
especially in this particular case
where they really dont come off sounding
like a vengeful bunch -
From reading Theo's tirade - I gather he
is really out of sorts cuz they didn't
contact him personally - well, alot
of things are done by mail in business -
maybe the right way would have been a
personal phone call - If the company was
smart -they'd pick up on that detail
and continue from there. BUT I can't
fault the company for starting out this
way.
Go read their letter - see if it is comes
off in a threatening manner.
Steve
I think I'm with you on this one.
I read the letter the lawyer sent - to paraphrase -
We don't think you registered this to cause us
grief, and we don't want to cause you any. We'll
be glad to pay you the $35 registration fee and
do the required paperwork... thanks for the
cooperation.
That just wasn't your typical "We're gonna sue you
socks off" letter from a lawyer. They offer
reasonable compensation if you are operating
from the assumption that Theo didn't register
the domain to hold them hostage. (Which I
assume is the case.)
I think Theo is probably ought to go along - I don't
see this in the same vane as the "Death Star" threat
in the other part of the thread.
Steve