I'm pretty sure that's not how ext/reiser/etc actually work. As I understand it, they don't need defragmenting because the disk accessor arranges requests into clean sweeps across the disk, taking fragmentation into account. It's the same thing as NCQ on newer drives, but done in software rather than hardware. This is actually better than relying on defragmentation, because even with an unfragmented drive, multiple files are accessed at once.
I run B&W 2 on a dell laptop with 256 megs of ram, and a Radeon 9000 mobile graphics card. And not even at the lowest possible settings. I've never had it crap out for noticable intervals for paging or anything else.
Yeah, they SAY you can create these apps, but I'm unable to tell from their demos... is this a brand new JSP-style server-side scripting system? Or does their compiler just spit out static html+js? Because if it's JUST static code, then how do you propose to use this system to write a database-driven website like GMail or Google Maps? I don't see how this does anything like that.
That few grand gets you a machine that does OTHER THINGS besides just games, though. Not counting monitor, you can get a killer gaming machine for under $1000 these days, which means that for $300 more than a PS3 you get a multi-purpose tool, instead of a box that plays games and movies. Not only that, but you get much more hardware for the money. Maybe they're thinking of a PS3 as an alternative to your next computer upgrade, but that's not going to cut it for me, and it's not going to cut it for a lot of people. I'd much rather have the Revolution, that can do completely acceptable graphics and innovative gameplay, than a second computer with a handicapped controller that's just going to be the same old thing we've had for the past 20 years.
I have a Speakeasy DSL account. I have kept my 768k upstream saturated for months on end. Granted I pay about $100 a month for that, and I do so happily, knowing that any other provider would have cut me off long ago. It is possible to sell bandwidth honestly, and there are companies that do so.
Right... I just don't think people should use the term Communism for that, though, since that's quite different from what its described as in literature and economics. I usually go with "Stalinism"... seems pretty descriptive to me, although basically the same mindset was present under Hitler, and under Mussolini, and under Mao... anyway, yes, we are in the process of quickly surrenduring to a similar thing here in the States.
It's a nice thought, and there certainly are those of us in this country that are trying. Problem is, most people are either sheep (voting on one issue, like abortion or prayer in schools) or else just don't pay attention to politics or even vote. Too many people are too busy doing "other stuff", and don't understand that participating in government is one of the most important things we can do.
That's not communism, my friend. That's authoritarianism, fascism, blind nationalism, and religion run amock and manipulated against the people. Communism's got nothing to do with it.
I was including parts built to custom spec by 3rd parties. Sorry, should have made it more clear. As I understand it, PC motherboards and chips are supplied directly to Apple, and are not available to others except as part of a whole system. That may be wrong too, but that's what I thought.
That's the difference, though. Apple (as far as hardware) and Microsoft both build their products from components that they make themselves. Dell and HP truly are similar to your car analogy, though... they take parts made by other companies and put them together, along with some custom work (motherboard, car body, etc). To truly compare to Windows, car companies would have to design and manufacture custom tires, spark plugs, windshield motors... everything that goes into the car.
Please show me where I can purchase a machine from Dell without getting charged for a copy of Windows. I've looked, and I can't find it. Hopefully I'm just blind, but I don't think these things are as common as you say.
Actually, I think looking at things that way yields somewhat different conclusions. Look at the early PC market, for example. Apple sold completely pre-fab systems. Yeah, they came in a number of flavors (different speeds, different add-in cards) but essentially you were buying one complete system. The parts used to make such systems weren't available, even to businesses; Apple was the only one who could put together an Apple PC.
In contrast, x86 machines were built from modular components. If you wanted to, you could order different components from vendors and assemble the machine yourself. More common, though, you would pay someone else to assemble the components for you. Gateway, Dell, HP, whoever you picked, they could get the same components as every other manufacturer, and put them together, then ship it to you. You got a fully functional system, but since it wasn't proprietary you could easily swap out parts, and the competition in who was providing these pieces meant lower prices and (sometimes) better performance.
Now move to the software analogy. With Windows, Microsoft builds a bunch of pieces that they assemble into an operating system. They sell it in several different styles, and you can pick which one you want; but the pieces they use to make those systems are not available to anybody else. Another company cannot just come in, buy the parts, and assemble a version of Windows to sell to you. It's a closed market.
Linux, on the other hand, is nearly identical to the x86 market. The system is composed of a bunch of pieces that fit together in standardized ways. Many different people or groups have taken a stab at building versions of these components, though. You can take kernels patched and tweaked in any of thousands of different ways, different device systems, different GUIs, etc, and assemble them into a functional system. Individuals can do this themselves, but more often they will get a full package from some company that has taken these widely available pieces and assembled them.
The situations are parallel to a striking degree. And the results are nearly the same as well. Apple makes computers in which all the parts work together. You don't have to worry about the CPU overheating and frying the motherboard. All the parts are quality controlled, and while they may not be the very best on the market, you know the system is going to Just Work (tm). Windows is the same. You can't swap out the chron manager or the system logger if you want different functionality, but you also know that one piece of the OS isn't going to eat the rest of it. With Linux, you have a huge range of choice in which components you assemble, but that comes with the added risk that some available components are much lower quality than others, and some may be incompatible with each other; exactly the same way with assembling x86 components yourself.
In the end, who won? Well, it's not a perfect parallel, but it seems that in the long run, interchangeable parts and systems with more options won out. It took companies who would hide that abstraction from the user to do it, but Linux is getting there. Fedora, Suse, Linspire, etc are all catching on more and more, and as people start to realize that "computer" is not synonymous with "Windows", they'll continue to do so.
I've never seen a fresh Windows install idle at anything less than 99% cpu free, from a fresh boot. If you're seeing any different, you must either be starting some apps manually, or have installed some 3rd party software.
That's completely untrue. During the Nova special on this, they played back the signal they got from quantum tunnelling Beethoven's 5th through the block so the viewer could hear it for themselves. It sounded static-y, as if played over a weak radio station, but perfectly recognizable.
I'd be interested to know how they filter out background images... if the C4 setup relies on the fact that the top and back views are dark and basically unchanging, I'd guess they would have a hard time adapting it to a fully immersive environment. If they've found a way to compensate for that, though, then that's really impressive.
I had to program on an Onyx4. I'll light that candle when they send me a check for all my wasted time trying to get fucking Mips to compile C++ standard compliant code.
Projectors that can support this kind of system in active vr cost a LOT more than you think. (active is lcd shutter glasses, rather than passive which is polarized lenses) The projectors in the C6 at present cost something like $50,000 each, and the mirrors to set up the space were even more than that. The projectors have to not only support 2x the visible framerate, but they have to support really tight constraints on display synchronization.
I know we looked at doing something similar from a company in CA for the art project I mentioned, but the "posture" thing is news to me. When did they start looking at that? The C4 was pretty non-functional when I left.
In the C6, you can drag a web browser over the portion of the shared desktop that shows the various screens. The window shows only as an outline until you release the mouse. I once dropped the goatse image 6 feet tall across the front screen when demoing an app for some friends.
They don't track body position in the C6. They use the C4 for that, and that part of the setup is pretty buggy anyways. This page has a decent runthrough of the projects they do http://www.vrac.iastate.edu/research/index.php. Mostly it's industrial simulations for John Deere, P&G, etc. I worked on one art project there that was kind of neat, but it really suffered from the technology. Hopefully having some better hardware will let them do some more visually engaging stuff, although I sort of doubt it.
They're upgrading FROM an Onyx4 for a reason. The thing is a pain in the ass to work with, and can't push 1/10th the polys of newer systems with modern graphics cards.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm pretty sure that's not how ext/reiser/etc actually work. As I understand it, they don't need defragmenting because the disk accessor arranges requests into clean sweeps across the disk, taking fragmentation into account. It's the same thing as NCQ on newer drives, but done in software rather than hardware. This is actually better than relying on defragmentation, because even with an unfragmented drive, multiple files are accessed at once.
I run B&W 2 on a dell laptop with 256 megs of ram, and a Radeon 9000 mobile graphics card. And not even at the lowest possible settings. I've never had it crap out for noticable intervals for paging or anything else.
As I understand it, the defragmenter will only run constantly if you pay for a OneCare subscription.
Yeah, they SAY you can create these apps, but I'm unable to tell from their demos... is this a brand new JSP-style server-side scripting system? Or does their compiler just spit out static html+js? Because if it's JUST static code, then how do you propose to use this system to write a database-driven website like GMail or Google Maps? I don't see how this does anything like that.
That few grand gets you a machine that does OTHER THINGS besides just games, though. Not counting monitor, you can get a killer gaming machine for under $1000 these days, which means that for $300 more than a PS3 you get a multi-purpose tool, instead of a box that plays games and movies. Not only that, but you get much more hardware for the money. Maybe they're thinking of a PS3 as an alternative to your next computer upgrade, but that's not going to cut it for me, and it's not going to cut it for a lot of people. I'd much rather have the Revolution, that can do completely acceptable graphics and innovative gameplay, than a second computer with a handicapped controller that's just going to be the same old thing we've had for the past 20 years.
I have a Speakeasy DSL account. I have kept my 768k upstream saturated for months on end. Granted I pay about $100 a month for that, and I do so happily, knowing that any other provider would have cut me off long ago. It is possible to sell bandwidth honestly, and there are companies that do so.
Right... I just don't think people should use the term Communism for that, though, since that's quite different from what its described as in literature and economics. I usually go with "Stalinism"... seems pretty descriptive to me, although basically the same mindset was present under Hitler, and under Mussolini, and under Mao... anyway, yes, we are in the process of quickly surrenduring to a similar thing here in the States.
It's a nice thought, and there certainly are those of us in this country that are trying. Problem is, most people are either sheep (voting on one issue, like abortion or prayer in schools) or else just don't pay attention to politics or even vote. Too many people are too busy doing "other stuff", and don't understand that participating in government is one of the most important things we can do.
That's not communism, my friend. That's authoritarianism, fascism, blind nationalism, and religion run amock and manipulated against the people. Communism's got nothing to do with it.
does the same hold true of their desktop systems? MacBook isn't their only product...
I was including parts built to custom spec by 3rd parties. Sorry, should have made it more clear. As I understand it, PC motherboards and chips are supplied directly to Apple, and are not available to others except as part of a whole system. That may be wrong too, but that's what I thought.
Hmmm... not a ton of choices, but it's a start. Thanks!
That's the difference, though. Apple (as far as hardware) and Microsoft both build their products from components that they make themselves. Dell and HP truly are similar to your car analogy, though... they take parts made by other companies and put them together, along with some custom work (motherboard, car body, etc). To truly compare to Windows, car companies would have to design and manufacture custom tires, spark plugs, windshield motors... everything that goes into the car.
Please show me where I can purchase a machine from Dell without getting charged for a copy of Windows. I've looked, and I can't find it. Hopefully I'm just blind, but I don't think these things are as common as you say.
Actually, I think looking at things that way yields somewhat different conclusions. Look at the early PC market, for example. Apple sold completely pre-fab systems. Yeah, they came in a number of flavors (different speeds, different add-in cards) but essentially you were buying one complete system. The parts used to make such systems weren't available, even to businesses; Apple was the only one who could put together an Apple PC.
In contrast, x86 machines were built from modular components. If you wanted to, you could order different components from vendors and assemble the machine yourself. More common, though, you would pay someone else to assemble the components for you. Gateway, Dell, HP, whoever you picked, they could get the same components as every other manufacturer, and put them together, then ship it to you. You got a fully functional system, but since it wasn't proprietary you could easily swap out parts, and the competition in who was providing these pieces meant lower prices and (sometimes) better performance.
Now move to the software analogy. With Windows, Microsoft builds a bunch of pieces that they assemble into an operating system. They sell it in several different styles, and you can pick which one you want; but the pieces they use to make those systems are not available to anybody else. Another company cannot just come in, buy the parts, and assemble a version of Windows to sell to you. It's a closed market.
Linux, on the other hand, is nearly identical to the x86 market. The system is composed of a bunch of pieces that fit together in standardized ways. Many different people or groups have taken a stab at building versions of these components, though. You can take kernels patched and tweaked in any of thousands of different ways, different device systems, different GUIs, etc, and assemble them into a functional system. Individuals can do this themselves, but more often they will get a full package from some company that has taken these widely available pieces and assembled them.
The situations are parallel to a striking degree. And the results are nearly the same as well. Apple makes computers in which all the parts work together. You don't have to worry about the CPU overheating and frying the motherboard. All the parts are quality controlled, and while they may not be the very best on the market, you know the system is going to Just Work (tm). Windows is the same. You can't swap out the chron manager or the system logger if you want different functionality, but you also know that one piece of the OS isn't going to eat the rest of it. With Linux, you have a huge range of choice in which components you assemble, but that comes with the added risk that some available components are much lower quality than others, and some may be incompatible with each other; exactly the same way with assembling x86 components yourself.
In the end, who won? Well, it's not a perfect parallel, but it seems that in the long run, interchangeable parts and systems with more options won out. It took companies who would hide that abstraction from the user to do it, but Linux is getting there. Fedora, Suse, Linspire, etc are all catching on more and more, and as people start to realize that "computer" is not synonymous with "Windows", they'll continue to do so.
I've never seen a fresh Windows install idle at anything less than 99% cpu free, from a fresh boot. If you're seeing any different, you must either be starting some apps manually, or have installed some 3rd party software.
That's completely untrue. During the Nova special on this, they played back the signal they got from quantum tunnelling Beethoven's 5th through the block so the viewer could hear it for themselves. It sounded static-y, as if played over a weak radio station, but perfectly recognizable.
I'd be interested to know how they filter out background images... if the C4 setup relies on the fact that the top and back views are dark and basically unchanging, I'd guess they would have a hard time adapting it to a fully immersive environment. If they've found a way to compensate for that, though, then that's really impressive.
I had to program on an Onyx4. I'll light that candle when they send me a check for all my wasted time trying to get fucking Mips to compile C++ standard compliant code.
Projectors that can support this kind of system in active vr cost a LOT more than you think. (active is lcd shutter glasses, rather than passive which is polarized lenses) The projectors in the C6 at present cost something like $50,000 each, and the mirrors to set up the space were even more than that. The projectors have to not only support 2x the visible framerate, but they have to support really tight constraints on display synchronization.
I know we looked at doing something similar from a company in CA for the art project I mentioned, but the "posture" thing is news to me. When did they start looking at that? The C4 was pretty non-functional when I left.
In the C6, you can drag a web browser over the portion of the shared desktop that shows the various screens. The window shows only as an outline until you release the mouse. I once dropped the goatse image 6 feet tall across the front screen when demoing an app for some friends.
:-( / >:-)
I'm a bad, bad person
They don't track body position in the C6. They use the C4 for that, and that part of the setup is pretty buggy anyways. This page has a decent runthrough of the projects they do http://www.vrac.iastate.edu/research/index.php. Mostly it's industrial simulations for John Deere, P&G, etc. I worked on one art project there that was kind of neat, but it really suffered from the technology. Hopefully having some better hardware will let them do some more visually engaging stuff, although I sort of doubt it.
They're upgrading FROM an Onyx4 for a reason. The thing is a pain in the ass to work with, and can't push 1/10th the polys of newer systems with modern graphics cards.
I was talking more about security concerns, which come from file system permissions and running as root, rather than inherent kernel design issues.