What I want to know is, does it *sound* like the DeLorean Time Machine we all know and love? I'm assuming a stock DeLorean doesn't make that trademark 'whining' noise while accelerating. Without that, well, its just not the same...
Umm... the BSD's use,:shock:, the BSD license! That proves nothing with regard to GPL'd Linux. Even so, there's nothing stopping the BSDs from becoming compatible if they want to, all the code is there. They just philosophically decided to go off in different directions. When acutual UNIX was forked back in the day, it was with proprietary implementations, which means no going back. RedHat can't try to force SuSe out of the market with kernel patches, because theres nothing stopping Suse from applying those same patches if they want.
Also working with torque, and definitely second those comments. Its high-quality, fantastic code for FPS gaming, but if you try to extend it too far you run into all kinds of problems, presumably since the designers never had intentions of extending the engine for anything other than Tribes2. I, for instance, am trying to make a small, fps-ish MMORPG, and the hardcoding of their terrain management and rendering code is driving me around in circles because its only designed for the very small Tribes2 maps. That said, you won't find an engine for anywheres near the price thats half as good, and cross-platform to boot.
Concerning the network code, I haven't delved into it much, and don't expect to have to since its already well known that the Tribes2 netcode was superb.
*Cough*, maybe because they actually DID pull a bunch of stuff from 2.5 for RedHat 8 and 9 kernels. Which is why everybody had trouble compiling modules for those kernels for a while. Nevermind NTPL! How short is your memory??
As a general practice, it does seem dangerous. But hey, if the code works... and presumably RedHat did actually test their kernels, so no big deal.
Newbies don't install operating systems. The OEM does that for them. Newbies by and large are not a strong avenue for Linux adoption, unless they have a clueful user to help them out. Put Linux on cheap Dells and maybe that'll change.
Old school Volvos definitely rock. I had an '81 DL in high school. When it finally wouldn't pass inspection in 1998, it had 319,000 miles on it. Probably would have gone farther if it hadn't been thoroughly abused by hard winters and crappy dirt roads for most of its life. What was really great about it though was the accessibility. Everything was simple and mechanical. You could take apart the entire interior of the car with nothing but a phillips-head, and the engine wasn't much more complex. Sounded like a tank, and looked and felt about as foreign as any car ever could. She was a real unique machine.
True that. They're also quite bad when the car behind you has them, particularly if said car is a truck/SUV and they're pouring straight into your rear window.
> The way people are talking here, it is ok if you bought a box of GPL software, decided it had commercial potential then released it.
That *would* be ok. No license violation there. You are free to sell Debian to as many people as you want, for whatever price you want.
While I agree with your main point (if you don't like the iTunes license don't use it), your GPL argument is fairly flawed, in that the GPL gives you rights above and beyond copyright law, while Apple's DRM is restricting your rights (i.e. fair use).
> Then she (wait for this!) downloaded the images from her digital camera and transferred them to her portable hard disk and organised them in separate directories, based on the date they were taken.
Wow... that is impressive. Guess you must be using one of those 'user-friendly' distros, because I can say to a medical certainty that my Gentoo box would *never* allow that without some serious under-the-hood work.
Still, I'm pretty amazed that any distro can do that out of the box right now. Soo much module autoloading and disk automounting...
Well *I* for one can hear the difference between 0.5mA and 1mA!;)
Seriously though: less power used means less heat to disperse. Not that the fans produce a lot of heat, but I suppose if you had a temp-regulated power supply fan, maybe it could slow down by a few RPMs.
I'm sure the difference would be negligable at best, but I thought I'd be a jerk and point it out anyway.
I'm pretty sure Oliver Beane came well after Futurama was cancelled, and not in the same timeslot either. I hardly remember now, but I think King of the Hill took Futurama's slot when they ran out of episodes. Its there now anyway.
Oh, and while Oliver Beane was a baaad show, it was still much better than the 9:30-10:00 show they had for a little while.... can't remember the name, but it was "from the producers of the simpsons", and it was godawful.
Actually, my understanding was that a big part of Family Guy's demise was the high cost/episode, and ratings which didn't make that cost worthwhile. I don't have the actual number onhand, but I think something like $3M/episode. Futurama was just a bit more geeky, and as a result had a much smaller fanbase (IMO).
It's still not *good*.... I, for one, still have a hard time parsing that. Though maybe a lot of that is my natural distaste for preprocessor macros. And seriously, do you really need macros for basic for loops? Sheesh!
Well yeah, nobody needs 10... but try to explain that to the guys who want to throw vulnerabilities from all 10 into the general "Linux vulnerability" category.
Oh I dunno... my understanding is the article's written for Windows powerusers who have never bothered with Linux. And yeah, plenty of fairly savvy Windows users still use IE, and being knowledgable about Windows doesn't necessarily imply any knowledge of what it really means to have the source code for your OS.
I will say that I thought the comment about GTK+, though seemingly only there to illustrate the point that some software will require other software to run, was badly phrased and probably should have just been left out. Its not like either RedHat or SuSe are going to do a graphical install *without* GTK+, and the article reads something like "Oh, by the way, you should have already installed GTK+. There'll be big trouble if you didn't!" And of course the newbie has no idea whether he did or didn't at this point, so he panics.
Other than that one sentence though, I thought the article was pretty good.
Have you not seen the box scores printed in the newspaper for a baseball game? I can't find something in article offhand, but basically you'll get everything in these tables
I'd definitely agree Algol languages are more logical, and its precisely for the reason you dismiss: recursion. You can recurse in C of course, but the language really isn't designed to facilitate it, where as with LISP everything is supposed to recurse. Now, leaving aside the fact that recursive algorithms can often as not be extraordinarily inefficient, recursion is just plain HARD. I mean, where in your daily life do you recurse other than programming? Its not a normal thing to do. Its not a conventional way of thinking. I think its safe to say that humans like to do things sequentially. We like to make lists, connect the dots, whathaveyou. I mean, look at how much trouble people have thinking about stacks these days, and thats really just reverse-sequential.
Humans don't like recursion, thats why nobody uses LISP or anything like it.
Hrm... I'm not an electrician, but I pretend to be. Regardless, I'm pretty sure that using that method you will one day touch a knob without having enough potential and explode yourself.
P.S. I get that the parent was a joke, just thought I'd throw in a disclaimer since somebody seems to have modded it interesting.
You're almost right, the current pricing structure of CD's versus single tracks makes no amount of conventional sense. But really your conclusion is all wrong. The reason for the discrepancy is the absurdly high price of CDs, not the (relatively) low price of iTMS, et al, tracks. In fact, if you really think for a second, the issue's actually much more clouded than even that. File downloads are not a physical thing, they have no production cost. They're also of lower quality than standard CD tracks. Technically you can't really say that the album you download is the same as the one you buy at the store. Its not. Your argument makes sense for CD singles, but not for downloaded tracks.
LOL, either way the same people get the money. Or haven't you been paying attention? The RIAA controls all those artists, and effectively cuts any they don't directly control out of the business altogether. Its not like there's really such a thing as competing record labels.
Lots of good points there... AMD has been doing very well lately, though honestly I think they've been doing most of it by *not* trying to innovate, and just trying to do what makes the most sense. Example: Athlons from tbird through barton are all pretty much the same, just with die shrinks, cache increases, and bus/multiplier differences. In that period Intel's put out what, 3 significantly different P4 cores, and invalidated a couple of socket types. I think that lack of extra worthless effort is a big part of what keeps Athlons so inexpensive, and yet AMD has still provided good performance just doing the conventional things.
However, where I disagree with your assessment is about the dropping of the P4 architecture, going with a Pentium M derivative. I think thats the best move Intel can make at this time, and that while it might be a bit confusing to consumers, they're going to develop some very good chips as a result. I've always felt that the P4 was a stupid design to begin with, that only stayed competitive through hacks and ingenuity on the part of Intel's engineers. Now that they're going back to a good architecture, we could very well see another dynasty like the P6 core presided over.
Except word is Intel's doing an about-face on the clockspeed thing... so with any luck we'll be having a who-can-be-more-efficient battle soon. Based on the spiffy memory and cache systems Intel's engineers have been churning out to salvage the abortion of an architecture that the P4 is, I'm betting they'll win even bigger on efficient design.
Slashdot Mirror
What I want to know is, does it *sound* like the DeLorean Time Machine we all know and love? I'm assuming a stock DeLorean doesn't make that trademark 'whining' noise while accelerating. Without that, well, its just not the same...
Umm... the BSD's use, :shock:, the BSD license! That proves nothing with regard to GPL'd Linux. Even so, there's nothing stopping the BSDs from becoming compatible if they want to, all the code is there. They just philosophically decided to go off in different directions. When acutual UNIX was forked back in the day, it was with proprietary implementations, which means no going back. RedHat can't try to force SuSe out of the market with kernel patches, because theres nothing stopping Suse from applying those same patches if they want.
Also working with torque, and definitely second those comments. Its high-quality, fantastic code for FPS gaming, but if you try to extend it too far you run into all kinds of problems, presumably since the designers never had intentions of extending the engine for anything other than Tribes2. I, for instance, am trying to make a small, fps-ish MMORPG, and the hardcoding of their terrain management and rendering code is driving me around in circles because its only designed for the very small Tribes2 maps. That said, you won't find an engine for anywheres near the price thats half as good, and cross-platform to boot.
Concerning the network code, I haven't delved into it much, and don't expect to have to since its already well known that the Tribes2 netcode was superb.
Can't help but wonder why a customer who doesn't want to use RedHat's kernel or RedHat's support line would choose to run RedHat at all...
*Cough*, maybe because they actually DID pull a bunch of stuff from 2.5 for RedHat 8 and 9 kernels. Which is why everybody had trouble compiling modules for those kernels for a while. Nevermind NTPL! How short is your memory?? As a general practice, it does seem dangerous. But hey, if the code works... and presumably RedHat did actually test their kernels, so no big deal.
Newbies don't install operating systems. The OEM does that for them. Newbies by and large are not a strong avenue for Linux adoption, unless they have a clueful user to help them out. Put Linux on cheap Dells and maybe that'll change.
Old school Volvos definitely rock. I had an '81 DL in high school. When it finally wouldn't pass inspection in 1998, it had 319,000 miles on it. Probably would have gone farther if it hadn't been thoroughly abused by hard winters and crappy dirt roads for most of its life. What was really great about it though was the accessibility. Everything was simple and mechanical. You could take apart the entire interior of the car with nothing but a phillips-head, and the engine wasn't much more complex. Sounded like a tank, and looked and felt about as foreign as any car ever could. She was a real unique machine.
True that. They're also quite bad when the car behind you has them, particularly if said car is a truck/SUV and they're pouring straight into your rear window.
> The way people are talking here, it is ok if you bought a box of GPL software, decided it had commercial potential then released it.
That *would* be ok. No license violation there. You are free to sell Debian to as many people as you want, for whatever price you want.
While I agree with your main point (if you don't like the iTunes license don't use it), your GPL argument is fairly flawed, in that the GPL gives you rights above and beyond copyright law, while Apple's DRM is restricting your rights (i.e. fair use).
> Then she (wait for this!) downloaded the images from her digital camera and transferred them to her portable hard disk and organised them in separate directories, based on the date they were taken.
Wow... that is impressive. Guess you must be using one of those 'user-friendly' distros, because I can say to a medical certainty that my Gentoo box would *never* allow that without some serious under-the-hood work.
Still, I'm pretty amazed that any distro can do that out of the box right now. Soo much module autoloading and disk automounting...
Well *I* for one can hear the difference between 0.5mA and 1mA! ;)
Seriously though: less power used means less heat to disperse. Not that the fans produce a lot of heat, but I suppose if you had a temp-regulated power supply fan, maybe it could slow down by a few RPMs.
I'm sure the difference would be negligable at best, but I thought I'd be a jerk and point it out anyway.
I'm pretty sure Oliver Beane came well after Futurama was cancelled, and not in the same timeslot either. I hardly remember now, but I think King of the Hill took Futurama's slot when they ran out of episodes. Its there now anyway.
Oh, and while Oliver Beane was a baaad show, it was still much better than the 9:30-10:00 show they had for a little while.... can't remember the name, but it was "from the producers of the simpsons", and it was godawful.
Bah! This is Matt Groening. He has dissolved plotlines with no explaination whatsoever before, he can do it again!
Actually, my understanding was that a big part of Family Guy's demise was the high cost/episode, and ratings which didn't make that cost worthwhile. I don't have the actual number onhand, but I think something like $3M/episode. Futurama was just a bit more geeky, and as a result had a much smaller fanbase (IMO).
It's still not *good*.... I, for one, still have a hard time parsing that. Though maybe a lot of that is my natural distaste for preprocessor macros. And seriously, do you really need macros for basic for loops? Sheesh!
Well yeah, nobody needs 10... but try to explain that to the guys who want to throw vulnerabilities from all 10 into the general "Linux vulnerability" category.
And I can tell you with 100% certainty that my Motorola phone does neither of those things.
Oh I dunno... my understanding is the article's written for Windows powerusers who have never bothered with Linux. And yeah, plenty of fairly savvy Windows users still use IE, and being knowledgable about Windows doesn't necessarily imply any knowledge of what it really means to have the source code for your OS.
I will say that I thought the comment about GTK+, though seemingly only there to illustrate the point that some software will require other software to run, was badly phrased and probably should have just been left out. Its not like either RedHat or SuSe are going to do a graphical install *without* GTK+, and the article reads something like "Oh, by the way, you should have already installed GTK+. There'll be big trouble if you didn't!" And of course the newbie has no idea whether he did or didn't at this point, so he panics.
Other than that one sentence though, I thought the article was pretty good.
Have you not seen the box scores printed in the newspaper for a baseball game? I can't find something in article offhand, but basically you'll get everything in these tables
I'd definitely agree Algol languages are more logical, and its precisely for the reason you dismiss: recursion. You can recurse in C of course, but the language really isn't designed to facilitate it, where as with LISP everything is supposed to recurse. Now, leaving aside the fact that recursive algorithms can often as not be extraordinarily inefficient, recursion is just plain HARD. I mean, where in your daily life do you recurse other than programming? Its not a normal thing to do. Its not a conventional way of thinking. I think its safe to say that humans like to do things sequentially. We like to make lists, connect the dots, whathaveyou. I mean, look at how much trouble people have thinking about stacks these days, and thats really just reverse-sequential.
Humans don't like recursion, thats why nobody uses LISP or anything like it.
Hrm... I'm not an electrician, but I pretend to be. Regardless, I'm pretty sure that using that method you will one day touch a knob without having enough potential and explode yourself.
P.S. I get that the parent was a joke, just thought I'd throw in a disclaimer since somebody seems to have modded it interesting.
Wow, way to try to take both sides of an issue...
You're almost right, the current pricing structure of CD's versus single tracks makes no amount of conventional sense. But really your conclusion is all wrong. The reason for the discrepancy is the absurdly high price of CDs, not the (relatively) low price of iTMS, et al, tracks. In fact, if you really think for a second, the issue's actually much more clouded than even that. File downloads are not a physical thing, they have no production cost. They're also of lower quality than standard CD tracks. Technically you can't really say that the album you download is the same as the one you buy at the store. Its not. Your argument makes sense for CD singles, but not for downloaded tracks.
LOL, either way the same people get the money. Or haven't you been paying attention? The RIAA controls all those artists, and effectively cuts any they don't directly control out of the business altogether. Its not like there's really such a thing as competing record labels.
Lots of good points there... AMD has been doing very well lately, though honestly I think they've been doing most of it by *not* trying to innovate, and just trying to do what makes the most sense. Example: Athlons from tbird through barton are all pretty much the same, just with die shrinks, cache increases, and bus/multiplier differences. In that period Intel's put out what, 3 significantly different P4 cores, and invalidated a couple of socket types. I think that lack of extra worthless effort is a big part of what keeps Athlons so inexpensive, and yet AMD has still provided good performance just doing the conventional things.
However, where I disagree with your assessment is about the dropping of the P4 architecture, going with a Pentium M derivative. I think thats the best move Intel can make at this time, and that while it might be a bit confusing to consumers, they're going to develop some very good chips as a result. I've always felt that the P4 was a stupid design to begin with, that only stayed competitive through hacks and ingenuity on the part of Intel's engineers. Now that they're going back to a good architecture, we could very well see another dynasty like the P6 core presided over.
Except word is Intel's doing an about-face on the clockspeed thing... so with any luck we'll be having a who-can-be-more-efficient battle soon. Based on the spiffy memory and cache systems Intel's engineers have been churning out to salvage the abortion of an architecture that the P4 is, I'm betting they'll win even bigger on efficient design.
Of course, AMD will still cost half as much.