Well the Chinese government has its own Linux distro. I as well am quite curious why they are not building on the Red Flag Linux base. Starting a full operating system and Office suite from scratch is a huge milti-billion dollar project.
If Apple is still selling 1GHz G4 chip machines a year from now at $2500 when the PC market is using 3.5GHz+ machines at $900, where will that put Apple but in that very desperate situation you describe? Yes they are committed to Motorola and IBM, but if they can't scale the PPC platform then Apple has unnecessarily tied themselves to a sinking ship. Yes there are a few bumps involved with moving to another platform, but it won't be that hard to port most of the applications and dwelling on these things and stalling will only make the change more difficult down the road. It won't be pretty for Apple if they continue the same path they are on, I'd wager money on it.
I don't think you can really debate that current X86 hardware is faster than and offers a more promising future than PPC. X86 is about to pass the 3GHz mark at the beginning of next year, with Intel Intel moving to a 800Mhz FSB, with new Dual DDR and RDRAM offerings just around the corner. Moving to X86 would streamline development and research costs for Apple where they could focus those funds in other areas like continuing to build on an impressive operating system and product offerings. Apple could keep the platform proprietary enough where they could still position themselves as the hardware vendor and prevent them from entering the price wars that the rest of the x86 market is subject to. I would love to buy a high end x86 system from Apple.
MHz is a myth, but not when its a 1GHz PPC vs a 2.53GHz in the same price range. I think Apple using another processor would be the best thing since they put corn in a can.
Will we be seeing more minor security issues inflated to cataclysmic proportions just so Symantec can sell a few more virus scanners?
lol, I read this on another hardware site and came to/. looking for this post. Bugtraq was getting bad anyway. It looks like it's time to find another mailing list.
AMD's ClawHammer is due the second half of this year. The Barton will (probably) be a scaled down 32 bit version of the ClawHammer. You can find the PR rating chart for the TB and Barton here. The Hammer may be released somewhere in the 3400+ range.
I went into a Radio Shack once looking at stereo equipment, I was reading something and the radio shack guy came up to me, and interrupts my reading to ask if he can help me. I reply "yes I am thinking about getting a computer" RS guy: "What kind of computer" So I play it off like "Do I have to buy the TV thingy with the box on the side, or can I buy them separate?". I continued to lay it on stupid question after stupid question. RS guy "It has a 1.2GHz Celeron processor and 128MHz ram, with 20GB HD" ME: "OK, so what does all that mean, what do those things do, how do they work? etc." He began to slowly crack and I found continuing difficulty keeping a straight face. I eventually gave in laughing as he about had a break down, but I had fun. He should have just let me keep reading.
Good, let the two evils try to fight each other off, I might enjoy the show. A long time ago Eric Raymond stated that as PC's begin to drop below the $300 and $400 range that people will become less and less willing to pay the Microsoft tax, and will be when Linux begins to take foothold on the desktop. Wal-Mart could be the turning point of the war.
"For a non-technical user, it is a great program. It has charts, graphs, and..
um, no, Norton products and many windows firewalls are mostly FUD based.
ie. "Warning!: 35 sub 7 hack attempts blocked by Norton!! your hackers IP address is ppp.aol.ip.addy!!"
When all this really is, is a connect request for a port that is in closed state to begin with. Tiny personal Firewall is one of the only windows firewalls I can stand. But I personally don't run a windows firewall, placing the system behind a NAT box is better than a software based firewall anyway. I would suggest getting a NAT box and/or installing a free firewall like TPF or ZA long before paying $50 for Norton. Norton spreads FUD because they make money on it, a NAT box is the best way to secure against connection attempts, and if you are using outlook or outlook express you are wrong. Did I mention NAT?
That would be the job of an 'official' management structure. But since you know, can you send me a link to where I can go to view these problems and help out then? Read my question again if you have to, yes they work great as small groups, but what methods do they have to raise issues. AFAIK this is the only way to present information. If there is a community dedicated to the collection and discussion of these and similar issues, I would love to go be a part of it.
Well after the second try at it, still didn't make the front page. Silly me, I thought this was interesting. Anyway since there also seems to be a lack of discussion on this topic I thought I would point out that fark also covered the story, and people actually commented on it there if you are curious what they had to say on it. It took a while to read through the 300 or so comments but there were some very good points brought up on it. The arguments there also seemed to be largely dominated by the Evolutionists. The creationists seem to be bringing less and less to the table these days.
I pointed out before when someone mentioned that the site went down that it's running NT 4/IIS 4. Not a platform I'd be using for a shoping cart any day soon.
Science is based on data and evidence. Repeatable, tangible evidence that anyone with the same tools and knowledge can recreate every time. Science is not based upon belief. Rather, it is based upon consistency. What I see when I hold all the facts is the same as anyone else. If I am skeptical of science, I can investigate and verify the findings myself. Science REQUIRES questions and verification.
Religion is based upon belief. Blind, unwavering, unquestioning belief. I can't touch, feel, taste or smell any of 's tenets. If I am skeptical of what I am told, there is no means other than rhetoric to satisfy my issues. Religion DEFIES questions and verification.
Logic will never win this debate though, otherwise it would have been over a long time ago.
"trying to co-ordinate anything would be a managerial nightmare!"
Imagine how hard it must be to co-ordinate a project that big without "management". I think Linux could gain by creating a kind of unofficial management structure to better co-ordinate some of the projects.
If the scientist that was responsible for the quote was under the impression that the found creature was a cousin, then why would it change "the trees people have built up of human evolution"? It would add another fork yes, but it does not change the previously accepted model of the evolution of man itself. I was disagreeing with the quote.
Slashdot Mirror
Lindows, Lycoris, Xandros, ELX, Mandrake, etc. These are the companies that are working to make desktop Linux a reality.
I agree, and NewScientist seems to back your opinion. But it's all still speculation at this point.
Well the Chinese government has its own Linux distro. I as well am quite curious why they are not building on the Red Flag Linux base. Starting a full operating system and Office suite from scratch is a huge milti-billion dollar project.
If Apple is still selling 1GHz G4 chip machines a year from now at $2500 when the PC market is using 3.5GHz+ machines at $900, where will that put Apple but in that very desperate situation you describe? Yes they are committed to Motorola and IBM, but if they can't scale the PPC platform then Apple has unnecessarily tied themselves to a sinking ship. Yes there are a few bumps involved with moving to another platform, but it won't be that hard to port most of the applications and dwelling on these things and stalling will only make the change more difficult down the road. It won't be pretty for Apple if they continue the same path they are on, I'd wager money on it.
I don't think you can really debate that current X86 hardware is faster than and offers a more promising future than PPC. X86 is about to pass the 3GHz mark at the beginning of next year, with Intel Intel moving to a 800Mhz FSB, with new Dual DDR and RDRAM offerings just around the corner. Moving to X86 would streamline development and research costs for Apple where they could focus those funds in other areas like continuing to build on an impressive operating system and product offerings. Apple could keep the platform proprietary enough where they could still position themselves as the hardware vendor and prevent them from entering the price wars that the rest of the x86 market is subject to. I would love to buy a high end x86 system from Apple.
MHz is a myth, but not when its a 1GHz PPC vs a 2.53GHz in the same price range. I think Apple using another processor would be the best thing since they put corn in a can.
Volvo has a new car that comes with win98 and MS paint.
lol, I read this on another hardware site and came to /. looking for this post. Bugtraq was getting bad anyway. It looks like it's time to find another mailing list.
AMD's ClawHammer is due the second half of this year. The Barton will (probably) be a scaled down 32 bit version of the ClawHammer. You can find the PR rating chart for the TB and Barton here. The Hammer may be released somewhere in the 3400+ range.
.. under the Microsoft topic as well? "All your cell phone are belong to us" - MSFT
Microsoft to Exit Mac Market If Sales Continue to Lag
True, they canceled the contract because MSFTs offering was "sub-optimal and too expensive". the inquirer covered this a couple days ago here
IANAM but, if they didn't want ot be featured, they probably would have never given permission.
I went into a Radio Shack once looking at stereo equipment, I was reading something and the radio shack guy came up to me, and interrupts my reading to ask if he can help me. I reply "yes I am thinking about getting a computer" RS guy: "What kind of computer" So I play it off like "Do I have to buy the TV thingy with the box on the side, or can I buy them separate?". I continued to lay it on stupid question after stupid question. RS guy "It has a 1.2GHz Celeron processor and 128MHz ram, with 20GB HD" ME: "OK, so what does all that mean, what do those things do, how do they work? etc." He began to slowly crack and I found continuing difficulty keeping a straight face. I eventually gave in laughing as he about had a break down, but I had fun. He should have just let me keep reading.
Slightly longer than it takes for someone to open up gedit and type "Walmart Sucks". What did I win?
Good, let the two evils try to fight each other off, I might enjoy the show. A long time ago Eric Raymond stated that as PC's begin to drop below the $300 and $400 range that people will become less and less willing to pay the Microsoft tax, and will be when Linux begins to take foothold on the desktop. Wal-Mart could be the turning point of the war.
I would like to see the pics if it's not too much trouble to post them.
um, no, Norton products and many windows firewalls are mostly FUD based.
ie. "Warning!: 35 sub 7 hack attempts blocked by Norton!! your hackers IP address is ppp.aol.ip.addy!!"
When all this really is, is a connect request for a port that is in closed state to begin with. Tiny personal Firewall is one of the only windows firewalls I can stand. But I personally don't run a windows firewall, placing the system behind a NAT box is better than a software based firewall anyway. I would suggest getting a NAT box and/or installing a free firewall like TPF or ZA long before paying $50 for Norton. Norton spreads FUD because they make money on it, a NAT box is the best way to secure against connection attempts, and if you are using outlook or outlook express you are wrong. Did I mention NAT?
They do, remember Dmitry Sklyarov?
That would be the job of an 'official' management structure. But since you know, can you send me a link to where I can go to view these problems and help out then? Read my question again if you have to, yes they work great as small groups, but what methods do they have to raise issues. AFAIK this is the only way to present information. If there is a community dedicated to the collection and discussion of these and similar issues, I would love to go be a part of it.
Well after the second try at it, still didn't make the front page. Silly me, I thought this was interesting. Anyway since there also seems to be a lack of discussion on this topic I thought I would point out that fark also covered the story, and people actually commented on it there if you are curious what they had to say on it. It took a while to read through the 300 or so comments but there were some very good points brought up on it. The arguments there also seemed to be largely dominated by the Evolutionists. The creationists seem to be bringing less and less to the table these days.
I pointed out before when someone mentioned that the site went down that it's running NT 4/IIS 4. Not a platform I'd be using for a shoping cart any day soon.
Science is based on data and evidence. Repeatable, tangible evidence that anyone with the same tools and knowledge can recreate every time. Science is not based upon belief. Rather, it is based upon consistency. What I see when I hold all the facts is the same as anyone else. If I am skeptical of science, I can investigate and verify the findings myself. Science REQUIRES questions and verification. Religion is based upon belief. Blind, unwavering, unquestioning belief. I can't touch, feel, taste or smell any of 's tenets. If I am skeptical of what I am told, there is no means other than rhetoric to satisfy my issues. Religion DEFIES questions and verification. Logic will never win this debate though, otherwise it would have been over a long time ago.
Imagine how hard it must be to co-ordinate a project that big without "management". I think Linux could gain by creating a kind of unofficial management structure to better co-ordinate some of the projects.
If the scientist that was responsible for the quote was under the impression that the found creature was a cousin, then why would it change "the trees people have built up of human evolution"? It would add another fork yes, but it does not change the previously accepted model of the evolution of man itself. I was disagreeing with the quote.