Moderators, mod this down as mis-information (or funny?) PLEASE. What a load of crap! There is not one piece of correct information in this post. The chip does not have two cores, and this has nothing to do with the speed of transistor switching. Transistor switching speed is one of the things that limits processors, but transistors do switch at >>3GHz. See this previous article about the current state of the art.
MS will of course continue to press DirectX, but, the more Linux, and FreeBSD, and "alternative" platforms become used, and viable, (Thanks to NVIDIA for their drivers for FreeBSD AND Linux) the more appealing it is for developers to create cross-platform games. This is why it is essential for OpenGL to progress, and why I am so excited for version 2.0.
BTW: what is the status on the MS patent issues? Anyone know?
Our system has worked well for over 200 years. The benefits of a two-party system are many. If we change the voting system, be prepared to be moved out of a two-party system, and all the problems that brings.
Why in the hell am I getting modded down for this? I was only trying to point out that there is a really nice option for those who have some money to pay for the developer license of QT for mac. I use QT as my main development for linux and have been very pleased -- good grief moderaters, READ THE COMMENT.
I am not sure of your position, (because the developer license costs money for Mac OSX) but QT has the advantage of porting to about every platform there is.
Good grief moderators --- too late now, but this was meant to be FUNNY --- I guess I have to make this more obvious because everybody wants to see TROLL.
Is is possible that Microsoft is funding the project to under open source? Is it possible that the only reason the Mozilla project got done so fast is that it had Microsoft money backing it? Hmmmm... something to think about
What is the reason for the delay? Can it really be that it's just a business decision (as they seem to say) rather than a technological problem? It seems that AMD _needs_ this jump in 64 bit computing, the sse2 registers, and boost in performance on Intel. So to me, if it is a business decision, it is a poor one.
Everything I have seen shows that Intel is doing much better in performance and climbing. AMD claims there is no real technological reason, yet there must be. Anyone have insights? It seems that it would be prudent for AMD to issue better explanations -- how could it hurt to be honest? I want to see competition, if they are going to lag in performance, then they present no reason for people to buy. (A similarly performing Intel chip is close in price right now)
Probably too late for most to read this but I have not seen this mentioned yet -- one huge thing missing that I see will happen -- e-commerce. Why would a company limit e-commerce to palladium users?
Here is the scenario (happened with DR DOS):
Microsoft mass deploys palladium in OEM boxes (as usual) As the user base grows, they issue service packs that have a ton of security fixes, and in this service pack they enable an internet security warning. The code is back ported to W2k and WXP, and anytime business on the web is transacted the warning appears. WARNING: You are executing an insecure transaction that cannot be guaranteed with this vendor as the vendor is not Digitally certified with Microsoft to perform secure transactions. For those without palladium, they will get a warning that tells them they must upgrade to palladium. The number of users calling in about this warning will spark management to get the site fully palladium compliant. This will happen slowly, and eventually all the warnings will disappear and you will not even be able to use anything not certified.
Don't believe it can happen? I hope not, but MS has done similar things many times, (Christmas beta release in Windows 95 beta to destroy DR DOS) It gives MS the ability to force upgrades through security (see the recent admittal to the insecure nature of windows to set the stage) and locks out any platform that will not use DRM enabled security. Of course that security costs money and certification costs money, and local recompiles would cost money -- eliminating free software. There are many benefits to this approach, and I don't yet see how to stop it other than educate the consumer.
Not to throw cold water on the linux movement, but don't forget that IBM has a ton of money invested in Linux, and there is motivation there to show that it is better. It is possible that they really didn't try to get Windows working all that hard.
Just something for the conspiracy theorist in all of us:-)
I read a few days ago about Intel's plan to use "Strained Silicon" in their 90 nm process. Here's the link Quote from the article:
Simply put, you want transistors to be able to pass as much current as possible when they're switched on and to pass no current when they're switched off. Unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world and transistors don't always behave as they should. Technologies such as Silicon on Insulator (SOI) help stop current from flowing when it shouldn't (leakage current) and technologies such as Strained Silicon help increase the amount of current that's allowed to flow when it's needed (drive current).
I saw no mention of IBM doing this so I wondered, is this patented by Intel? Even so, if you are setting about to make the most advanced FAB, it would seem that this technology should be licensed.
There is support for NVDIA's cards in XFree86 for 2D work already also, you don't need the binary drivers for that.
I therefore assumed that it was understood we were talking about 3D. I want 3D support. The 8500 does _not_ have 3D support in XFree86 4.2.
Lastly, the other advantage to having company supported drivers is that the LATEST is available, this has been crucial for the work we are doing in our lab -- I hope ATI follows suit.
Why not do both? (Release specs to XFree86 developers AND release binary drivers -- this would give the best of both worlds)
It's easy to complain, but how long will this be out before there are drivers for XFree86? 2,3,4 generations?! (There are still no Radeon 8500 drivers) You can complain about NVIDIA binary drivers for linux all you want, but I for one appreciate being able to use the latest technology when it is released without having to use windows. I would really like to see ATI release drivers (binary or otherwise) for linux.
As you pointed out they vary -- I was referring to their lower end stuff. Remember, the idea is still to be cheap and fast, that is what serial offers. The high bandwidth further parallel stuff is much more expensive. For example, USB is considered serial but transfers 4 bits at a time, cheaper than the parallel interfaces but at a good rate (12Mb/s) for USB1.1 .
Serial can be made faster because the logic (De-muxing) that has to occur in parallel transfer systems slow down the clock rate. Thus, by simplifying the de-muxing process via serial transfers you can crank the transfer rates up to more than compensate. We are seeing good examples of other moves in this direction like Intel's 3GIO and AMD's HyperTransport
The simplified interfaces allow more flexibility (why SATA is hot-swappable) and are cheaper to produce.
Gnome 2 is terrible to configure
on
GNOME 2.0 Released
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I must object. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I found gnome 2 much harder to configure. The worst is the endless windows registry type settings in GConf (even with the GConf editor.) I tend to want to change things per application, and finding the specific option is nearly impossible under this scheme.
Additionally, I really dislike what has happened with gnome 2 in configurability. Making intelligent defaults is all fine and good, but when you can't get it how you want, frustration ensues. The reason I never used KDE was precisely this lack of configurability. I have heard this same comment from many people and I predict that an outcry of configurability problems will happen.
As an example, there are no virtual desktops in gnome 2, and neither metacity nor sawfish 2 add them. I realize there are only subtle differences, but there are many people who use those differences. Additionally, at least for now, sawfish doesn't even have the infrastructure to bind keys to switching to workspaces in a 2d sense (I can move left or right, but not up or down) Another example is that in metacity, clicking anywhere on a window raises it. This is terrible for me. One of the biggest reasons I use sloppy focus is so that I can have overlapping windows and cut and paste from the window underneath. This is especially useful with overlapping terminals that tend to be smaller and thus just disappear when the larger window raises. According to Havoc, most of these options (unless he uses them) are just "crack-rock." So don't use metacity right? Well, unfortuanately there isn't anything else that fits the bill right now, perhaps sawfish will get back to its usual self -- dunno. And to those who say, "make your own then, that is what open source is all about," I query, "Are you the same folks who wonder why we can't quit duplicating effort?"
My vote still lies in configurability, and my hope is I don't have to turn to enlightenment to get it.
Just so people don't think that this means anything... THIS IS JUST A SERVER! What xine has done is a player (a client) There is nothing like this for linux yet except codeweavers crossover plugin. Which is not free, but a fine product.
It seems to me that the real benefit of sitting at a computer is to use the compiler. Otherwise, I use to write all my code by hand before getting on the computer. I probably think better writing by hand than on the computer. To each his own I guess, but I don't find questions wrt coding on exams unfair or difficult. (Except for inserting lines when you make mistakes):-)
One thing that is hard to do is find a reasonable balance between commenting code, and bloating the file so that it is hard to find the code. Anyone else have this problem? For instance, sometimes even with syntax highlighting, getting through all that wordy commentary is like trudging through the haystack looking for the needle. Here is where tools matter.
First, use a good documentation program like doxygen or doc++ (C/C++) specific. Then a user can see the highlights of the code functionality in html, away from the code. This solves much of the overview type of code reading.
Second, use well-thought out function names and variable names and be consistent. This is often at the cost of space, but even if you are writing code just for yourself, I found it helps tremendously.
Third, use short, descriptive, comments to point out algorithm purpose, especially when it took you time to think through it. Try your best to not interrupt the flow of the code by putting comments on the end of the line.
Fourth, on my wish list is a tool that I have not seen. That would be some kind of comment compressor, like you do with expanding directories into trees on a GUI file manipulation program. Emacs programmers -- are you listening?:-)
Finally laying out code in a consistent manner (the right tool is indent here) really helps. Many styles have evolved because they provide visual feedback and cues about what you are seeing. Having and using a consistent style helps future mainters use those visual cues as they parse through your code. These cues can be more effective than comments because they are succinct.
That's more to do with algorithms than anything else. You can make almost anything faster with a better algorithms, and the two ings: caching and hashing. I bet you anything not one of those programs use the best algorithm.
While most likely true that these programs don't use the best algorithm, and better algorithms are always a better way to solve a problem; not everything is an algorithm. All I was thinking of was implementing the same ideas in different languages. When, given the same algorithms, a language provides safety at a cost of cycles, if your code is too slow, then you need to consider a different language. I guess my main beef was that you claimed first that C++ is a terrible language, and second that 99% of the programs don't need the speed offered. (You clarified your position on this somewhat)
Finally, I still submit that not only does C++ offer greater speed and efficiency given the same algorithms than most languages, it offers greater expressiveness in accomplishing those ideas. No language should not get in the way of expressing algorithms. For me, C++ gets out of the way the best.
95+% of the time, switch statements should not fall through
While I can't argue with your experience, mine is not this way. There are many instances where you have progressive types of options where you want to do something additionally when you hit the next option. If you have written a compiler (maybe even if you haven't) you will realize that writing a switch statement involves a jump table. Avoiding jumps really helps speed, so while your idea of using a nobreak option instead is intriguing, I personally like the way C++ encourages you to think about your switch statements to code them more efficiently. You can always just use if-then-else-ifs to avoid the fall through problems when you don't want to think about what you are doing.
even within one program designers rarely need maximum speed at every point.
While I agree completely with this, I have yet to see a good method of mixing this type of inherent safety one language provides with the raw speed of another. C++ perhaps has accomplished this the best. While not the safest, there are a lot of safety classes out there to use, and if those are too slow, you can still go the raw power.
but here's an idea, why aren't there guards around them, that you can remove if you are doing something that needs them out of the way?
If you are familiar with the Standard Library, then you know that there are many tools here to do just that. And, they still do them efficiently for most things. Still, if you want to avoid the guards you can.
Oh yeah right. Lack of creativity and power.
Yes, I phrased this a little poorly. (Surely with the creativity part) But, I was thinking in terms of multi-paradigm programming with generics and operator overloading. Both of these tools can increase expressiveness and decrease programming time. Java's original implemetors (I guess they are considering templates) did not include these things because they are too dangerous. I personally dislike this philosophy because, as I referred to, good techniques can help you avoid most, if not all of the dangers.
Frankly, your number pulling of "99% of software engineers" not needing the speed of C++ is just ridiculous and arbitrary. Look at the sheer number of complaints of about gnome, kde, mozilla, and related projects being to slow and you will realize that there is never enough speed. And those are just UI programs.
I won't stoop to your pulling numbers out of the blue, but I would contend there is a great deal of scientific and research software that also need every bit of speed they can get. These programs alone must constitute way more than the 1% you have allotted. The software I am developing is in that category.
Finally, when you speak as you have, you declare your ignorance loudly. Yes, C++ does not prevent you from making the kinds of mistakes that you refer to; but by learning good engineering techniques, you can avoid and prevent them yourself. Languages which do restrict you in this area *cough*java*cough* also restrict your creativity and power to accomplish your task. A civil engineer for example, uses techniques -- not restrictions -- to make his/her designs infallible; it is time software engineers step up to the plate and begin using solid techniques rather than blame the language.
That being said, it is still important to use the right tools for the job, if speed is not a concern and you can acclompish the task with something safer and easier -- do it! C++, however is going to remain an important and key tool to accomplish many tasks in the future. Its speed, ability, and flexibility will assure its long life.
Slashdot Mirror
Moderators, mod this down as mis-information (or funny?) PLEASE. What a load of crap! There is not one piece of correct information in this post. The chip does not have two cores, and this has nothing to do with the speed of transistor switching. Transistor switching speed is one of the things that limits processors, but transistors do switch at >>3GHz. See this previous article about the current state of the art.
MS will of course continue to press DirectX, but, the more Linux, and FreeBSD, and "alternative" platforms become used, and viable, (Thanks to NVIDIA for their drivers for FreeBSD AND Linux) the more appealing it is for developers to create cross-platform games. This is why it is essential for OpenGL to progress, and why I am so excited for version 2.0.
BTW: what is the status on the MS patent issues? Anyone know?
Our system has worked well for over 200 years. The benefits of a two-party system are many. If we change the voting system, be prepared to be moved out of a two-party system, and all the problems that brings.
Why in the hell am I getting modded down for this? I was only trying to point out that there is a really nice option for those who have some money to pay for the developer license of QT for mac. I use QT as my main development for linux and have been very pleased -- good grief moderaters, READ THE COMMENT.
I am not sure of your position, (because the developer license costs money for Mac OSX) but QT has the advantage of porting to about every platform there is.
You accounted for everyone but RedHat! What about RedHat's right to offer their distinctive look and feel?
Good grief moderators --- too late now, but this was meant to be FUNNY --- I guess I have to make this more obvious because everybody wants to see TROLL.
:-)
Give me some love.
Is is possible that Microsoft is funding the project to under open source? Is it possible that the only reason the Mozilla project got done so fast is that it had Microsoft money backing it? Hmmmm... something to think about
What is the reason for the delay? Can it really be that it's just a business decision (as they seem to say) rather than a technological problem? It seems that AMD _needs_ this jump in 64 bit computing, the sse2 registers, and boost in performance on Intel. So to me, if it is a business decision, it is a poor one.
Everything I have seen shows that Intel is doing much better in performance and climbing. AMD claims there is no real technological reason, yet there must be. Anyone have insights? It seems that it would be prudent for AMD to issue better explanations -- how could it hurt to be honest? I want to see competition, if they are going to lag in performance, then they present no reason for people to buy. (A similarly performing Intel chip is close in price right now)
AMD just today announced that they have created 10 nm double gate transistors. Here is the AMD announcement
Probably too late for most to read this but I have not seen this mentioned yet -- one huge thing missing that I see will happen -- e-commerce. Why would a company limit e-commerce to palladium users?
Here is the scenario (happened with DR DOS):
Microsoft mass deploys palladium in OEM boxes (as usual) As the user base grows, they issue service packs that have a ton of security fixes, and in this service pack they enable an internet security warning. The code is back ported to W2k and WXP, and anytime business on the web is transacted the warning appears. WARNING: You are executing an insecure transaction that cannot be guaranteed with this vendor as the vendor is not Digitally certified with Microsoft to perform secure transactions. For those without palladium, they will get a warning that tells them they must upgrade to palladium. The number of users calling in about this warning will spark management to get the site fully palladium compliant. This will happen slowly, and eventually all the warnings will disappear and you will not even be able to use anything not certified.
Don't believe it can happen? I hope not, but MS has done similar things many times, (Christmas beta release in Windows 95 beta to destroy DR DOS) It gives MS the ability to force upgrades through security (see the recent admittal to the insecure nature of windows to set the stage) and locks out any platform that will not use DRM enabled security. Of course that security costs money and certification costs money, and local recompiles would cost money -- eliminating free software. There are many benefits to this approach, and I don't yet see how to stop it other than educate the consumer.
Any ideas?
Uhhh... wow take your own advice! I am talking about STRAINED SILICON, not SOI.
:~/
Geesh
Not to throw cold water on the linux movement, but don't forget that IBM has a ton of money invested in Linux, and there is motivation there to show that it is better. It is possible that they really didn't try to get Windows working all that hard.
:-)
Just something for the conspiracy theorist in all of us
I read a few days ago about Intel's plan to use "Strained Silicon" in their 90 nm process. Here's the link
Quote from the article:
Simply put, you want transistors to be able to pass as much current as possible when they're switched on and to pass no current when they're switched off. Unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world and transistors don't always behave as they should. Technologies such as Silicon on Insulator (SOI) help stop current from flowing when it shouldn't (leakage current) and technologies such as Strained Silicon help increase the amount of current that's allowed to flow when it's needed (drive current).
I saw no mention of IBM doing this so I wondered, is this patented by Intel? Even so, if you are setting about to make the most advanced FAB, it would seem that this technology should be licensed.
There is support for NVDIA's cards in XFree86 for 2D work already also, you don't need the binary drivers for that.
I therefore assumed that it was understood we were talking about 3D. I want 3D support. The 8500 does _not_ have 3D support in XFree86 4.2.
Lastly, the other advantage to having company supported drivers is that the LATEST is available, this has been crucial for the work we are doing in our lab -- I hope ATI follows suit.
Why not do both? (Release specs to XFree86 developers AND release binary drivers -- this would give the best of both worlds)
It's easy to complain, but how long will this be out before there are drivers for XFree86? 2,3,4 generations?! (There are still no Radeon 8500 drivers) You can complain about NVIDIA binary drivers for linux all you want, but I for one appreciate being able to use the latest technology when it is released without having to use windows. I would really like to see ATI release drivers (binary or otherwise) for linux.
As you pointed out they vary -- I was referring to their lower end stuff. Remember, the idea is still to be cheap and fast, that is what serial offers. The high bandwidth further parallel stuff is much more expensive. For example, USB is considered serial but transfers 4 bits at a time, cheaper than the parallel interfaces but at a good rate (12Mb/s) for USB1.1 .
Serial can be made faster because the logic (De-muxing) that has to occur in parallel transfer systems slow down the clock rate. Thus, by simplifying the de-muxing process via serial transfers you can crank the transfer rates up to more than compensate. We are seeing good examples of other moves in this direction like Intel's 3GIO and AMD's HyperTransport
The simplified interfaces allow more flexibility (why SATA is hot-swappable) and are cheaper to produce.
I must object. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I found gnome 2 much harder to configure. The worst is the endless windows registry type settings in GConf (even with the GConf editor.) I tend to want to change things per application, and finding the specific option is nearly impossible under this scheme.
Additionally, I really dislike what has happened with gnome 2 in configurability. Making intelligent defaults is all fine and good, but when you can't get it how you want, frustration ensues. The reason I never used KDE was precisely this lack of configurability. I have heard this same comment from many people and I predict that an outcry of configurability problems will happen.
As an example, there are no virtual desktops in gnome 2, and neither metacity nor sawfish 2 add them. I realize there are only subtle differences, but there are many people who use those differences. Additionally, at least for now, sawfish doesn't even have the infrastructure to bind keys to switching to workspaces in a 2d sense (I can move left or right, but not up or down) Another example is that in metacity, clicking anywhere on a window raises it. This is terrible for me. One of the biggest reasons I use sloppy focus is so that I can have overlapping windows and cut and paste from the window underneath. This is especially useful with overlapping terminals that tend to be smaller and thus just disappear when the larger window raises. According to Havoc, most of these options (unless he uses them) are just "crack-rock." So don't use metacity right? Well, unfortuanately there isn't anything else that fits the bill right now, perhaps sawfish will get back to its usual self -- dunno. And to those who say, "make your own then, that is what open source is all about," I query, "Are you the same folks who wonder why we can't quit duplicating effort?"
My vote still lies in configurability, and my hope is I don't have to turn to enlightenment to get it.
Just so people don't think that this means anything... THIS IS JUST A SERVER! What xine has done is a player (a client) There is nothing like this for linux yet except codeweavers crossover plugin. Which is not free, but a fine product.
It seems to me that the real benefit of sitting at a computer is to use the compiler. Otherwise, I use to write all my code by hand before getting on the computer. I probably think better writing by hand than on the computer. To each his own I guess, but I don't find questions wrt coding on exams unfair or difficult. (Except for inserting lines when you make mistakes) :-)
One thing that is hard to do is find a reasonable balance between commenting code, and bloating the file so that it is hard to find the code. Anyone else have this problem? For instance, sometimes even with syntax highlighting, getting through all that wordy commentary is like trudging through the haystack looking for the needle. Here is where tools matter.
:-)
First, use a good documentation program like doxygen or doc++ (C/C++) specific. Then a user can see the highlights of the code functionality in html, away from the code. This solves much of the overview type of code reading.
Second, use well-thought out function names and variable names and be consistent. This is often at the cost of space, but even if you are writing code just for yourself, I found it helps tremendously.
Third, use short, descriptive, comments to point out algorithm purpose, especially when it took you time to think through it. Try your best to not interrupt the flow of the code by putting comments on the end of the line.
Fourth, on my wish list is a tool that I have not seen. That would be some kind of comment compressor, like you do with expanding directories into trees on a GUI file manipulation program. Emacs programmers -- are you listening?
Finally laying out code in a consistent manner (the right tool is indent here) really helps. Many styles have evolved because they provide visual feedback and cues about what you are seeing. Having and using a consistent style helps future mainters use those visual cues as they parse through your code. These cues can be more effective than comments because they are succinct.
That's more to do with algorithms than anything else. You can make almost anything faster with a better algorithms, and the two ings: caching and hashing. I bet you anything not one of those programs use the best algorithm.
While most likely true that these programs don't use the best algorithm, and better algorithms are always a better way to solve a problem; not everything is an algorithm. All I was thinking of was implementing the same ideas in different languages. When, given the same algorithms, a language provides safety at a cost of cycles, if your code is too slow, then you need to consider a different language. I guess my main beef was that you claimed first that C++ is a terrible language, and second that 99% of the programs don't need the speed offered. (You clarified your position on this somewhat)
Finally, I still submit that not only does C++ offer greater speed and efficiency given the same algorithms than most languages, it offers greater expressiveness in accomplishing those ideas. No language should not get in the way of expressing algorithms. For me, C++ gets out of the way the best.
Here we go again with numbers from the blue.
95+% of the time, switch statements should not fall through
While I can't argue with your experience, mine is not this way. There are many instances where you have progressive types of options where you want to do something additionally when you hit the next option. If you have written a compiler (maybe even if you haven't) you will realize that writing a switch statement involves a jump table. Avoiding jumps really helps speed, so while your idea of using a nobreak option instead is intriguing, I personally like the way C++ encourages you to think about your switch statements to code them more efficiently. You can always just use if-then-else-ifs to avoid the fall through problems when you don't want to think about what you are doing.
even within one program designers rarely need maximum speed at every point.
While I agree completely with this, I have yet to see a good method of mixing this type of inherent safety one language provides with the raw speed of another. C++ perhaps has accomplished this the best. While not the safest, there are a lot of safety classes out there to use, and if those are too slow, you can still go the raw power.
but here's an idea, why aren't there guards around them, that you can remove if you are doing something that needs them out of the way?
If you are familiar with the Standard Library, then you know that there are many tools here to do just that. And, they still do them efficiently for most things. Still, if you want to avoid the guards you can.
Oh yeah right. Lack of creativity and power.
Yes, I phrased this a little poorly. (Surely with the creativity part) But, I was thinking in terms of multi-paradigm programming with generics and operator overloading. Both of these tools can increase expressiveness and decrease programming time. Java's original implemetors (I guess they are considering templates) did not include these things because they are too dangerous. I personally dislike this philosophy because, as I referred to, good techniques can help you avoid most, if not all of the dangers.
Frankly, your number pulling of "99% of software engineers" not needing the speed of C++ is just ridiculous and arbitrary. Look at the sheer number of complaints of about gnome, kde, mozilla, and related projects being to slow and you will realize that there is never enough speed. And those are just UI programs.
I won't stoop to your pulling numbers out of the blue, but I would contend there is a great deal of scientific and research software that also need every bit of speed they can get. These programs alone must constitute way more than the 1% you have allotted. The software I am developing is in that category.
Finally, when you speak as you have, you declare your ignorance loudly. Yes, C++ does not prevent you from making the kinds of mistakes that you refer to; but by learning good engineering techniques, you can avoid and prevent them yourself. Languages which do restrict you in this area *cough*java*cough* also restrict your creativity and power to accomplish your task. A civil engineer for example, uses techniques -- not restrictions -- to make his/her designs infallible; it is time software engineers step up to the plate and begin using solid techniques rather than blame the language.
That being said, it is still important to use the right tools for the job, if speed is not a concern and you can acclompish the task with something safer and easier -- do it! C++, however is going to remain an important and key tool to accomplish many tasks in the future. Its speed, ability, and flexibility will assure its long life.