It would be interesting to graph system startup times year-by-year with then-standard distros running on then-standard hardware. I suspect start-up times haven't changed significantly since the 70's.
Does anyone here recall the famous if not accurate "Whoa, Win95 boots in under 3 seconds!!!" usenet thread?
Startup time is currently an area where the likes of Windows XP excels over Linux. On an Athlon 2600+, XP takes 6 seconds to boot (and become usable) whilst Fedora Core 3 takes closer to 90 seconds.
Yes, both use prelinking (or prefetch if you like), but linux distros still don't load independent services in parallel, and I suspect Fedoras prelinking is far from optimized.
A leader of the Horse and Cart Consortium stated in a press release that Cars and Trucks are doomed fads since neither can be connected to existing horses or carts.
Do you also believe that Richard Stallman didn't coin the phrase "Free Software", since the term "free software" was obviously used before the FSF was founded?
Even though Linux is a registered trademark, I believe it is still used as a generic term for GNU/Linux distributions, which are very similar to GNU/BSD distros apart from the kernel.
Kind of like how when you Lux your house (or Hoover your house if you're american) you're not necessarily using an Electrolux (or Hoover) brand vacuum cleaner. Same principle.
.. except that open source and Open Source are two rather different things. Open Source has a strict definition, whilst open source is a vague term that can be applied to anything that isn't completely obscured from the public.
If I write a new game and distribute the source code but add a condition that anyone using the source must not use it for any purpose other than education, then my little program will come with an open source. It will, of course, most definitely NOT be Open Source.
Yes, open source has occasionally been used to describe access to source code since before OSIs foundation, but it was hardly common usage.
In this case, capitalization is merely a way of separating the common term from the uncommon one, strict english punctuation or otherwise.
You go open your burger bar, and get sued for using a phrase that was already in common use (and possibly trademarked). Why don't you instead try starting up a company that sells international business machines? Not a problem, until you capitalise those letters! Or why not paint your computer case a crispy apple-green and call it your apple computer?
Maybe those two words were used together, but they weren't capitalised and certainly didn't have a solid definition.
Nowhere in your three google references did I see the term Open Source, which is what the OSI coined. The grandparent post just misspelled (or mispunctuated) it.
Come on, you can't tell me that MS/Intel/Dell are still the only players in the PC market. I don't remember the last time I bought Dell or Intel, and I buy a great deal of PCs for a significant company.
Then again I don't buy Microsoft much either, so who am I to talk?
That may be true, but I think the point is that Dvorak is more efficient. To type a few thousand words your fingers travel less kilometers with Dvorak than with Qwerty.
This is good for saving wear and tear on fingers, which becomes increasingly important later in life.
Maybe so, but I bet he wouldn't be any less proficient had he learned on a 123456789 laid out keypad, as oposed to the 789456123 adding machine standard.
I believe the original motivation for that retarded standard was so the '1' was close to the '0', the two most common numbers in accounting. But if you keep your hand over the majority of the keypad, you try hitting 010101010101 and then 070707070707 and see which feels most comfortable.
I'm sure that these machines did have this layout first, but it doesn't make them any good. Sure there may be the history but I still maintain my opinion that the 123... format is easier to master than 789...
This monstrosity had better not become a standard, what with the patent and all.
Re:Ironically, that story isn't true
on
New Standard Keyboard
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
No, it's just a half-truth. The keys were placed such that the hammers were statistically less likely to jam, even if the monks typed at the same speed.
Nobody really denies that Qwerty is an inefficient layout. At least nobody who has done their homework. There are many studies comparing wpm speeds of people proficient in both Qwerty and Dvorak that show the clear advantage of the latter. I'll leave finding them as an exercise to the reader (read: I'm too lazy to look them up right now).
So let's use a keyboard designed for people, not machines, shall we?
(by that I mean Dvorak, not the monstrosity cited in this article)
Current keyboards do have problems, but this *ahem* example just throws out the baby with the bathwater.
One of the biggest problems with the current AT-keyboard layout is the ordering of digits on the numeric keypad.
I mean, damn near every other keypad in existance begins with 1 at the top left and works its way down to 9 at the bottom right (think telephone, ATM, eftpos terminal, security keypad).
But for some unfathomable reason the AT keyboard standard has transposed the top and bottom rows, so you get 1 at the bottom left and 9 at the top right, making it much more difficult to master data entry.
Which of these looks more familiar:
1 2 3 7 8 9 4 5 6 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3
0 . 0.
I'm betting most will pick the former, since the pattern in the latter is much less recognizable if it's not shown in the context of a computer keyboard.
One of the defining characteristics of the "younger video-game generation", IMO, is their tendency to share with their friends.
I doubt this will catch on very well if Billy can't give a copy of a movie he's just downloaded to little Jimmy.
As far as I can see, this is still the same old business model with a slightly different distribution method.
Not that I'm suggesting a new business model (ooh, how about voluntary micropayments to the temporaily formed company that made the film instead of "If you don't pay you can't see it" payments to the distributor?), I'm just saying the old one doesn't really work anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
Or just use a WYSIWYG LaTEX tool like this one to do all that nasty coding for you :)
It would be interesting to graph system startup times year-by-year with then-standard distros running on then-standard hardware. I suspect start-up times haven't changed significantly since the 70's.
Does anyone here recall the famous if not accurate "Whoa, Win95 boots in under 3 seconds!!!" usenet thread?
Startup time is currently an area where the likes of Windows XP excels over Linux. On an Athlon 2600+, XP takes 6 seconds to boot (and become usable) whilst Fedora Core 3 takes closer to 90 seconds.
Yes, both use prelinking (or prefetch if you like), but linux distros still don't load independent services in parallel, and I suspect Fedoras prelinking is far from optimized.
A leader of the Horse and Cart Consortium stated in a press release that Cars and Trucks are doomed fads since neither can be connected to existing horses or carts.
I am curious;
Do you also believe that Richard Stallman didn't coin the phrase "Free Software", since the term "free software" was obviously used before the FSF was founded?
After watching many episodes I'm convinved it's really just a spout of social commentaries by three old cynics.
One pretends to be a family guy, another is dressed up as a dog, and the other one thinks he's a baby.
I don't get it.
Even though Linux is a registered trademark, I believe it is still used as a generic term for GNU/Linux distributions, which are very similar to GNU/BSD distros apart from the kernel.
Kind of like how when you Lux your house (or Hoover your house if you're american) you're not necessarily using an Electrolux (or Hoover) brand vacuum cleaner. Same principle.
Think of it as the difference between free software and Free Software.
Because those two people you mentioned have built their empire on obscuring what computing really is and how it came to be.
.. except that open source and Open Source are two rather different things. Open Source has a strict definition, whilst open source is a vague term that can be applied to anything that isn't completely obscured from the public.
If I write a new game and distribute the source code but add a condition that anyone using the source must not use it for any purpose other than education, then my little program will come with an open source. It will, of course, most definitely NOT be Open Source.
Yes, open source has occasionally been used to describe access to source code since before OSIs foundation, but it was hardly common usage.
In this case, capitalization is merely a way of separating the common term from the uncommon one, strict english punctuation or otherwise.
You go open your burger bar, and get sued for using a phrase that was already in common use (and possibly trademarked). Why don't you instead try starting up a company that sells international business machines? Not a problem, until you capitalise those letters! Or why not paint your computer case a crispy apple-green and call it your apple computer?
Maybe those two words were used together, but they weren't capitalised and certainly didn't have a solid definition.
Nowhere in your three google references did I see the term Open Source, which is what the OSI coined. The grandparent post just misspelled (or mispunctuated) it.
IBM, Apple, Motorola, BSD, Linux
...
vs.
Microsoft, Intel, Dell, George W. Bush,
Come on, you can't tell me that MS/Intel/Dell are still the only players in the PC market. I don't remember the last time I bought Dell or Intel, and I buy a great deal of PCs for a significant company.
Then again I don't buy Microsoft much either, so who am I to talk?
Sure, just tilt the case 45 degrees about 2 axes.
I assume they mean "computing power per cubic inch".
Otherwise what area are they talking about? Footprint? In that case my 1.5 metre tower case would have more computing density than your desktop G4.
So how long until we see this as an option in cdrecord?
/home/trogre/CDScribes/CoverArt.png
Plain text:
cdrecord -tao -v -eject MyCD.iso -scribe "Trogre's Vorbis Backup #1"
Graphic:
cdrecord -tao -v -eject MyCD.iso -scribeimg
Or is this technology obscured by some horrible intellectual property racket?
Is anyone else having major problems with firefox stalling on random sites and refusing to work at all with SSL-enabled sites like ebay?
This has been a show-stopper for a few people I know.
...products based on an open global standard
...whitepapers in MS Word format on their website.
I guess they're not too concerned with supporting open standards elsewhere...
Well, I've played some pretty gosh darn good 2k games, but it seems like a bit of a niche market these days.
That may be true, but I think the point is that Dvorak is more efficient. To type a few thousand words your fingers travel less kilometers with Dvorak than with Qwerty.
This is good for saving wear and tear on fingers, which becomes increasingly important later in life.
Maybe so, but I bet he wouldn't be any less proficient had he learned on a 123456789 laid out keypad, as oposed to the 789456123 adding machine standard.
I believe the original motivation for that retarded standard was so the '1' was close to the '0', the two most common numbers in accounting. But if you keep your hand over the majority of the keypad, you try hitting 010101010101 and then 070707070707 and see which feels most comfortable.
I'm sure that these machines did have this layout first, but it doesn't make them any good. Sure there may be the history but I still maintain my opinion that the 123... format is easier to master than 789...
This monstrosity had better not become a standard, what with the patent and all.
No, it's just a half-truth. The keys were placed such that the hammers were statistically less likely to jam, even if the monks typed at the same speed.
Nobody really denies that Qwerty is an inefficient layout. At least nobody who has done their homework. There are many studies comparing wpm speeds of people proficient in both Qwerty and Dvorak that show the clear advantage of the latter. I'll leave finding them as an exercise to the reader (read: I'm too lazy to look them up right now).
So let's use a keyboard designed for people, not machines, shall we?
(by that I mean Dvorak, not the monstrosity cited in this article)
Current keyboards do have problems, but this *ahem* example just throws out the baby with the bathwater.
.
One of the biggest problems with the current AT-keyboard layout is the ordering
of digits on the numeric keypad.
I mean, damn near every other keypad in existance begins with 1 at the top left and works its way down to 9 at the bottom right (think telephone, ATM, eftpos terminal, security keypad).
But for some unfathomable reason the AT keyboard standard has transposed the top and bottom rows, so you get 1 at the bottom left and 9 at the top right, making it much more difficult to master data entry.
Which of these looks more familiar:
1 2 3 7 8 9
4 5 6 4 5 6
7 8 9 1 2 3
0 . 0
I'm betting most will pick the former, since the pattern in the latter is much less recognizable if it's not shown in the context of a computer keyboard.
"Proof in the pudding"
I think the proverb you were looking for is actually:
The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Now if you'll excuse me I'm off to find that guy who "could care less".
One of the defining characteristics of the "younger video-game generation", IMO, is their tendency to share with their friends.
I doubt this will catch on very well if Billy can't give a copy of a movie he's just downloaded to little Jimmy.
As far as I can see, this is still the same old business model with a slightly different distribution method.
Not that I'm suggesting a new business model (ooh, how about voluntary micropayments to the temporaily formed company that made the film instead of "If you don't pay you can't see it" payments to the distributor?), I'm just saying the old one doesn't really work anymore.