AMD 486 DX4-120 SL 64 MB FPM DRAM FIC 486-PIO-3 motherboard with 512 KB cache (I think 20ns) 16 MB Voodoo3 2000 PCI Netgear FA310 PCI NIC Adaptec 2940 SCSI 10K RPM Cheetah (Seagate, right? It's been a while...)
This ran Windows NT 4.0 Workstation wonderfully. Windows 2000 ran pretty good after I cleared out a few services. Windows XP, for some reason, wouldn't install. It didn't give any errors during the initial text-based setup. It wouldn't boot into the graphical portion, though. I still have this machine around somewhere, though I've taken out the SCSI drive to use in a server.
I never really tried running games on it, but some "minimum requirements" things didn't really apply.
So a vast number of tried-and-true Fortran 77 programs jibe with the current Fortran 90. Microsoft, take note.
What the hell is that supposed to mean? Some random journalist just wanted to take a free shot at Microsoft, I guess - doesn't make any bloody sense, though.
OpenFirmware (defined in IEEE 1275 as updated in 1994) is no longer being maintained. It was withdrawn by the IEEE Standards Organization in, I belive, 1999. The rights to the document were sold to Global Engineering.
This does not mean that OpenFirmware is dead. On the contrary, there are several commercial implementations available. It does mean that it is no longer considered a "standard", though.
If you'd like some more information on OpenFirmware, you can visit the OpenBIOS web site.
This monster has been attacked before. It can only be summoned once per server. When it is summoned it goes around the zones killing everything. It has an insane regeneration rate! The last group to attack it couldn't get it below about 97% because it would continue to regenerate faster than the players could damage it.
However, Sony didn't account for the higher levels (60-65) when they designed this creature. The higher the level caps, the higher the damage caused. Thus, the Sleeper died.
Yeah, my thoughts are kinda disconnected there. I'm sleepy. Leave me alone.
I've used them for a while now (over 200 domains), and I've never had a problem. On the few occassions that another registrar has given me hell over transferring a domain, GoDaddy's customer support was top-notch.
I'm originally from Stephenville, Texas - just down the road from these two communities. There are no third-generation networks available out there. My Sprint PCS phone doesn't work there, either - not even in analog mode. But just 20 miles away I have full signal strength in Vision mode.
I still have some friends in the region using Mid-Tex, and they haven't mentioned anything odd about their service. I guess that means it's a success as far as consumers are concerned.
Perhaps you would be interested in my project: the UNIversal System Emulation Framework (UNISEF). I'm only just now drafting the requirements document, so it's very far from being completed.
It's aim is simple - to create a framework upon which emulator authors, software developers, and hardware engineers can build their product without having to worry about expensive prototyping, cross-platform compatibilities, and the nuances of platform-specific assembly code. With a framework in place that allows input plugins, output plugins, core modules communicating via a messaging "kernel", and the ability to write (for example) an NES game in C++ are just a few of the great things I have planned.
This document shows the status of the g77 project. It was last updated in May of this year, and there are a few cryptic references to some work being done to support Fortran 90 (the most current standard developed by ISO/WG5).
From the g77 documentation here and here we see that Fortran 90 is at least partially supported in the compiler - some support only available via a compiler option.
Adding these together we see that their incomplete Fortran 90 feature set is still being developed, and we will probably see full support before a 4.0 compiler release.
As far as Fortran 95 and Fortran 2003 - I haven't found any concrete proof to support the previous poster's claim. But to his his credit, I have not searched the mailing lists and newsgroups.
The gropu that works on the Fortran standard is J3.
The current standard is Fortran 95 which, as another poster pointed out, is currently being developed into g77. However, work is progressing nicely on Fortran 2003. From the web site above:
"Fortran 2003 is an upwardly-compatible extension of the current Fortran standard, Fortran 95, adding, among other things, support for exception handling, object-oriented programming, and improved interoperability with the C language."
Bjarne Stroustrup, the creator of C++, has this to say on garbage collection:
Clearly, if your code has new operations, delete operations, and pointer arithmetic all over the place, you are going to mess up somewhere and get leaks, stray pointers, etc. This is true independently of how conscientious you are with your allocations: eventually the complexity of the code will overcome the time and effort you can afford. It follows that successful techniques rely on hiding allocation and deallocation inside more manageable types.
He goes on to give detailed examples and recommendations on how to avoid using garbage collection.
If you'll read the other comments that have been posted, it doesn't specifically effect systems with Symantec products installed. McAfee users are having problems, as well as people with no virus scanning software at all.
A part of me hopes you're right. My nephew (six years old) likes to play my GameCube. Because he's a kid, he doesn't realize that tossing the game discs around can harm them.
But if Sony takes a chapter from the days of magneto-optical storage and places the disc in a cartridge similar to a floppy diskette then those things will be far harder to damage.
And by the way, he is no longer allowed to touch my GameCube since he killed both Super Smash Bros. Melee and Tony Hawk 4.
My reply was mainly to the poster and not to the article itself.
I think it's great that NASA is putting the resources into fixing this problem even though it has only caused one mission failure. But now here's an odd question. Why don't they use the old wind tunnels that they're closing to test the new design? Are those air tunnels not capable of producing the amount of friction / heat necessary to simulate re-entry?
Most of what you just mentioned deals not with the shuttles themselves but with the launch systems. Yes, our launch system is *horrible* in terms of fuel efficiency (now I sound like I'm talking about cars) and the economics of it all. However, my question really deals with the shuttle itself.
Yes, if we took out a lot of that extra room then launches would cost less because the shuttles would weigh less. But why don't we just use that extra room instead? We could include additional large-scale experiments that would be too difficult to install in the space station (unless said experiments needed more than a week in space to complete). Why not actually try and retrieve some of the space garbage that has accumulated over the years? Yes, it's cost-prohibitive, but it needs to be done somehow.
I think I read on Slashdot somewhere that there's a laser in development to take care of that problem, though...
The way I see it, our space shuttles have done remarkable well in the past, and they continue to do remarkably well today.
Why change what works? Isn't that what we network administrators have said for years? If it ain't broke... don't fix it!
There are still "bugs" in the shuttle fleet, and NASA is creating "patches" for them. Someone please tell me what's horribly flawed about our existing shuttle fleet. What critical feature has yet to be added?
Mozilla 1.4b chokes on it. Opera is no better. Internet Explorer seems to me to be the only browser capable of rendering it correctly... Hmm... let's think about why... Maybe because they're using proprietary extensions? Yeah, that's it!
The design, while gimmicky (perfect word for it), is not all that useful. Clean designs can be found all over the Internet. Look at Princeton Financial's site: http://www.pfs.com/
As other posters have mentioned, the perfect site design seems to be Google's. Unfortunately, Google is a one-track thing - you search (or at least do something search related like Google Answers or Google Groups). For sites that require either a great deal more interactivity (sites for children and sites with lots of dynamic user-controllable content), that kind of design won't work. And for sites that are almost purely informational (shameless plug to our site - http://www.texasinjuryattorney.com/), menus, submenus, and in-line links seem to work good.
NOTE: I did not design that site. If I did, it would be better, because I am god-like in my abilities (or at least, that's what my ego tells me).;)
Oh, man, yeah, that was definitely intended to be humor. Lovin' the Clay Aiken reference.;)
Seriously, though, I *greatly* appreciate what your company is doing for the reputation of GNU/Linux on the desktop. I'm waiting for 4.0 to purchase a copy for two reasons:
1) I remember reading somewhere that some feature or another was supposed to come along in 4.0. I can't remember which feature or what I needed it for, but it's in my head that I need it for something.;)
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Linus own the rights to the Linux trademark?
I noticed on their contact page that they have 1-800-GO-LINUX as one of their main lines. Why not sue them for use of the Linux trademark without permission?
Actually, the Voodoo memory manager was quite advanced for its time - comparable to Quarterdeck's memory manager. The realy problem was in how the DOSs of the day handled "upper memory". Blocks were arranged in very odd configurations that prevented device drivers and disk caching utilities from optimally using them. For that matter, unless you used a program like UMBPCI then you couldn't even *access* the upper memory blocks without using EMM386. So loading CD-ROM drivers, mouse drivers, sound drivers, etc. took up too much free "conventional" memory for the Voodoo manager to take over.
That's the very reason I use Wine to get EditPad Pro to work on my GNU/Linux box. Before I switched to writing code for a decent platform, I was still using Windows software to do everything. I guess I just got so used to it that I felt... naked?... without it.
Slashdot Mirror
An interesting aside:
AMD 486 DX4-120 SL
64 MB FPM DRAM
FIC 486-PIO-3 motherboard with 512 KB cache (I think 20ns)
16 MB Voodoo3 2000 PCI
Netgear FA310 PCI NIC
Adaptec 2940 SCSI
10K RPM Cheetah (Seagate, right? It's been a while...)
This ran Windows NT 4.0 Workstation wonderfully. Windows 2000 ran pretty good after I cleared out a few services. Windows XP, for some reason, wouldn't install. It didn't give any errors during the initial text-based setup. It wouldn't boot into the graphical portion, though. I still have this machine around somewhere, though I've taken out the SCSI drive to use in a server.
I never really tried running games on it, but some "minimum requirements" things didn't really apply.
...was when Slashdot ran a story called "Whatever Happened to Gopher?" on July 2nd, 2000.
So a vast number of tried-and-true Fortran 77 programs jibe with the current Fortran 90. Microsoft, take note.
What the hell is that supposed to mean? Some random journalist just wanted to take a free shot at Microsoft, I guess - doesn't make any bloody sense, though.
OpenFirmware (defined in IEEE 1275 as updated in 1994) is no longer being maintained. It was withdrawn by the IEEE Standards Organization in, I belive, 1999. The rights to the document were sold to Global Engineering.
This does not mean that OpenFirmware is dead. On the contrary, there are several commercial implementations available. It does mean that it is no longer considered a "standard", though.
If you'd like some more information on OpenFirmware, you can visit the OpenBIOS web site.
NOTE: I am not an EverQuest player.
This monster has been attacked before. It can only be summoned once per server. When it is summoned it goes around the zones killing everything. It has an insane regeneration rate! The last group to attack it couldn't get it below about 97% because it would continue to regenerate faster than the players could damage it.
However, Sony didn't account for the higher levels (60-65) when they designed this creature. The higher the level caps, the higher the damage caused. Thus, the Sleeper died.
Yeah, my thoughts are kinda disconnected there. I'm sleepy. Leave me alone.
I've used them for a while now (over 200 domains), and I've never had a problem. On the few occassions that another registrar has given me hell over transferring a domain, GoDaddy's customer support was top-notch.
I highly recommend them.
I'm originally from Stephenville, Texas - just down the road from these two communities. There are no third-generation networks available out there. My Sprint PCS phone doesn't work there, either - not even in analog mode. But just 20 miles away I have full signal strength in Vision mode.
I still have some friends in the region using Mid-Tex, and they haven't mentioned anything odd about their service. I guess that means it's a success as far as consumers are concerned.
Perhaps you would be interested in my project: the UNIversal System Emulation Framework (UNISEF). I'm only just now drafting the requirements document, so it's very far from being completed.
It's aim is simple - to create a framework upon which emulator authors, software developers, and hardware engineers can build their product without having to worry about expensive prototyping, cross-platform compatibilities, and the nuances of platform-specific assembly code. With a framework in place that allows input plugins, output plugins, core modules communicating via a messaging "kernel", and the ability to write (for example) an NES game in C++ are just a few of the great things I have planned.
This document shows the status of the g77 project. It was last updated in May of this year, and there are a few cryptic references to some work being done to support Fortran 90 (the most current standard developed by ISO/WG5).
From the g77 documentation here and here we see that Fortran 90 is at least partially supported in the compiler - some support only available via a compiler option.
Adding these together we see that their incomplete Fortran 90 feature set is still being developed, and we will probably see full support before a 4.0 compiler release.
As far as Fortran 95 and Fortran 2003 - I haven't found any concrete proof to support the previous poster's claim. But to his his credit, I have not searched the mailing lists and newsgroups.
The gropu that works on the Fortran standard is J3.
The current standard is Fortran 95 which, as another poster pointed out, is currently being developed into g77. However, work is progressing nicely on Fortran 2003. From the web site above:
"Fortran 2003 is an upwardly-compatible extension of the current Fortran standard, Fortran 95, adding, among other things, support for exception handling, object-oriented programming, and improved interoperability with the C language."
Bjarne Stroustrup, the creator of C++, has this to say on garbage collection:
Clearly, if your code has new operations, delete operations, and pointer arithmetic all over the place, you are going to mess up somewhere and get leaks, stray pointers, etc. This is true independently of how conscientious you are with your allocations: eventually the complexity of the code will overcome the time and effort you can afford. It follows that successful techniques rely on hiding allocation and deallocation inside more manageable types.
He goes on to give detailed examples and recommendations on how to avoid using garbage collection.
3) Nonobviousnes standard should be more rigorously applied wrt software patents.
So should the idea of being unable to patent mathematical concepts and algorithms be applied more rigorously.
Perhaps you should check out these two nice resources:
zMud home page: http://www.zuggsoft.com/ -- great MUD client
Mud Connector: http://www.mudconnect.com/ -- list of bunches of MUDs
If you'll read the other comments that have been posted, it doesn't specifically effect systems with Symantec products installed. McAfee users are having problems, as well as people with no virus scanning software at all.
A part of me hopes you're right. My nephew (six years old) likes to play my GameCube. Because he's a kid, he doesn't realize that tossing the game discs around can harm them.
But if Sony takes a chapter from the days of magneto-optical storage and places the disc in a cartridge similar to a floppy diskette then those things will be far harder to damage.
And by the way, he is no longer allowed to touch my GameCube since he killed both Super Smash Bros. Melee and Tony Hawk 4.
My reply was mainly to the poster and not to the article itself.
I think it's great that NASA is putting the resources into fixing this problem even though it has only caused one mission failure. But now here's an odd question. Why don't they use the old wind tunnels that they're closing to test the new design? Are those air tunnels not capable of producing the amount of friction / heat necessary to simulate re-entry?
Most of what you just mentioned deals not with the shuttles themselves but with the launch systems. Yes, our launch system is *horrible* in terms of fuel efficiency (now I sound like I'm talking about cars) and the economics of it all. However, my question really deals with the shuttle itself.
Yes, if we took out a lot of that extra room then launches would cost less because the shuttles would weigh less. But why don't we just use that extra room instead? We could include additional large-scale experiments that would be too difficult to install in the space station (unless said experiments needed more than a week in space to complete). Why not actually try and retrieve some of the space garbage that has accumulated over the years? Yes, it's cost-prohibitive, but it needs to be done somehow.
I think I read on Slashdot somewhere that there's a laser in development to take care of that problem, though...
The way I see it, our space shuttles have done remarkable well in the past, and they continue to do remarkably well today.
Why change what works? Isn't that what we network administrators have said for years? If it ain't broke... don't fix it!
There are still "bugs" in the shuttle fleet, and NASA is creating "patches" for them. Someone please tell me what's horribly flawed about our existing shuttle fleet. What critical feature has yet to be added?
That is correct. It is not a site.
;)
Mozilla 1.4b chokes on it. Opera is no better. Internet Explorer seems to me to be the only browser capable of rendering it correctly... Hmm... let's think about why... Maybe because they're using proprietary extensions? Yeah, that's it!
The design, while gimmicky (perfect word for it), is not all that useful. Clean designs can be found all over the Internet. Look at Princeton Financial's site: http://www.pfs.com/
As other posters have mentioned, the perfect site design seems to be Google's. Unfortunately, Google is a one-track thing - you search (or at least do something search related like Google Answers or Google Groups). For sites that require either a great deal more interactivity (sites for children and sites with lots of dynamic user-controllable content), that kind of design won't work. And for sites that are almost purely informational (shameless plug to our site - http://www.texasinjuryattorney.com/), menus, submenus, and in-line links seem to work good.
NOTE: I did not design that site. If I did, it would be better, because I am god-like in my abilities (or at least, that's what my ego tells me).
I totally agree. I search Slashdot like this:
http://www.google.com/
search terms here site:slashdot.org
Obvious to you or I, but I'm hoping this post is useful to someone.
I've read several of these "more moons around planet " on Slashdot recently, and I'm just curious:
What's the total number discovered around Jupiter? Saturn? Neptune? Mars? Pluto? Etc.?
I know Earth has two, but I don't really know about the others. Mars has two, right?
Oh, man, yeah, that was definitely intended to be humor. Lovin' the Clay Aiken reference. ;)
;)
Seriously, though, I *greatly* appreciate what your company is doing for the reputation of GNU/Linux on the desktop. I'm waiting for 4.0 to purchase a copy for two reasons:
1) I remember reading somewhere that some feature or another was supposed to come along in 4.0. I can't remember which feature or what I needed it for, but it's in my head that I need it for something.
2) I'm broke. Soon I won't be broke.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Linus own the rights to the Linux trademark?
I noticed on their contact page that they have 1-800-GO-LINUX as one of their main lines. Why not sue them for use of the Linux trademark without permission?
Actually, the Voodoo memory manager was quite advanced for its time - comparable to Quarterdeck's memory manager. The realy problem was in how the DOSs of the day handled "upper memory". Blocks were arranged in very odd configurations that prevented device drivers and disk caching utilities from optimally using them. For that matter, unless you used a program like UMBPCI then you couldn't even *access* the upper memory blocks without using EMM386. So loading CD-ROM drivers, mouse drivers, sound drivers, etc. took up too much free "conventional" memory for the Voodoo manager to take over.
/TESTMEM:OFFU MB, 0D OS\VIDE-CDD.SYS /D:IDECD001
/D:IDECD001 /15
Really intuitive people had something like this:
Config.sys=
DEVICE=C:\DOS\HIMEM.SYS
DEVICE=C:\DOS\UMBPCI.SYS
DOS=HIGH,
FILESHIGH=85
LASTDRIVEHIGH=D
BUFFERSHIGH=15
FCBSHIGH=4,0
STACKSHIGH=8,256
DEVICEHIGH=C:\
DEVICEHIGH=
Autoexec.bat=
LH C:\MOUSE\MOUSE.EXE (or whatever your mouse was)
LH C:\DOS\MSCDEX.EXE
LH C:\DOS\SMARTDRV.EXE 2048 4096
That should give you plenty of available memory PLUS audio, CD-ROM, disk caching, and mouse. U7 is your bitch!
Indeed...
That's the very reason I use Wine to get EditPad Pro to work on my GNU/Linux box. Before I switched to writing code for a decent platform, I was still using Windows software to do everything. I guess I just got so used to it that I felt... naked?... without it.