Seems to me you should give people the option. "How would you like this item to appear on your credit card statement? - Walbey Interactive Media Group - Livegoatporn.com"
I'm well aware of the use of a RAMdisk as an initial bootloader. I've actually got a neat set up here where I modified the redhat install disks to boot a system over NFS after configuring and loading the networking and NFS modules. So I know all about ramdisks as a boot loader.
But as for the scratch space, I believe there is a function to request a block of memory never go to swap. I know linux has this feature, I thought windows did too.
Actually, you still want a small amount of swap. Most machines have processes (eg at and cron) that sit around for a long time doing nothing. There is negligable performance loss to swapping these apps out to disk, leaving more memory for important things. So you almost always want at least a small amount (100MB) of swap.
Application structure in general - Lots of applications know they're dealing with *files*, not memory, so you've got to give them something that looks like a disk, either by hanging it off a disk controller (using SCSI or IDE-like), or on a PCI bus (imitating a disk controller), or using RAMDISK drivers, or using hybrid memory/disk file systems like TMPFS.
Again, this argument just dosen't hold salt. If you want to have something that fast, then just provide lots of RAM and your OS will use it as a cache. There's literally NO reason to use a ramdisk except as an initial boot loader if you're using a modern operating system.
This is basically just a system with lots and lots of cache. So assuming you are on a system with more memory than disk space, any modern operating system will do this for you, commiting changes to disk occasionally.
Of course, this would have to be a 64-bit architecture to be able to address that much memory, and you would need an OS that supports that much memory.
This is, of course, highly ironic, considering that gateway disowned me when they found out I had installed linux on my Solo. They wouldn't even tell me what was included in a BIOS update.
This shouldn't be surprising. DOS simply does not have the amount of overhead that Windows or any multitasking OS with good hardware support has. Things like that just take more CPU cycles, period. DOS will always have a bit of a performance edge for anything, but at the same time it will be a lot easier to crash it, write to memory that you're not supposed to, etc. Hardcore gamers will almost always stick with DOS. For the rest of us, it seems like Windows really is coming along. Again, it's just a measure of driver support, this test. Obviously Nvidia has more of it right now. Given two mature drivers for DOS and Windows, though, and DOS ought to win.
I believe that the original poster was engaged in an activity commonly known as sarcasm. Please consult a dictionary or other lexoligical reference for more information.
Obviously GNU has a website, and the prominent person alluded to is Richard Stallman, who basically runs GNU.
Actually, you can relicense under a later version of the GPL.
Assuming that you are originally licensed something under version 2 of the GPL, if a later version is released, then you may license the software under that version instead. This newer license presumably allows you to relicense under version 3, or any later version.
This way, if a loophole is found, it will not apply to any future GPL'd software. On the other hand, if you do license your software to version 2 or any later version, then you trust the FSF to not set the terms to something you disagree with. This is, however, safe IMO.
OK, so I finally decide to upgrade my 2.2.10 kernel to 2.2.14 to fix a bug with my ethernet card stalling. And what happens, not 3 hours after I reboot into 2.2.14? They release 2.2.15!
Sometimes I think I have worse timing than the Debian maintainers. (ducks)
No, this is copyright we're talking about here. The corporations have already lobbied congress to make sure that copyright violations carry a hefty penalty.
We have all the stick we need. We can hit them where it hurts -- in the bottom line.
What would be interesting would be if the FSF put a reward for finding a GPL violation in their software by a big company.
nVidia violated the GPL, but all that means is that they no longer have any right to use the GPL'd software. Read the termination clause of the GPL.
What could happen is that the owner of the GPL'd software in question could sue them or negotiate a settlement; the latter could include nVidia's opening the sources.
Reading the relevant section of the copyright law, I notice that the winner of a lawsuit is entitled to recover attorney's fees, and damages of at least $750 per copy (up to $20000 a copy).
It seems to me that if the owner of the infringed works so desired, he could easily strongarm nVidia into opening their drivers; A lawsuit could end up being extremely costly for nVidia, since presumably several thousand people have downloaded the drivers.
I also notice that under the criminal section of the copyright law, if nVidia loses a lawsuit, they are subject to forfeiture of anything used in the copyright violation. This would probably include all servers and workstations, networking equipment, etc. -- even more reason for them to settle.
It is the purpose of the GPL to increase the amount of Free Software. The only reason I can think of NOT to make nVidia open the driver is that it would make other companies look real hard before looking at adopting Free Software. However, this will only affect people planning to redistribute free software, so I wouldn't think it would be so big an issue.
OK, but what if you had LINL = LINL is not LINL. Then it would be recursive and self-contradictory.
You could also have LINL = LUNL is not LUNL, where LUNL is Linux, UNlike LINL. Which, while a stretch, would give you a mutually recursive, self-contradictory acronym.
Slashdot Mirror
Seems to me you should give people the option. "How would you like this item to appear on your credit card statement?
- Walbey Interactive Media Group
- Livegoatporn.com"
Depends what you define as reasonable. It still lists windows as a requirement.
Why couldn't they use xanim? I realize some of the proprietary codecs only come in binary form but my understanding was that MPEG was unencumbered...
I'm well aware of the use of a RAMdisk as an initial bootloader. I've actually got a neat set up here where I modified the redhat install disks to boot a system over NFS after configuring and loading the networking and NFS modules. So I know all about ramdisks as a boot loader.
But as for the scratch space, I believe there is a function to request a block of memory never go to swap. I know linux has this feature, I thought windows did too.
The really interesting thing is that www.alphanews.net is a different page than alphanews.net!
Actually, you still want a small amount of swap. Most machines have processes (eg at and cron) that sit around for a long time doing nothing. There is negligable performance loss to swapping these apps out to disk, leaving more memory for important things. So you almost always want at least a small amount (100MB) of swap.
Application structure in general - Lots of applications know they're dealing with *files*, not memory, so you've got to give them something that looks like a disk, either by hanging it off a disk controller (using SCSI or IDE-like), or on a PCI bus (imitating a disk controller), or using RAMDISK drivers, or using hybrid memory/disk file systems like TMPFS.
Again, this argument just dosen't hold salt. If you want to have something that fast, then just provide lots of RAM and your OS will use it as a cache. There's literally NO reason to use a ramdisk except as an initial boot loader if you're using a modern operating system.
This is basically just a system with lots and lots of cache. So assuming you are on a system with more memory than disk space, any modern operating system will do this for you, commiting changes to disk occasionally.
Of course, this would have to be a 64-bit architecture to be able to address that much memory, and you would need an OS that supports that much memory.
This is, of course, highly ironic, considering that gateway disowned me when they found out I had installed linux on my Solo. They wouldn't even tell me what was included in a BIOS update.
This shouldn't be surprising. DOS simply does not have the amount of overhead that Windows or any multitasking OS with good hardware support has. Things like that just take more CPU cycles, period. DOS will always have a bit of a performance edge for anything, but at the same time it will be a lot easier to crash it, write to memory that you're not supposed to, etc. Hardcore gamers will almost always stick with DOS. For the rest of us, it seems like Windows really is coming along. Again, it's just a measure of driver support, this test. Obviously Nvidia has more of it right now. Given two mature drivers for DOS and Windows, though, and DOS ought to win.
I didn't notice them; Perhaps it's because I'm using junkbuster.
I believe that the original poster was engaged in an activity commonly known as sarcasm. Please consult a dictionary or other lexoligical reference for more information.
Obviously GNU has a website, and the prominent person alluded to is Richard Stallman, who basically runs GNU.
Actually, you can relicense under a later version of the GPL.
Assuming that you are originally licensed something under version 2 of the GPL, if a later version is released, then you may license the software under that version instead. This newer license presumably allows you to relicense under version 3, or any later version.
This way, if a loophole is found, it will not apply to any future GPL'd software. On the other hand, if you do license your software to version 2 or any later version, then you trust the FSF to not set the terms to something you disagree with. This is, however, safe IMO.
Yo soy norteamericano y hablo español y un poco de francés. Y no, no soy latino.
OK, so I finally decide to upgrade my 2.2.10 kernel to 2.2.14 to fix a bug with my ethernet card stalling. And what happens, not 3 hours after I reboot into 2.2.14? They release 2.2.15!
Sometimes I think I have worse timing than the Debian maintainers. (ducks)
No, this is copyright we're talking about here. The corporations have already lobbied congress to make sure that copyright violations carry a hefty penalty.
We have all the stick we need. We can hit them where it hurts -- in the bottom line.
What would be interesting would be if the FSF put a reward for finding a GPL violation in their software by a big company.
Wrong again.
nVidia violated the GPL, but all that means is that they no longer have any right to use the GPL'd software. Read the termination clause of the GPL.
What could happen is that the owner of the GPL'd software in question could sue them or negotiate a settlement; the latter could include nVidia's opening the sources.
Wrong. Only the owner of a copyright can bring action against a violation.
We may view the software as being communally owned, but the law dosen't.
Yes, but the costs of losing a lawsuit are so high it wouldn't surprise me if they opened the source to settle.
Actually, I would tend to disagree. The GPL is a user's license; it gives much more power to the user than to the developer.
People say that the BSD license is a capitalist's license, but I have to say that the true capitalist's license is the Microsoft EULA.
According to the copyright law, you can substitute your actual damages ($0) for statutory damages of $750-$20000 per copy.
Reading the relevant section of the copyright law, I notice that the winner of a lawsuit is entitled to recover attorney's fees, and damages of at least $750 per copy (up to $20000 a copy).
It seems to me that if the owner of the infringed works so desired, he could easily strongarm nVidia into opening their drivers; A lawsuit could end up being extremely costly for nVidia, since presumably several thousand people have downloaded the drivers.
I also notice that under the criminal section of the copyright law, if nVidia loses a lawsuit, they are subject to forfeiture of anything used in the copyright violation. This would probably include all servers and workstations, networking equipment, etc. -- even more reason for them to settle.
It is the purpose of the GPL to increase the amount of Free Software. The only reason I can think of NOT to make nVidia open the driver is that it would make other companies look real hard before looking at adopting Free Software. However, this will only affect people planning to redistribute free software, so I wouldn't think it would be so big an issue.
OK, but what if you had LINL = LINL is not LINL. Then it would be recursive and self-contradictory.
You could also have LINL = LUNL is not LUNL, where LUNL is Linux, UNlike LINL. Which, while a stretch, would give you a mutually recursive, self-contradictory acronym.
Well, technically, Linux is the kernel. RMS thinks you should call linux-based systems GNU/Linux, like Debian GNU/Linux does.