No, it doesn't, but that doesn't mean that it won't eventually, and having games available for it would probably help it grow. Though I myself will probably never use BeOS, I can imagine someone like my three brothers using it. One's working in a high end photography shop (for professional photographers) and the other two are musicians (mostly guitar), though I don't know how interested they are in using a computer in the first place (they're in Australia, I'm in New Zealand: communication is a little strained to say the least:).
I miss interpreted the comments (and got to the page after the fact) and thought e-mail was involved, not snail mail. Hmmm, wonder if this is a conspiracy to keep the USPS relevant?:)
What, scared of the thundering hordes of slashdotters invading your server? Aw, diddums.
Actually, in all seriousness, I can understand thier concern: email is much more likely to get through when the volume gets high (if the server crashes, the sending SMTP servers will retry later) and it's much easier to get a valid count from email (hmmm, 29978245 posts from baz@foo.bar? OK, he's keen, but that's still one vote).
I can see SGI sharing tech with NVIDIA that will allow x86 users the same cards as SGI users. Why? It's not just the video card that makes SGIs good boxes, but the rest of the hardware as well. In fact, I wouldn't be at all supprised to see full specs and/or supurb Linux drivers come out of this. Hardware sales is hardware sales. I don't think it really matters who thier customers are so long as they exist in the first place.
Of course, I could very easily be wrong (cf my CPU speed post in the quake discussion:) as I have never used (or seen? there were some interesting boxen at my previous employment) an SGI box.
Thanks for the explanations, guys. I'll just go find a crowbar to remove this foot from my mouth. However, I did learn something new (and got a response from a net.demi-god:), so I'm not in the slightest upset. A little embarrassed though...
Good point. I'd thought of that after I'd hit `submit'. I was getting the impression the original poster was talking about normal unix pings, not pings from within Quake (didn't even realize you could do that).
Anyway, wouldn't the latency be more a function of server speed rather than client speed, at least for a ping? Probably depends on the implementation of the client side.
My 386-33 gets 1.2 ms ping over 10base2 (16 bit isa ne2k) and my 300MHz celery gets 0.6ms ping (16 bit isa SMC Ultra) on the same network (three machines: 386-33, 486-66 and dual celery 300 (haven't oc'ed yet)). CPU speed does NOT account for 35ms difference in cable modem pings. Either you've got very good connectivity through or provider, or he's got very bad through his. I'll bet if I had cable modem the difference in ping times for my 386 and dual celeron boxen (and my 486 too) would be lost in the noise (ie +/- 1-2ms).
Much greater than 1ms differences in ping times will be caused by bandwidth (or shoddy modems, had that problem), not by CPU spead.
DISCLAIMER: this is for regular 56(? default, anyway) byte pings. I know that cranking up the packet size slows down the response (indefinite for ~65536 (don't know the exact size) to certain boxen:)
Um, while funny to read, I've had that theory for about 14 years or so, and I know I'm not the first (my dad mentioned some of it to me around that time). Actually, it would be kind of cool if our univers as some subatomic particle in another univers, and all our subatimic particles were also other universes.
Incidentally, this is why "phone number portability" is so stupid. The phone number should remain something that the switches can route by, just like an IP address. What we need is something like DNS for the phone system -- all phones have a little LCD display, maybe a little keypad. If you haven't got someone's number on quick dial, you can search on their name, and the system would search your local area first and give you a list of matches. Then you could expand geographically if req'd.
I don't know about the US, but hear in New Zealand the phone number hasn't had to be used for routing for about 10 years. The phone's real address is some obscure number the user will never see and the phone number you dial is just like a machine name, ie looked up.
Hmm... I just asked someone who knows more than me (not quite my boss), the translation isn't done (in practice) until the `call' gets to the destination, but your phone number is still effectivly your machine name. The equivalent of your phones IP address is not user visable. The main way your dialed digits are used is for geographic routing: area code and (for NZ (7 digit local numbers, like US/Can)) a three digit switch number. The last four digits get converted to your phones physical address. Think of country level TLDs (eg.ca,.nz,.us,.uk, etc).
Though this isn't 100% accurate, it's a good basic summarisation. Number Portability is just the stripping of the geographic routing. NP is actually already in heavy use: 0800 (free call) numbers are an execelent example.
If my math is right, 1GW going into an area 5 x 7 miles gives about 11W/m^2. Elsewhere in this thread, it was meantioned that cell phones put 16W/m^2 into your head. Relax.
I'm an x86 user myself, but that doesn't stop this from being a good thing. I see no reason why other h/w (or os, really) platforms shouldn't have the same benifits.
Is the documentation for BeOS better? (If it exists at all, it's not hard to be better than the docs I've seen for GTK (1.0.x I think is when I last looked (I ran away screaming:))) If the BeOS APIs are well documented, of course it will be easy to program for BeOS. In Linux, the source code itself tends to be the documentation, which has its advantages (it's always correct) and disadvantages (hard to find the information you're looking for).
Closed source s/w has to be well documented or you will almost never be able to get anywhere with it; you can't look at the source to see how to use a function. Open source s/w can get away without docs because they are, for the most part, redundant (though even a synopsys of what's where, or a diagram or two, would be a big help).
My 386dx33 w/16M does a beautiful job as a ipmasq gateway. Mind you, that's for a phone modem, not a cable modem. I seem to max out at 500-600kBps, but I'm not sure if the cpu can't keep up of if it's the harddrives (they're old and slowish, 600-700kBps).
If I saw $2500 lying on the street, I believe I might exert myself to pick it up.
Heck, I stoop to pick up 5 cents. I once spent several minutes breaking a $10 roll or quarters out of the ice once (it was actually $9.75, one coin was missing).
If that $2500 is american (which I suspect), that would get me another three dual celery boxen. I just got one (similar to the sub 1k dual celeron on TCU, minus a few bits I already had) last week for $1655NZD (about $800USD due to tax). As you say, that $2500 is not in the slightest bit trivial.
rpms do have an install via ftp feature, but it stops there (one of my few gripes about rpm). Sometimes (depending on the package) the missing package is actually known, but usually only specific files or `capabilities' (eg `mail daemon') will be mentioned in the requirements. And no, rpm does not (in my experience) automaticly fetch the required packages.
Ah, thanks for the correction. Also, though I disagree with you about rpms, I'll leave it at that (ie agree to disagree) because liking/disliking rpms is a very personal thing.
Hmm, I think I understand your grip about the package/version separator (and partly agree), but it hasn't actually caused me any problems other than one of the alsa prerelease versions.
Anyway, happy hacking. You use Debian, I'll use Red Hat, and we'll both be `as happy as penguins on ice' (my wife came up with that the other night:).
That is a good, validid reason for a personal dislike of Red Hat. Myself, I happen to like Red Hat because of rpm. I do have some gripes with rpm (mostly when it comes to the kernel), but in general, I find it very useful.
As to your assertion that Red Hat's only help to Linux is ``the effort to get widespread use of Linux'', I disagree. Everything (AFAICT) they themselves have written (rpm, the installer etc) is GPLed. They work with other companies (eg Precision Insight) to get more open sourced (GPLed?) drivers for modern hardware. They also pay people to work on Linux exclusively. What more do you want from them? Are you just jealous they didn't hire you? (I wouldn't mind if they hired me:)
Just don't tell "scanner" (my 486 - serves as a host for my scanner and X10 firecracker)that. Or at least two of the webservers here at Clemson - they're both P75s.:)
I'll have to make sure I don't read this thread at home. taniwha (my 386dx33 firewall running 2.2.6) would be most upset to realise that it's not supposed to be able to run linux. oorodina (486dx66, was, until friday, my main box) would be a tad miffed too. However, rusalka (dual celery 300 (haven't o'clocked it (her? a rusalka is a Russian ghost of a drowned girl) yet) would be a little confused as it knows it's not connected directly to the 'net, and yet it gets good service from taniwha.
Slashdot Mirror
but emotional, not that I blame you. I agree with your sentiments.
No, it doesn't, but that doesn't mean that it won't eventually, and having games available for it would probably help it grow. Though I myself will probably never use BeOS, I can imagine someone like my three brothers using it. One's working in a high end photography shop (for professional photographers) and the other two are musicians (mostly guitar), though I don't know how interested they are in using a computer in the first place (they're in Australia, I'm in New Zealand: communication is a little strained to say the least:).
<joke>What? Dropping crumbs all over the place?</joke>
Actually, I have no opinion whatsoever about BeOS (other than I probably won't ever use it). This is NOT a flame, nor is it meant to be flaimbait.
I miss interpreted the comments (and got to the page after the fact) and thought e-mail was involved, not snail mail. Hmmm, wonder if this is a conspiracy to keep the USPS relevant?:)
Actually, in all seriousness, I can understand thier concern: email is much more likely to get through when the volume gets high (if the server crashes, the sending SMTP servers will retry later) and it's much easier to get a valid count from email (hmmm, 29978245 posts from baz@foo.bar? OK, he's keen, but that's still one vote).
Of course, I could very easily be wrong (cf my CPU speed post in the quake discussion:) as I have never used (or seen? there were some interesting boxen at my previous employment) an SGI box.
Thanks for the explanations, guys. I'll just go find a crowbar to remove this foot from my mouth. However, I did learn something new (and got a response from a net.demi-god:), so I'm not in the slightest upset. A little embarrassed though...
Anyway, wouldn't the latency be more a function of server speed rather than client speed, at least for a ping? Probably depends on the implementation of the client side.
Much greater than 1ms differences in ping times will be caused by bandwidth (or shoddy modems, had that problem), not by CPU spead.
DISCLAIMER: this is for regular 56(? default, anyway) byte pings. I know that cranking up the packet size slows down the response (indefinite for ~65536 (don't know the exact size) to certain boxen:)
Me, no. My dad? Not in front of me, so I wouldn't know. Nor do I really care. Mind you, plenty of tobacco (Dad only).
Um, while funny to read, I've had that theory for about 14 years or so, and I know I'm not the first (my dad mentioned some of it to me around that time). Actually, it would be kind of cool if our univers as some subatomic particle in another univers, and all our subatimic particles were also other universes.
Unfortunatly, they forgot to defend against the Dreaded Slashdot Effect. All I'm getting is: `No Object Data'. Dang.
Hmm... I just asked someone who knows more than me (not quite my boss), the translation isn't done (in practice) until the `call' gets to the destination, but your phone number is still effectivly your machine name. The equivalent of your phones IP address is not user visable. The main way your dialed digits are used is for geographic routing: area code and (for NZ (7 digit local numbers, like US/Can)) a three digit switch number. The last four digits get converted to your phones physical address. Think of country level TLDs (eg .ca, .nz, .us, .uk, etc).
Though this isn't 100% accurate, it's a good basic summarisation. Number Portability is just the stripping of the geographic routing. NP is actually already in heavy use: 0800 (free call) numbers are an execelent example.
If my math is right, 1GW going into an area 5 x 7 miles gives about 11W/m^2. Elsewhere in this thread, it was meantioned that cell phones put 16W/m^2 into your head. Relax.
Go Loki and Tera Soft!
Closed source s/w has to be well documented or you will almost never be able to get anywhere with it; you can't look at the source to see how to use a function. Open source s/w can get away without docs because they are, for the most part, redundant (though even a synopsys of what's where, or a diagram or two, would be a big help).
Fine, you can waste your money if you want to (so long as I'm not working for you). I can't and won't stop you (hopefully, I'll get some of it:).
My 386dx33 w/16M does a beautiful job as a ipmasq gateway. Mind you, that's for a phone modem, not a cable modem. I seem to max out at 500-600kBps, but I'm not sure if the cpu can't keep up of if it's the harddrives (they're old and slowish, 600-700kBps).
Heck, I stoop to pick up 5 cents. I once spent several minutes breaking a $10 roll or quarters out of the ice once (it was actually $9.75, one coin was missing).
If that $2500 is american (which I suspect), that would get me another three dual celery boxen. I just got one (similar to the sub 1k dual celeron on TCU, minus a few bits I already had) last week for $1655NZD (about $800USD due to tax). As you say, that $2500 is not in the slightest bit trivial.
rpms do have an install via ftp feature, but it stops there (one of my few gripes about rpm). Sometimes (depending on the package) the missing package is actually known, but usually only specific files or `capabilities' (eg `mail daemon') will be mentioned in the requirements. And no, rpm does not (in my experience) automaticly fetch the required packages.
Ah, thanks for the correction. Also, though I disagree with you about rpms, I'll leave it at that (ie agree to disagree) because liking/disliking rpms is a very personal thing.
Hmm, I think I understand your grip about the package/version separator (and partly agree), but it hasn't actually caused me any problems other than one of the alsa prerelease versions.
Anyway, happy hacking. You use Debian, I'll use Red Hat, and we'll both be `as happy as penguins on ice' (my wife came up with that the other night:).
That is a good, validid reason for a personal dislike of Red Hat. Myself, I happen to like Red Hat because of rpm. I do have some gripes with rpm (mostly when it comes to the kernel), but in general, I find it very useful.
As to your assertion that Red Hat's only help to Linux is ``the effort to get widespread use of Linux'', I disagree. Everything (AFAICT) they themselves have written (rpm, the installer etc) is GPLed. They work with other companies (eg Precision Insight) to get more open sourced (GPLed?) drivers for modern hardware. They also pay people to work on Linux exclusively. What more do you want from them? Are you just jealous they didn't hire you? (I wouldn't mind if they hired me:)
64 bits at 66MHz is still 528MBytes/sec. Or is that one transfer/2 clocks? Still, 264MBps.