I want Doom3 to run at 1000 FPS just like I like my Quake3 (yes, I can tell the difference
Bullshit. When the rendering rate is as high as the screen refresh rate, it is impossible to do any better. Screen refresh rates are rarely higher than 100Hz. The only reason for not getting smooth graphics with 100 frames rendered per second would be the rendering and refresh not properly synced.
Frankly I thought using = instead of:= was just silly
To some extent I must agree with you. Now I wonder if it would be possible to change this without breaking too much. The obvious first step would be to allow the use of:= where we would usually use =. The second step is to give warnings or errors when = is being used, but only in new code modules, we still want old code to compile without a flood of warnings.
This comment got moderations like Off Topic and Overrated. I gave him a +1 Funny. Because it was funny, at least as long it was just speculation. I see now that maybe he really deserved a +1 psychic. (Or at least Insightful which is probably the closest we can find on slashdot).
From the GPL: For an executable work, complete source
code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
control compilation and installation of the executable.
Now what I miss is the.config file for their kernel. I'm not sure if
that is a requirement from the statement above.
Since it's not likely that Linksys have added 14MB worth of changes to the kernel, I'd say you've done something wrong.
There is nothing wrong with the test he performed. I tried the same and got a 14.3MB patch. But though there is this amount of changes, I don't believe Linksys wrote it all. In particular I noticed a lot of XFS stuff. It could be that Linksys is really using a different kernel version and just changed the version number to match a closed source driver, they didn't want to recompile. Or it could be that Linksys has applied third party patches. So who is going to search for the kernel version resulting in the smallest diff. I tried with kernel version 2.4.6, which resulted in a larger patch, so it is probably not just a later version.
I don't think it could possibly be a copyright violation. Linksys more or less have to allow it, otherwise I think they could be in violation with the GPL on the kernel and some of the other stuff they are using.
Sure, everybody could just spend some years getting up to speed with the millions of LOC that make up Gnome.
You missed the point. Nobody are forced to work on the code.
But those who do are free to work on whatever they want to.
Don't tell them what to do, just because you think it is
unimportant, and something else is more important, those who
actually want to spend time working on it don't have to
agree with you.
Surely not, but why all that talk about the look? It isn't the look that makes the difference. To me the design of the underlying system is much more important. I happen to like the Unix design, and the commandline. That was really my reason to start using Linux. The open source was an extra bonus, and I'm surely not going to let go of that. We all know, that sometimes computer systems behave strange. But with Linux I actually have some possibilities to find out, what is going on. Finally though the look of some of the Linux environments are similar to Windows, and some of them are a lot more primitive, I prefer the functionallity of the Linux window managers. A few of the functional differences I like are:
Independend vertical and horizontal maximization of windows.
Easier cut'n'paste.
More freedom to switch and place windows as I like.
Some problems I have experienced with the Windows GUI is:
Sometimes a window is forced on top, and I can do nothing else before it has been closed.
I am forced to have the active window on top.
If I am to choose between look and functionality, I choose the functionality any day. If the window manager behaves like I want, I don't care how ugly it might look. Sure if it can be configured to behave like I want, I choose the best looking solution unless I have other reasons to choose the different like stability.
Plus, why is it a patch? Shouldn't things like this be designed-in?
Seems you don't know what a patch means in the open source community. A patch is simply a listning of the source lines differing in the old and the new version. There is a program called patch, which will then perform the changes. This is often a more space efficient way to distribute small changes, and it is also often a good way to merge different changes.
Because it is easy to introduce such bugs in your program. And they are often easy to exploit. It has been claimed (I haven't seen any statistics though) that 50% of all security problems are buffer overflows. I think that next to buffer overflows, the most frequent class of security problems are caused by race conditions.
I just read the
FAQ (Mostly for developers). One part caught my attention:
Q: How does the module remove code work? A: It stops the machine by scheduling threads for every other CPU, then they all disable interrupts. At this stage we know that noone is in try_module_get(), so we can reliably read the counter. If zero, or the rmmod user specified --wait, we set the live flag to false. After this, the reference count should not increase, and each module_put() will wake us up, so we can check the counter again.
To me that sounds like a very expensive system call.
What about that? Will we be finaly able to switch kernels without a reboot?
I did that back in the 2.2 days with monte. Later with 2.4 kernels I did a few changes, added a feature I was missing, fixed a bug and such stuff. In case you want to see it. But it was never completely stable and lacked SMP support.
kexec might be a better alternative. AFAIK it is being maintained and might even have made it into the 2.5 kernel.
Try Redhat 9, you just have to add CDCEther to the/etc/hotplug/blacklist file
Interesting. I'm using RedHat 9 and CDCEther for my cable modem. It works fine except from the need to reboot my cable modem once a day. So what is it with this Zaurus, and what driver does it use instead?
Why would anybody moderate that a troll? Bad spelling does not qualify as a troll. There is actually a great deal of sense in that posting. Somebody have to try out new kernels and have them crashing before the bugs are found. Even great kernel hackers makes bugs, but bugs are found and fixed. So please say thanks to the great hackers and the brave testers.
Road signs that can be updated depending on the traffic conditions are already in use in some locations. A version where you could look in your mirror and see the mirrored image on the back of the sign might be convenient in some situations.
Slashdot Mirror
I want Doom3 to run at 1000 FPS just like I like my Quake3 (yes, I can tell the difference
Bullshit. When the rendering rate is as high as the screen refresh rate, it is impossible to do any better. Screen refresh rates are rarely higher than 100Hz. The only reason for not getting smooth graphics with 100 frames rendered per second would be the rendering and refresh not properly synced.
Why is Slashdot promoting such vile acts of piracy ?
Actually some countries have laws allowing reverse engineering.
Now, with all these Linux-heads around here insisting that Linux is faster than Windows on x86, you'd think GCC for x86 might be a good compiler.
I believe the kernel design is a more important factor than how fast code the compiler generates.
Frankly I thought using = instead of := was just silly
:= where we would usually use =. The second step is to give warnings or errors when = is being used, but only in new code modules, we still want old code to compile without a flood of warnings.
To some extent I must agree with you. Now I wonder if it would be possible to change this without breaking too much. The obvious first step would be to allow the use of
This comment got moderations like Off Topic and Overrated. I gave him a +1 Funny. Because it was funny, at least as long it was just speculation. I see now that maybe he really deserved a +1 psychic. (Or at least Insightful which is probably the closest we can find on slashdot).
but it would be easier if they added editing/commenting capablities directly onto their site.
Sure, with that number of editors the result can only be good. (NOT)
they weren't required to do anything else
.config file for their kernel. I'm not sure if
that is a requirement from the statement above.
From the GPL: For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable.
Now what I miss is the
Since it's not likely that Linksys have added 14MB worth of changes to the kernel, I'd say you've done something wrong.
There is nothing wrong with the test he performed. I tried the same and got a 14.3MB patch. But though there is this amount of changes, I don't believe Linksys wrote it all. In particular I noticed a lot of XFS stuff. It could be that Linksys is really using a different kernel version and just changed the version number to match a closed source driver, they didn't want to recompile. Or it could be that Linksys has applied third party patches. So who is going to search for the kernel version resulting in the smallest diff. I tried with kernel version 2.4.6, which resulted in a larger patch, so it is probably not just a later version.
How is it copyright violation?
I don't think it could possibly be a copyright violation. Linksys more or less have to allow it, otherwise I think they could be in violation with the GPL on the kernel and some of the other stuff they are using.
Do you live in Cincinnati?
No, why?
Sure, everybody could just spend some years getting up to speed with the millions of LOC that make up Gnome.
You missed the point. Nobody are forced to work on the code. But those who do are free to work on whatever they want to. Don't tell them what to do, just because you think it is unimportant, and something else is more important, those who actually want to spend time working on it don't have to agree with you.
Surely not, but why all that talk about the look? It isn't the look that makes the difference. To me the design of the underlying system is much more important. I happen to like the Unix design, and the commandline. That was really my reason to start using Linux. The open source was an extra bonus, and I'm surely not going to let go of that. We all know, that sometimes computer systems behave strange. But with Linux I actually have some possibilities to find out, what is going on. Finally though the look of some of the Linux environments are similar to Windows, and some of them are a lot more primitive, I prefer the functionallity of the Linux window managers. A few of the functional differences I like are:
- Independend vertical and horizontal maximization of windows.
- Easier cut'n'paste.
- More freedom to switch and place windows as I like.
Some problems I have experienced with the Windows GUI is:- Sometimes a window is forced on top, and I can do nothing else before it has been closed.
- I am forced to have the active window on top.
If I am to choose between look and functionality, I choose the functionality any day. If the window manager behaves like I want, I don't care how ugly it might look. Sure if it can be configured to behave like I want, I choose the best looking solution unless I have other reasons to choose the different like stability.Plus, why is it a patch? Shouldn't things like this be designed-in?
Seems you don't know what a patch means in the open source community. A patch is simply a listning of the source lines differing in the old and the new version. There is a program called patch, which will then perform the changes. This is often a more space efficient way to distribute small changes, and it is also often a good way to merge different changes.
The exploit it mentioned was an integer underflow vulnerablity.
Sure, but it was used to cause a buffer overflow.
Is it always buffer overflows?
Because it is easy to introduce such bugs in your program. And they are often easy to exploit. It has been claimed (I haven't seen any statistics though) that 50% of all security problems are buffer overflows. I think that next to buffer overflows, the most frequent class of security problems are caused by race conditions.
My only question is if Apple acknowledged this flaw in Jaguar and then fixed it in Panther, or if Apple just ended up fixing it quite accidentally.
Or perhaps somebody realized there was a bug and fixed it without ever considering how bad the bug was.
but then I'm using one with an Ethernet connection.
My cable modem have both, but my computer only have one ethernet connector which I need for the local net.
slashdot really should have <humour> tags
You know... at first I read that as a <rumour> tag.
didn't they make a tv series about that? i seem to remember the young adventres of indiana jones on tv at some point in time.
That is right. I also saw a lot of the episodes.
I just read the FAQ (Mostly for developers). One part caught my attention:To me that sounds like a very expensive system call.
What about that? Will we be finaly able to switch kernels without a reboot?
I did that back in the 2.2 days with monte. Later with 2.4 kernels I did a few changes, added a feature I was missing, fixed a bug and such stuff. In case you want to see it. But it was never completely stable and lacked SMP support.
kexec might be a better alternative. AFAIK it is being maintained and might even have made it into the 2.5 kernel.
Try Redhat 9, you just have to add CDCEther to the /etc/hotplug/blacklist file
Interesting. I'm using RedHat 9 and CDCEther for my cable modem. It works fine except from the need to reboot my cable modem once a day. So what is it with this Zaurus, and what driver does it use instead?
A good escuse to crash my computer!.
Why would anybody moderate that a troll? Bad spelling does not qualify as a troll. There is actually a great deal of sense in that posting. Somebody have to try out new kernels and have them crashing before the bugs are found. Even great kernel hackers makes bugs, but bugs are found and fixed. So please say thanks to the great hackers and the brave testers.
Really? Where did you get that kernel? It is not on kernel.org yet.
another piece of metal
Road signs that can be updated depending on the traffic conditions are already in use in some locations. A version where you could look in your mirror and see the mirrored image on the back of the sign might be convenient in some situations.