I'd have to say it was a combination of marketing (or lack thereof) and price. Alpha's were (and in many shops still are) the preferred choice for scientific and number-crunching applications. Even the fastest x86 CPUs couldn't outperform the Alpha (I haven't seen any benchmarks for the newest 64-bit Intel/AMD CPUs, but I wouldn't be surpised if an EV8 could still give them a run for their money, if not outperform them). Alpha's were always more expensive than x86 systems due to the lack of sales mainly - the more you sell of an item, the less expensive it is to produce.
I still love my 400MHz EV68 Alpha. It's a great map and web server and still a good number cruncher. It's also a hell of a lot more reliable than any of my x86 systems (even the newer dual processor Athlon systems). I remember the first time I played Quake II on a 600MHz Alpha graphics workstation at DIGITAL: 1600x1200x32 at over 127fps with full screen anti-aliasing and in 3D. That was somewhere around 1997 and it was running under FX32! emulation (not even in native Alpha mode as Id had not released it for Alpha yet).
PGA
The Fastest Processor Nodbody's Ever Heard of
on
Alpha's Going Going Gone
·
· Score: 3, Informative
That's what we called them when I worked at DIGITAL (up until Compaq canned a lot of people right after the purchase and almost killed the Alpha then).
They are still ahead of their time. The fastest Alpha's (EV8, over 1GHz) were still far faster than an equivalent speed x86 processor.
I've heard repeatedly that Samsung will still be producing the processors. I have not looked into this recently though.
It's a shame to lose such a great architecture. Yet another example of the best ideas not always being the most popular or surviving. At least part of the architecture will live on in AMD chips (for now at least).
Crap, in my haste and possibly the fact that I was tired, I misread the post:
Christians have been spreading the lie that the USA was founded in christianity.
Let it not be said I can't see my mistakes and stand (well, I'm actually sitting;) ) corrected. On the other hand, I don't think I implied that the country was founded as a Christian nation, because that would be a direct violation of the First Amendment. However, the nation was founded by primarily Christians with a Judao-Christian based set of morals and beliefs.
Most of the founders were Christians, and since all of those believed in God, they were all Deists, but the Christians had a particular belief.
Christians have been spreading the lie that the USA was founded in christianity.
Prove it's a lie. I've given one of many references that it is not. I can provide more, but do readers want to go there?
Considering that James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams were architects of the constitution, I find it troubling that anyone can believe that the USA was founded in [C]hristianity.
Both Madison and Adams were Christians. In addition, the three above were not the only architects. The Bill of Rights was perfected after many deliberations by all the States at the time. Though maybe specific portions were written by specific people, all portions were adopted by all the State's representatives and all had a say in the wording.
Many people of many religions have done many bad things in the name of their religion. That does not make a religion bad or evil, it only makes those doing the bad/evil acts bad/evil. It's easy to take a single statement out of context to make any point for any side. What was the entire context of the statements these three made? (I'm not asking for my own edification, but for yours.)
You repeated everything I implied, and answered questions I purposely stated to provoke thought, with an added point at the end that I don't agree with, but that's not the issue. (Should it have had a smiley face? I couldn't tell. All my imaginary friends are real.;) )
I never justified "...the US government going against an established constitutional amendment." However, by passing some of the laws that they have regarding religion in public places, they have done just that (and so have some State and local governments) and to date there is no reason to believe they will stop any time soon.
I never said "...freedom of religion so long as it is Christianity." either, nor did I imply it.
Some like the phrase, some do not. Should either be subjected to the other's choice by the establishment of a law? (rhetorical, meant to provoke thought, not to derive answers)
The idea that the Constitution includes something referring to "Separation of Church and State" is somewhat false.
The Constitution was written by our primarily Christian forefathers and is founded upon Judao-Christian beliefs and morals. The founders and settlers of this country were primarily persecuted Christians and as such the Declaration of Independence, Common Law of the time, and the Constitution were all founded upon the beliefs, both moral and religious, of the same.
The purpose of the First Amendment is two fold (for this discussion we're not including free speech, etc., only the religious parts) and was written for specific reasons. The framers and founders had just fought a war with a country and king that forced religion down their throats. England had established a State church (the Church of England), and anyone who said or did anything against that church was, to some extent (and often to a severe extent), persecuted. Europe had a long history of religious wars. Therefore the Constitution was written to prevent this from happening again in this new country. The Constitution prohibits the government from establishing a State run or sanctioned church - the establishment clause. However, the framers were Christians (primarily) and as such believed in religious freedom.
This belief in religious freedom brings us to the second purpose of the First Amendment: It guarantees the freedom to partake or not to partake in any religion as each individual sees fit - the free exercise clause. In other words, the government will neither shove religion of any kind down the throats of the People, nor will it prohibit religion of any kind from the people, however that religious freedom is not absolute.
Therefore, constitutionally, the government can pass no law that either supports nor denies any religion. On the contrary, the government must, constitutionally, avoid involvement in religion. That said, should the morals that this country was built upon be removed from government as well, because after all they are based upon religious morals? If those morals are removed, where does that leave us as a country? If one person wants to say "...under God...", should that person be prohibited, and if another wants to leave it out, should they be prohibited? Both cases are a violation of the First Amendment, of not only the establishment clause, but also of the freedom of exercise clause and the free speech clause.
PGA
P.S. - While writing this I noticed a post by someone claiming that most of the early settlers were godless, etc. First of all, the reference in the Pledge and the most of the discussion involves God, not god. There is a big difference. Second, most of the early settlers were Christians, not heathens.
...why the government, specifically the military, continues to use M$ software in mission critical (and this term takes on a whole new meaning within this context) applications, when there are ever more warnings and announcments about vulnerabilities.
When I worked at Akamai (until Dec. 2001) we had some 11,000-12,000 servers on the Internet serviing content. Though I never counted or saw a count, I'd estimate 90% of those were Linux. I personally had a hand in upgrading many to the latest RH kernel - a 2.4.x kernel.
Akamai served content for companies/sites like CNN.com, Microsoft, the Federal Government - to include the Whitehouse, FBI, etc., and many, many others, and as many of you may have noticed, often when you retrive web content, you'll see a URL pop up in the browser status bar saying xxx.akamai.com or some such.
Now, let's do a little math. Since I left Akamai, I understand they've increased the number of servers to greater than 12,000. So, we'll be conservative and estimate 80% of 12,000 are Linux, giving 9,600 Linux servers. Remember, we're talking servers and not desktops - they have many more systems internally that are Linux (I had 3 in my office while I was there, and many in my group had at least two).
9,600 * $1,500 =
$14,400,000
Now add the desktop systems to that. I don't see Akamai paying out that kind of cash, especially given their stock prices since 2001, and since they have contributed to kernel development themselves.
Akamai is just one company that relies upon Linux for their business. There are many others (despite what some reports would lead people to believe), and I venture that if there weren't that many, SCO would not be pulling this crap. Akamai also uses IBM Linux servers for (possibly) one of the largest distributed database systems in the world (unless they shut it down - we were building it while I was there and there was a big press release). I would imagine that this will/has pissed off IBM, Akamai, and others and SCO has just not only shot themselves in the foot, but shoved the shotgun barrel into their collective mouths.
I myself will never, every pay the extortionists at SCO a penny for my use of Linus and others (including my own) hard work in the Linux kernel.
However, let me finish by saying that I'm quite sure IBM, Akamai, and others are quite aware of what the GPL says and how to interpret it in a court of law. IBM has a crack law team, and Akamai's are no slouches either. IBM has money to spare on legal fees, do you think SCO has money to spare for even a new company car? Even if Linux has SCO copyrighted code in it - and many Linux developers have stated it does not - they did release that code under the GPL. Therefore, it seems to me the question - if SCO copyrighted code is in Linux - is how the GPL applies. From reading the GPL myself several times (since I too have developed GPL code for various projects), I'd have to refer back to a previous paragraph and a sentence therein about SCO and a shotgun barrel.
Because idiots like you dont take into account that hiring a geek who is compatible with their business to write custom software and configure endlessly complex packages under linux is more expensive in the long run than paying to use windows.
Did I type the word "Linux" anywhere in my post?
Sorry to burst your bubble but most people could care less if OSS is free because OSS maintenence is VERY VERY EXPENSIVE!!!
Wrong, very wrong.
Since we're on the subject, and without getting into an intellectual argument with someone apparently not prepared for same, you apparently (based upon your post) have a LOT to learn about TCO, Linux, OSS, maintenance, and computing in general.
I stand by my original question, and await an informed, knowledgable response.
...why companies insist on using products that are not robust nor Enterprise ready and continue to buy in to the marketing B.S. of those who are marketing the crap and making many bucks off the sale of it.
Yes, I know that if a client wants it, then you either provide it or find other clients, but my question not only applies to solution providers, but solution requesters as well.
..within reason (it doesn't take a brain surgeon or rocket scientist to figure out what "within reason" is.). I learned a long time ago as a hardware and software engineer to CMA - Cover My Ass. My answer to any question regarding "Can you do this for us?" is "Yes, if you give me the request and specifications in writing." Especially when it comes to doing something that doesn't exactly follow all the normal procedures and/or policies. I always follow up the request and specifications with something in writing stating what I can/will do, how I'll do it, and an approximate time that it will be done.
This way, when someone bitches about something later (and someone always does bitch about something sometime), I can pull out the written request/response and CMA, putting the blame (if there is any blame to be put) on someone else.
Of course, if I f' up (which I've never done;) ), then I deserve to be bitched at.
I strongly suspect that this was actually a defensive patent filing. Of course such filings frequently fall into the wrong hands. I suspect that the real issue here would be interference between the mirror image patent and the Akamai patents. Both are in my view unenforceable, both because of prior art and in the case of the Akamai patents failure to disclose relevant information.
I used to work for Akamai and at least some of Akamai's patents have already been challenged in court and Akamai won:
They already have - they chose M$ for their solution. Apparently a high level of intelligence had nothing to due with the decision.
It's comforting to know that our national defense is left in the hands of such outstanding technological expertise as that provided by M$ through their wonderful products.
NVIDIA is at least partially right, though both ATI's and NVIDIA's statements seem to be skewed by marketing and PR: ATI likes the benchmark because it shows their card is better while NVIDIA doesn't like it because it shows their card is behind.
I have spent some time developing both 3D hardware and software, as well as other hardware and software in my 20+ years in the industry. I've learned many things in that time and one of them is never to trust a single benchmark to give an overall view of performance. In this case, in my opinion, 3DMark 2003 does not cut the mustard though it may be a somewhat useful tool in the future.
Today's 3D accelerated video hardware is as diverse as comparing computer systems built by Dell and Sun. Both perform the same basic functions, but both employ (nearly) entirely different components in order to do it. You wouldn't run a Sun Solaris application on the Dell Windows machine in order to compare its performance to the Sun system any more than you'd run a Windows application on the Sun. In addition, even if both machines were running Solaris - x86 Solaris for the Dell - you still wouldn't pull an application off the Sun box and try to run it on the Dell. You would run a version your application optimized for each machine - one compiled for x86 Solaris and the other for Sun Solaris.
ATI, NVIDIA, Matrox, etc. all use different hardware in their systems (I call them systems because in reality they are complex systems scaled down to fit on a single peripheral card). This hardware perfroms different from one system to the next. The only thing that is really in common between them all is the final result: they all support OpenGL and DirectX of some version. To complicate things even more, just as the computers above, these systems all use different software - down to the machine code level - in order to perform the same tasks. So how does this relate to benchmarking?
When engineers design hardware and software, they may find many ways to optimize parts of both in order to tweak performance. The tweaks may involve speed, precision, reliability, new features, or a combination. Decisions are made as to which direction to go and which method to use in order to implement these optimizations. The result is the varying systems we see today in 3D hardware. They all implement different aspects of DirectX and OpenGL in differing ways in order to provide an overall final result that is both appealing and is rendered in the shortest amount of time.
Now because all these systems differ so much, it's impossible to use the same standardized software on each to test performance. In the real world, performance applications such as games and 3D modeling applications are tweaked in order to provide an extra bit of performance for the computer systems they are targeted at. 3D card drivers are tweaked in different ways to improve the performance in different ways for different computer systems and applications. Any given set of standard DirectX or OpenGL code or even x86 code may run at different speeds between different computer and 3D card systems. Even when the computer systems are the same except for the 3D card installed, that set of standard code will run differently on both systems with different results. A standard benchmark is just not sufficient to compare such 3D systems.
To take a specific example, and one that could be significant, compare the difference in floating-point precision. ATI has a max. precision of 24-bits whereas NVIDIA has a max. of 32-bits. This is a huge differene when it come to 3D graphics and can be the difference between a good quality picture and a poor quality picture. When performing bump mapping calculations, specular lighting (or any lighting for that matter), a difference of 8-bits of precision can be the difference between an accurate rendering and a totally screwed up rendering. Sure, calculating 32-bits is going to take longer, but then using only 24-bits is going to sacrifice accuracy.SO is using only 24-bits a bad thing? No, not if you don't need the extra precision, but neither is using 32-bits a bad thing just because it's slower. It all depends upon your requirements.
In the end, the only way to truely compare 3D systems is to decide what you need for your applications. Then you need to understand all the areas for comparison such as texels per second (or frame), pixels per second, rendering passes, precision - basically all the different measurements you'll see relating to a 3D system. You need to realize that none of these cards will perform to their advertised specifications without optimized software, and sometimes the computer system itself will be a factor. Finally, you need to know how your particular application(s) will work with a particular computer/3D card combination and whether or not the application is optimized for a particular card.
In the end, unless you're a developer and need any of the DX 9 cards now for development, your best bet is to wait until there are more applications out that support all the features that these cards support. A single generic, standardized benchmark is not going to tell the true story. And as time moves on, the drivers for these cards will mature and results will change.
It's about time, but how does it compare to the NVIDIA drivers (aside from being completely binary)? In addition, do they have a SDK for Linux yet? Also, if you have problems, do they support the Linux driver like NVIDIA supports theirs? What happens if I want to install the ATI driver with a custom kernel? (the NVIDIA driver requires a re-compile as it is tied closely into the kernel binary).
BTW, my reference to Winsucks was out of habit. If it makes the other poster feel better, at times I refer to Linux as Linsux (I make such references when they give me problems. I leave it to the reader as to which OS is the more troublesome.)
It used to be only one reason, but now there are two.
1. I have one game I *really* like and it's Winsucks only: America's Army: Operations. I have other Winsucks games, but most will either be ported to Linux, have been, or aren't that great (to me), so I don't play them anymore.
2. I started back to school a couple months ago to complete my MSCIS and MAED degrees. There are many presentations required and they use Power Point at the university. Now if I had a laptop I could use Star Office and plug the laptop into the projector at school, but I don't (I don't count the old Toshiba P-90 I have). I do use Star Office to write all my assignments, including the slide presentations,and save them in M$ formats (Word and PPT). Maybe some day the school will follow suit like some others and allow alternatives and teach Linux.
Other than that, I use RH Linux (on more than 11 machines here at my home). Everything I need to do, I can (and do) do with Linux. I too am a developer and I can develop complex, reliable, fast, and platform independant applications fast using Linux. In fact, development under Linux is much faster and easier than it has ever been under ANY Winsucks OS (been there, done that, for many years). Conforming to M$ standards (such as.Net) is just not a consideration for me as it only leads to problems later down the road. The only acceptable standards are the open ones.
There have been times (very many of them) that I have been one mouse click away from scrapping Winsucks completely due to installation, configuration, and other BS issues that I have never had with any recent version of Linux. I certainly will not upgrade from Win98 SE, no matter how good any game for XP might be.
My name is Paul G. Allen, PGA, the same as the co-founder of Microsoft. I don't know what the other Paul Allen's middle name is, but I do know that it starts with a G, just like mine.
I suppose that just because we are both in the computer industry, and I can't stand using Microsoft products or services and am known for stating this fact, I'll be the next to be sued for using my own name online or elsewhere?
Well, to Nissan Motors, Bill Wyman (the fake one), and anyone else who thinks they should have exclusive ownership to someone's name, dictionary word, or common everyday phrase. I say:
Go to hell.
Make us change our birth certificate and re-write the english language! Oh, and BTW, I'm claiming copyright on the words "the", "The", "a", "A", and "I" (and all variations of "I"), and the name "Allen" because they've been used by my family for hundreds of years (and I can prove it too!), so no one had better use them or I'll sue!
Wells Fargo online banking has always worked fine for me from early versions of NS 4.x through the latest NS versions. It also works fine with IE (though I avoid IE at all costs) and Mozilla.99 - 1.1.
This is old technology and IIRC (without looking it up), Doom III uses volumetric shadows. Stencil shadows are those that Quake II uses and are not very realistic (NOTE: There are modifications to the QII source, such as those in the DPGE engine, that improve the stencil shadows in the original QII engine, removing the overlapping effects, shadows from light entities, etc.). They use the stencil buffer in order to "paste" a shadow onto a surface that approximates a shadow from an object.
Volumetric shadows use a projected volume (in simplified terms) to "cast" a shadow onto any object and surface as a real shadow would, including casting the shadow onto curves, surfaces at angles, self shadowing, and shadowing multiple objects/surfaces. Another name for this type is "shadow volumes". Both methods can employ the use of the stencil buffer.
Since I can't actually see any of the screenshots on the referenced web page, and at times can't even get to the page, I can't decide which method is actually in use.
Stencil shadows in the Quake I engine would be nice. Volumetric shadows would be an achievement.
Damn it. I was distracted so much by my kids, that I let an annoying grammaticle error get by me, not to mention a spelling error (and I'm wondering how the spell checker missed it!). I hate that!:)
No one will ever be able to rid the world of Linux simply by declaring it illegal. There are far too many copies and they are virtually untraceable. Not to mention that it would push the Internet back 10 years in functionality (maybe not 10, but several) making many government web sites unusable. FYI, the federal government DOES use Linux for much of their Internet presence. It would behoove them to support Linux, not make stupid decisions that would kill it.
That said, IANAL, but I'd be willing to bet that most software patents are contrary to patent law. Many of you may have heard of prior art, but in addition to that, a patent can not (well, with the recent state of the USPTO, more like SHOULD not) be obtained on anything that would be derived be a normal thought/research process. This covers many software patents because many of them could be derived by any average programmer during the normal course of software development.
What needs to happen is for a company (or individual) with enough monetary might to take one of these patens into court and set a precedent for all such patents, essentially nullifying every last one of them.
Unfortunately, it's been my personal experience with the LKML group, and it seems to me, that most on that list (and I include major kernel and module contributors) would rather sit back and bitch about the various legal problems posed by laws in various countries, let Linux development become more and more hampered, and hope that someone else will take up the cause and bail them out.
At least a few like Alan and Linus seem to care enough to try and do something. People like me just get booted from the list without warning for trying.
Slashdot Mirror
Why did it never take off in the way x86 did?
I'd have to say it was a combination of marketing (or lack thereof) and price. Alpha's were (and in many shops still are) the preferred choice for scientific and number-crunching applications. Even the fastest x86 CPUs couldn't outperform the Alpha (I haven't seen any benchmarks for the newest 64-bit Intel/AMD CPUs, but I wouldn't be surpised if an EV8 could still give them a run for their money, if not outperform them). Alpha's were always more expensive than x86 systems due to the lack of sales mainly - the more you sell of an item, the less expensive it is to produce.
I still love my 400MHz EV68 Alpha. It's a great map and web server and still a good number cruncher. It's also a hell of a lot more reliable than any of my x86 systems (even the newer dual processor Athlon systems). I remember the first time I played Quake II on a 600MHz Alpha graphics workstation at DIGITAL: 1600x1200x32 at over 127fps with full screen anti-aliasing and in 3D. That was somewhere around 1997 and it was running under FX32! emulation (not even in native Alpha mode as Id had not released it for Alpha yet).
PGA
That's what we called them when I worked at DIGITAL (up until Compaq canned a lot of people right after the purchase and almost killed the Alpha then).
They are still ahead of their time. The fastest Alpha's (EV8, over 1GHz) were still far faster than an equivalent speed x86 processor.
I've heard repeatedly that Samsung will still be producing the processors. I have not looked into this recently though.
It's a shame to lose such a great architecture. Yet another example of the best ideas not always being the most popular or surviving. At least part of the architecture will live on in AMD chips (for now at least).
PGA
Crap, in my haste and possibly the fact that I was tired, I misread the post:
;) ) corrected. On the other hand, I don't think I implied that the country was founded as a Christian nation, because that would be a direct violation of the First Amendment. However, the nation was founded by primarily Christians with a Judao-Christian based set of morals and beliefs.
Christians have been spreading the lie that the USA was founded in christianity.
Let it not be said I can't see my mistakes and stand (well, I'm actually sitting
PGA
This country was NOT founded by primarily Christian forefathers. They were primarily Deist.
h tm
Incorrect, partially. Here's just one reference:
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qtable.
Most of the founders were Christians, and since all of those believed in God, they were all Deists, but the Christians had a particular belief.
Christians have been spreading the lie that the USA was founded in christianity.
Prove it's a lie. I've given one of many references that it is not. I can provide more, but do readers want to go there?
Considering that James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams were architects of the constitution, I find it troubling that anyone can believe that the USA was founded in [C]hristianity.
Both Madison and Adams were Christians. In addition, the three above were not the only architects. The Bill of Rights was perfected after many deliberations by all the States at the time. Though maybe specific portions were written by specific people, all portions were adopted by all the State's representatives and all had a say in the wording.
Many people of many religions have done many bad things in the name of their religion. That does not make a religion bad or evil, it only makes those doing the bad/evil acts bad/evil. It's easy to take a single statement out of context to make any point for any side. What was the entire context of the statements these three made? (I'm not asking for my own edification, but for yours.)
PGA
You repeated everything I implied, and answered questions I purposely stated to provoke thought, with an added point at the end that I don't agree with, but that's not the issue. (Should it have had a smiley face? I couldn't tell. All my imaginary friends are real. ;) )
I never justified "...the US government going against an established constitutional amendment." However, by passing some of the laws that they have regarding religion in public places, they have done just that (and so have some State and local governments) and to date there is no reason to believe they will stop any time soon.
I never said "...freedom of religion so long as it is Christianity." either, nor did I imply it.
Some like the phrase, some do not. Should either be subjected to the other's choice by the establishment of a law? (rhetorical, meant to provoke thought, not to derive answers)
PGA
The idea that the Constitution includes something referring to "Separation of Church and State" is somewhat false.
The Constitution was written by our primarily Christian forefathers and is founded upon Judao-Christian beliefs and morals. The founders and settlers of this country were primarily persecuted Christians and as such the Declaration of Independence, Common Law of the time, and the Constitution were all founded upon the beliefs, both moral and religious, of the same.
The purpose of the First Amendment is two fold (for this discussion we're not including free speech, etc., only the religious parts) and was written for specific reasons. The framers and founders had just fought a war with a country and king that forced religion down their throats. England had established a State church (the Church of England), and anyone who said or did anything against that church was, to some extent (and often to a severe extent), persecuted. Europe had a long history of religious wars. Therefore the Constitution was written to prevent this from happening again in this new country. The Constitution prohibits the government from establishing a State run or sanctioned church - the establishment clause. However, the framers were Christians (primarily) and as such believed in religious freedom.
This belief in religious freedom brings us to the second purpose of the First Amendment: It guarantees the freedom to partake or not to partake in any religion as each individual sees fit - the free exercise clause. In other words, the government will neither shove religion of any kind down the throats of the People, nor will it prohibit religion of any kind from the people, however that religious freedom is not absolute.
Therefore, constitutionally, the government can pass no law that either supports nor denies any religion. On the contrary, the government must, constitutionally, avoid involvement in religion. That said, should the morals that this country was built upon be removed from government as well, because after all they are based upon religious morals? If those morals are removed, where does that leave us as a country? If one person wants to say "...under God...", should that person be prohibited, and if another wants to leave it out, should they be prohibited? Both cases are a violation of the First Amendment, of not only the establishment clause, but also of the freedom of exercise clause and the free speech clause.
PGA
P.S. - While writing this I noticed a post by someone claiming that most of the early settlers were godless, etc. First of all, the reference in the Pledge and the most of the discussion involves God, not god. There is a big difference. Second, most of the early settlers were Christians, not heathens.
...why the government, specifically the military, continues to use M$ software in mission critical (and this term takes on a whole new meaning within this context) applications, when there are ever more warnings and announcments about vulnerabilities.
PGA
Akamai served content for companies/sites like CNN.com, Microsoft, the Federal Government - to include the Whitehouse, FBI, etc., and many, many others, and as many of you may have noticed, often when you retrive web content, you'll see a URL pop up in the browser status bar saying xxx.akamai.com or some such.
Now, let's do a little math. Since I left Akamai, I understand they've increased the number of servers to greater than 12,000. So, we'll be conservative and estimate 80% of 12,000 are Linux, giving 9,600 Linux servers. Remember, we're talking servers and not desktops - they have many more systems internally that are Linux (I had 3 in my office while I was there, and many in my group had at least two).
9,600 * $1,500 =
- $14,400,000
Now add the desktop systems to that. I don't see Akamai paying out that kind of cash, especially given their stock prices since 2001, and since they have contributed to kernel development themselves.Akamai is just one company that relies upon Linux for their business. There are many others (despite what some reports would lead people to believe), and I venture that if there weren't that many, SCO would not be pulling this crap. Akamai also uses IBM Linux servers for (possibly) one of the largest distributed database systems in the world (unless they shut it down - we were building it while I was there and there was a big press release). I would imagine that this will/has pissed off IBM, Akamai, and others and SCO has just not only shot themselves in the foot, but shoved the shotgun barrel into their collective mouths.
I myself will never, every pay the extortionists at SCO a penny for my use of Linus and others (including my own) hard work in the Linux kernel.
However, let me finish by saying that I'm quite sure IBM, Akamai, and others are quite aware of what the GPL says and how to interpret it in a court of law. IBM has a crack law team, and Akamai's are no slouches either. IBM has money to spare on legal fees, do you think SCO has money to spare for even a new company car? Even if Linux has SCO copyrighted code in it - and many Linux developers have stated it does not - they did release that code under the GPL. Therefore, it seems to me the question - if SCO copyrighted code is in Linux - is how the GPL applies. From reading the GPL myself several times (since I too have developed GPL code for various projects), I'd have to refer back to a previous paragraph and a sentence therein about SCO and a shotgun barrel.
PGA
(Spell checker?! What's that?)
Because idiots like you dont take into account that hiring a geek who is compatible with their business to write custom software and configure endlessly complex packages under linux is more expensive in the long run than paying to use windows.
Did I type the word "Linux" anywhere in my post?
Sorry to burst your bubble but most people could care less if OSS is free because OSS maintenence is VERY VERY EXPENSIVE!!!
Wrong, very wrong.
Since we're on the subject, and without getting into an intellectual argument with someone apparently not prepared for same, you apparently (based upon your post) have a LOT to learn about TCO, Linux, OSS, maintenance, and computing in general.
I stand by my original question, and await an informed, knowledgable response.
PGA
...why companies insist on using products that are not robust nor Enterprise ready and continue to buy in to the marketing B.S. of those who are marketing the crap and making many bucks off the sale of it.
Yes, I know that if a client wants it, then you either provide it or find other clients, but my question not only applies to solution providers, but solution requesters as well.
PGA
..within reason (it doesn't take a brain surgeon or rocket scientist to figure out what "within reason" is.). I learned a long time ago as a hardware and software engineer to CMA - Cover My Ass. My answer to any question regarding "Can you do this for us?" is "Yes, if you give me the request and specifications in writing." Especially when it comes to doing something that doesn't exactly follow all the normal procedures and/or policies. I always follow up the request and specifications with something in writing stating what I can/will do, how I'll do it, and an approximate time that it will be done.
;) ), then I deserve to be bitched at.
This way, when someone bitches about something later (and someone always does bitch about something sometime), I can pull out the written request/response and CMA, putting the blame (if there is any blame to be put) on someone else.
Of course, if I f' up (which I've never done
PGA
I strongly suspect that this was actually a defensive patent filing. Of course such filings frequently fall into the wrong hands. I suspect that the real issue here would be interference between the mirror image patent and the Akamai patents. Both are in my view unenforceable, both because of prior art and in the case of the Akamai patents failure to disclose relevant information.
i 2001.pdf
e =UTF-8&q=Akamai&as_q=%22Patent+Infringement%22&btn G=Search%C2%A0within%C2%A0results
I used to work for Akamai and at least some of Akamai's patents have already been challenged in court and Akamai won:
http://www.bannerwitcoff.com/press_releases/akama
In addition, there are several pending patent suits involving Akamai:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&o
It remains to be seen whether or not these patents are enforceable and what patent (technology) belongs to who.
PGA
These people are not going to sign a bad deal.
They already have - they chose M$ for their solution. Apparently a high level of intelligence had nothing to due with the decision.
It's comforting to know that our national defense is left in the hands of such outstanding technological expertise as that provided by M$ through their wonderful products.
PGA
Mensa member, beware of the high IQ
:P
Any REAL Mensa member knows that a high IQ is NOT an accurate measure of intelligence.
PGA
--
Beware, I aced the Mensa tests and was smart enough not to join or brag.
NVIDIA is at least partially right, though both ATI's and NVIDIA's statements seem to be skewed by marketing and PR: ATI likes the benchmark because it shows their card is better while NVIDIA doesn't like it because it shows their card is behind.
I have spent some time developing both 3D hardware and software, as well as other hardware and software in my 20+ years in the industry. I've learned many things in that time and one of them is never to trust a single benchmark to give an overall view of performance. In this case, in my opinion, 3DMark 2003 does not cut the mustard though it may be a somewhat useful tool in the future.
Today's 3D accelerated video hardware is as diverse as comparing computer systems built by Dell and Sun. Both perform the same basic functions, but both employ (nearly) entirely different components in order to do it. You wouldn't run a Sun Solaris application on the Dell Windows machine in order to compare its performance to the Sun system any more than you'd run a Windows application on the Sun. In addition, even if both machines were running Solaris - x86 Solaris for the Dell - you still wouldn't pull an application off the Sun box and try to run it on the Dell. You would run a version your application optimized for each machine - one compiled for x86 Solaris and the other for Sun Solaris.
ATI, NVIDIA, Matrox, etc. all use different hardware in their systems (I call them systems because in reality they are complex systems scaled down to fit on a single peripheral card). This hardware perfroms different from one system to the next. The only thing that is really in common between them all is the final result: they all support OpenGL and DirectX of some version. To complicate things even more, just as the computers above, these systems all use different software - down to the machine code level - in order to perform the same tasks. So how does this relate to benchmarking?
When engineers design hardware and software, they may find many ways to optimize parts of both in order to tweak performance. The tweaks may involve speed, precision, reliability, new features, or a combination. Decisions are made as to which direction to go and which method to use in order to implement these optimizations. The result is the varying systems we see today in 3D hardware. They all implement different aspects of DirectX and OpenGL in differing ways in order to provide an overall final result that is both appealing and is rendered in the shortest amount of time.
Now because all these systems differ so much, it's impossible to use the same standardized software on each to test performance. In the real world, performance applications such as games and 3D modeling applications are tweaked in order to provide an extra bit of performance for the computer systems they are targeted at. 3D card drivers are tweaked in different ways to improve the performance in different ways for different computer systems and applications. Any given set of standard DirectX or OpenGL code or even x86 code may run at different speeds between different computer and 3D card systems. Even when the computer systems are the same except for the 3D card installed, that set of standard code will run differently on both systems with different results. A standard benchmark is just not sufficient to compare such 3D systems.
To take a specific example, and one that could be significant, compare the difference in floating-point precision. ATI has a max. precision of 24-bits whereas NVIDIA has a max. of 32-bits. This is a huge differene when it come to 3D graphics and can be the difference between a good quality picture and a poor quality picture. When performing bump mapping calculations, specular lighting (or any lighting for that matter), a difference of 8-bits of precision can be the difference between an accurate rendering and a totally screwed up rendering. Sure, calculating 32-bits is going to take longer, but then using only 24-bits is going to sacrifice accuracy.SO is using only 24-bits a bad thing? No, not if you don't need the extra precision, but neither is using 32-bits a bad thing just because it's slower. It all depends upon your requirements.
In the end, the only way to truely compare 3D systems is to decide what you need for your applications. Then you need to understand all the areas for comparison such as texels per second (or frame), pixels per second, rendering passes, precision - basically all the different measurements you'll see relating to a 3D system. You need to realize that none of these cards will perform to their advertised specifications without optimized software, and sometimes the computer system itself will be a factor. Finally, you need to know how your particular application(s) will work with a particular computer/3D card combination and whether or not the application is optimized for a particular card.
In the end, unless you're a developer and need any of the DX 9 cards now for development, your best bet is to wait until there are more applications out that support all the features that these cards support. A single generic, standardized benchmark is not going to tell the true story. And as time moves on, the drivers for these cards will mature and results will change.
PGA
It's about time, but how does it compare to the NVIDIA drivers (aside from being completely binary)? In addition, do they have a SDK for Linux yet? Also, if you have problems, do they support the Linux driver like NVIDIA supports theirs? What happens if I want to install the ATI driver with a custom kernel? (the NVIDIA driver requires a re-compile as it is tied closely into the kernel binary).
BTW, my reference to Winsucks was out of habit. If it makes the other poster feel better, at times I refer to Linux as Linsux (I make such references when they give me problems. I leave it to the reader as to which OS is the more troublesome.)
PGA
...unless you run an OS other than Winsucks. In that case, you're better off with an NVIDIA card.
PGA
It used to be only one reason, but now there are two.
.Net) is just not a consideration for me as it only leads to problems later down the road. The only acceptable standards are the open ones.
1. I have one game I *really* like and it's Winsucks only: America's Army: Operations. I have other Winsucks games, but most will either be ported to Linux, have been, or aren't that great (to me), so I don't play them anymore.
2. I started back to school a couple months ago to complete my MSCIS and MAED degrees. There are many presentations required and they use Power Point at the university. Now if I had a laptop I could use Star Office and plug the laptop into the projector at school, but I don't (I don't count the old Toshiba P-90 I have). I do use Star Office to write all my assignments, including the slide presentations,and save them in M$ formats (Word and PPT). Maybe some day the school will follow suit like some others and allow alternatives and teach Linux.
Other than that, I use RH Linux (on more than 11 machines here at my home). Everything I need to do, I can (and do) do with Linux. I too am a developer and I can develop complex, reliable, fast, and platform independant applications fast using Linux. In fact, development under Linux is much faster and easier than it has ever been under ANY Winsucks OS (been there, done that, for many years). Conforming to M$ standards (such as
There have been times (very many of them) that I have been one mouse click away from scrapping Winsucks completely due to installation, configuration, and other BS issues that I have never had with any recent version of Linux. I certainly will not upgrade from Win98 SE, no matter how good any game for XP might be.
PGA
My name is Paul G. Allen, PGA, the same as the co-founder of Microsoft. I don't know what the other Paul Allen's middle name is, but I do know that it starts with a G, just like mine.
I suppose that just because we are both in the computer industry, and I can't stand using Microsoft products or services and am known for stating this fact, I'll be the next to be sued for using my own name online or elsewhere?
Well, to Nissan Motors, Bill Wyman (the fake one), and anyone else who thinks they should have exclusive ownership to someone's name, dictionary word, or common everyday phrase. I say:
Go to hell.
Make us change our birth certificate and re-write the english language! Oh, and BTW, I'm claiming copyright on the words "the", "The", "a", "A", and "I" (and all variations of "I"), and the name "Allen" because they've been used by my family for hundreds of years (and I can prove it too!), so no one had better use them or I'll sue!
PGA
Wells Fargo online banking has always worked fine for me from early versions of NS 4.x through the latest NS versions. It also works fine with IE (though I avoid IE at all costs) and Mozilla .99 - 1.1.
PGA
It still takes more than running Word to expose the contents of your hard drive though.
:)
Not really: Install an M$ operating system, connect to the Internet, and you've become a file sharer. No other steps necessary.
PGA
AFAIK, Doom III will be the first original game to employ all these techniques at once.
:)
:(
Unless I finish the DPGE engine and Navy SEALs: Dev. Group first. (I use light maps, bump mapping, and shadow volumes)
I doubt I will though, I have to spend too much time doing work that pays my bills, and working on DPGE does not fill this need.
PGA
This is old technology and IIRC (without looking it up), Doom III uses volumetric shadows. Stencil shadows are those that Quake II uses and are not very realistic (NOTE: There are modifications to the QII source, such as those in the DPGE engine, that improve the stencil shadows in the original QII engine, removing the overlapping effects, shadows from light entities, etc.). They use the stencil buffer in order to "paste" a shadow onto a surface that approximates a shadow from an object.
Volumetric shadows use a projected volume (in simplified terms) to "cast" a shadow onto any object and surface as a real shadow would, including casting the shadow onto curves, surfaces at angles, self shadowing, and shadowing multiple objects/surfaces. Another name for this type is "shadow volumes". Both methods can employ the use of the stencil buffer.
Since I can't actually see any of the screenshots on the referenced web page, and at times can't even get to the page, I can't decide which method is actually in use.
Stencil shadows in the Quake I engine would be nice. Volumetric shadows would be an achievement.
PGA
Damn it. I was distracted so much by my kids, that I let an annoying grammaticle error get by me, not to mention a spelling error (and I'm wondering how the spell checker missed it!). I hate that! :)
PGA
First of all, let me say this.
No one will ever be able to rid the world of Linux simply by declaring it illegal. There are far too many copies and they are virtually untraceable. Not to mention that it would push the Internet back 10 years in functionality (maybe not 10, but several) making many government web sites unusable. FYI, the federal government DOES use Linux for much of their Internet presence. It would behoove them to support Linux, not make stupid decisions that would kill it.
That said, IANAL, but I'd be willing to bet that most software patents are contrary to patent law. Many of you may have heard of prior art, but in addition to that, a patent can not (well, with the recent state of the USPTO, more like SHOULD not) be obtained on anything that would be derived be a normal thought/research process. This covers many software patents because many of them could be derived by any average programmer during the normal course of software development.
What needs to happen is for a company (or individual) with enough monetary might to take one of these patens into court and set a precedent for all such patents, essentially nullifying every last one of them.
Unfortunately, it's been my personal experience with the LKML group, and it seems to me, that most on that list (and I include major kernel and module contributors) would rather sit back and bitch about the various legal problems posed by laws in various countries, let Linux development become more and more hampered, and hope that someone else will take up the cause and bail them out.
At least a few like Alan and Linus seem to care enough to try and do something. People like me just get booted from the list without warning for trying.
PGA