...post communist central european countries, with Iran being much poorer and still having a totalitarian regime I'd think it's even worse there. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know about the status of the internet there, but Iran is not much poorer than the former soviet countries. It has a GDP of about $450 billion, and a per-capita GDP of $6800. In comparison the Ukraine has a GDP of $220 billion, and a per-capita GDP of $4500. Russia itself has a per-capita GDP of $9700.
Dosen't sound like a true democracy to me. >>>>>>>>>>>> The US president has to swear an oath as well.
They also only elected a parliment, and president not their head leaders. >>>>>>>>>>>>&g t; The US republic originally did not allow election of senetors or of the president. It was still a democracy.
I might be mistaken, but I beleive the "Assembly of Experts" is a group of Islamic Clerics who are still very fundmentalist. >>>>>>>>>>>> "Leader of the Islamic Revolution" is not the same as the leader of Iran. While he has a great deal of power, he is not the sole bearer of power.
I agree that the past election was a giant step foward but is not were near a real election. No third parties (such as the U.N.) were there to verify the votes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The UN didn't verify the votes in the last US election either...
If Iran is a democracy so was Iraq too since the elected Saddam Hussien as their "president" in the past year (before we "liberated" them.) >>>>>>>>>>> *That* wasn't a real election. There is no reason, however, to believe that the last election in Iran was the same way, because there was wide public support for Khatami.
I wouldn't consider Iran anything close to a democracy yet. >>>>>>>>>>>>&g t; More accurately, Iran's government has democratic elements within a theocratic framework. That's not a democracy, but its also a huge step away from totalitarian regimes like Iraq. Saddam took power by force. Iran's clerics were put into power by the people.
OS X isn't a UNIX desktop. OS X is a self-contained operating system based on UNIX. GNOME, KDE, and CDE are actual UNIX desktops in the sense that you can install them on a wide variety of UNIX OSs.
Most Solaris apps are compiled as 32-bits, but a fully 64-bit Solaris kernel *is* available, and apps running on this kernel can fully use 64-bit features. That counts as "fully 64-bit" to me. The fact that most userland apps are compiled as 32-bits is not a limitation but an optimization.
OS X is completely different. Userland apps cannot take full advantage of 64-bit features, because the kernel is not fully 64-bit.
Actually, due to the FreeQt agreements, Trolltech cannot drop the GPL for future versions of Qt without having the last GPL'ed version fall into the BSD license.
The license for QT is only free if you make free stuff. >>>>>>>>>> The Qt license is the GPL, which is "truly free." The GPL has restrictions, but they are to preserve freedom. I live in the United States, in a free society. Yet, I am restricted from stealing from my neighbor. Am I less free or more free than in a society that allows me to steal?
In the United States... You are not yet slaves to your jobs, rather, your jobs are slaves to you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are we living in the same United States? Americans work more and vacation less than the fucking Japanese! The Japanese!
There did appear to be portability issues with the Windows codebase though. I remember that while NT 4.0 ran on Alpha, it ran in 32-bit mode rather than 64-bit mode.
Iran isn't a dictatorship. Its a theocracy. There is a difference. The people of Iran chose the goernment they have now. It wasn't a military coup or anything. There was a people's revolution, and the people instituted the government they wanted. Thus you ended up with an elected government running the details and a theocratical one overseeing the whole thing.
Of course, this was decades ago, and a new generation of people are expressing discontent with the current government. If and when the will of the people changes enough so that they demand a different government, then they will institute a new one.
Doesn't the Bible forbid the same thing? Are we perpetually beholden to exact words in the books some men in the desert wrote thousands of years ago? Modern christian countries don't follow the Bible word-for-word (well, except the lunatics), and there is no reason to assume that modern muslims do so either.
It is a troll because Islam is no more anti-women than Christianity. The Quran grants women the right to choose their marriage, divorce at any time, remarry, enter any profession, own property, run a business, enter into contracts, vote, and inherit from relatives. Most of these freedoms are not granted to women in the Bible. You can find out more at this page and at this page. Note, there *are* anti-women messages in particular portions of the Quran, because it was narrated by a number of different authors. You can find some of them at this page. This particular page shows that Biblical scholars and Quaranic scholars interpret the Quran differently, for example they use the same passage in Volume 7, Book 62, Number 113 to reach entirely different conclusions. While some points are differences in interpretation, others are valid. Note, however, that both the Bible and Quran are full if statements that modern scholars in both religions ignore, such as the Old Testements statements about slavery. As a whole, the Quran is actually rather equitable to women, and it is hard to argue that an anti-women stance is inherently Islamic.
Arab culture (which is not the same thing as Islamic culture!) is often anti-women, but then again, so was British/American culture until a couple of hundred years ago. Indeed, remnents of anti-women culture persist to this day in the southern United States. Progressive Islamic countries do not have this problem to the same degree as conservative Arab countries. In Iran, for example, 60% of university entrants are women. Several Islamic countries (Pakistan, Turkey, Bangladesh) have had women Prime Ministers in the last decade, while the United States has yet to elect a women president. Islamic countries have by no means caught up with Western nations in the area of women's equality, but many are not far behind. Most of the remaining inequality in progressive Islamic counries has little to do with religion and mostly to do with traditional conservative values. Consider the United States circa the 1950's, where women's magazines regularly talked about "how women should treat their man," stating things like "Always let your husband speak first --- whatever he has to say is more important than what you have to say."
That's Arab culture, not Islamic culture. Arabic culture encourages women (and people in general, really) to be fully covered*. In Islamic countries outside of the Arab regions, there are no such restrictions. Islamic women in India and Bangladesh, for example, do not cover their faces. Indeed, traditional dresses often expose the midriff and lower back.
* Interestingly, part of the reason why this is required is because of the desert climate of Arab countries. Not covering up is a good way to get burned by the sun. Other Islamic traditions have similar origins in desert life. There are restrictions against eating ham, because historically, ham goes bad extremely quickly in desert climates.
One thing that I feel important to note (because Slashdotters seem to be criminally unaware of the world around them) is that Iran's government is not the sort of dictatorship you'd find in Iraq. Its a conservative theocracy, yes, but believe it or not the people wanted it that way. There was a western-backed government in place before, and a student revolution overthrew it and instituted the current government.
Its hard for westerners to understand, but Muslim societies don't think like us. My parents are from Bangladesh, which is rather liberal for a muslim country. Their constitution originally specified no official religion, but after great pressure from the populace, the official religion was changed to Islam.
If OS X was 64-bit clean, they *would* have the same codebase on all their product lines. Aside from some architecture-specific components, Linux has the same kernel code for IA32 and AMD64. Heck, Apple wouldn't even need that much architecture-specific code, because there are minimal software-visible changes between the G4 and G5, while there are several architectural changes (like lack of segmentation, more visible registers, etc) between IA32 and AMD64.
Apple has many smart people working on this and tons of cash to buy help if they need it. >>>>>>>> So does Microsoft, and they are having troubling getting out 64-bit versions of Windows as well.
Nope. The P4's L1 cache is very fast, but it is 2 cycles for integer loads and 6 cyles for floating-point loads. However, they had to make it tiny (8KB) to get it that fast. The Athlon's large L1 cache (128KB) has a latency of 3 cyles.
Its not a big paperweight, but its pretty lightweight hardware. They have to have a sophisticated software error-correction system because the machine's lack of ECC RAM. Its fricking fast, but then again, a Pentium 4 blows away an UltraSparc in the raw speed department as well. At the high-end, speed isn't everything.
I'm not a Mac basher. I'm mostly a Linux person, but I really like MacOS classic. BeOS, which was very similar to MacOS classic in a lot of ways, was my favorite OS ever.
*But*
Sun and SGI took their UNIX systems, and made the 64-bit transition very quickly and easily. Yet, even though OS X is a UNIX under the hood, they are still managing to have problems moving to 64-bit. That's because they used such damn ancient UNIX code (Mach 3.0 and 4.4BSD) instead of basing the system on a more modern BSD. Apple had a very long and painful 68k to PowerPC transition, and you think after that they would have learned something about portability!
64-bit isn't a hard thing to do, as SGI and Sun proved. Microsoft may be having problems, but that is to be expected, its Windows after all! While Apple may have gotten their shit together in the processor department, they simply dropped the ball on the 64-bit transition.
Re:How are we going to explaing something this sub
on
G5 vs Opteron, Finally
·
· Score: 1
Its not so much a rigged test, but a useless one, if you are going to be running optimized 64-bit code. If you're going to be running off the shelf Windows and Mac apps, its probably a fair comparison, but if you'll be running your own custom programs, or using a fully 64-bit OS like Linux, than its not.
They are having trouble. When Solaris was moved to 64-bit, they compiled all the system software in 64-bit mode, and added 32-bit compatibility libraries and 32-bit compatibility system calls to the kernel. Users got a full 64-bit OS on a 64-bit machine, and all their 32-bit apps worked just fine. No convincing required, just a regular upgrade, like from OS X 10.2 to 10.3. The fact that 10.3 isn't 64-bit implies that there are some problems, namely that not all the code is 64-bit clean.
The AMD64 has much more than 16 of each type of register. It has 16 user-visible integer registers, which makes for better processor optimizations. It has many more internal rename registers. I don't know how many the AMD64 has, but the Pentium4 draws its 8 integer and 8 floating-point registers from a bank of 128 internal GPRs. The AMD64 is probably comparable.
And in RISC systems, its 32 of each, seperated into integer and floating-point banks.
People who were complaining about Apple's pricing where complaining about having to pay for dog slow 1GHz G4s with hideously slow memory busses that couldn't even take full advantage of a stick of DDR 1600 RAM!
The G5 is the first good deal from Apple's desktop lineup in years. Dual 64-bit 2GHz for $3000? That's pretty good! Apple's will have to be aggressive with the pricing, though, because eventually, AMD64 chips will have to drop the premium 64-bit pricing and start competing with mid-range Xeons at $300 each. And IBM will have to keep ramping up the clock speed, because the nicest architecture in the world means jack shit in the face of a 3x clockspeed delta. If they can do that, the G5 will be successful. If they can't, it's back to G4-era "Macs are slow and expensive!"
Then its not 64-bit at all, it just lets you do 64-bit integer math. Well, hopefully a not-to-distant revision of OS X will get proper 64-bit support. Its kind of embarrasing that Apple's new UNIX-derived OS is having problems moving to 64-bit, when the big UNIX vendors like Sun and SGI made the 32-bit -> 64-bit transition rapidly and uneventfully years ago.
Slashdot Mirror
...post communist central european countries, with Iran being much poorer and still having a totalitarian regime I'd think it's even worse there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I don't know about the status of the internet there, but Iran is not much poorer than the former soviet countries. It has a GDP of about $450 billion, and a per-capita GDP of $6800. In comparison the Ukraine has a GDP of $220 billion, and a per-capita GDP of $4500. Russia itself has a per-capita GDP of $9700.
Dosen't sound like a true democracy to me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
The US president has to swear an oath as well.
They also only elected a parliment, and president not their head leaders.
>>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;
The US republic originally did not allow election of senetors or of the president. It was still a democracy.
I might be mistaken, but I beleive the "Assembly of Experts" is a group of Islamic Clerics who are still very fundmentalist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
"Leader of the Islamic Revolution" is not the same as the leader of Iran. While he has a great deal of power, he is not the sole bearer of power.
I agree that the past election was a giant step foward but is not were near a real election. No third parties (such as the U.N.) were there to verify the votes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The UN didn't verify the votes in the last US election either...
If Iran is a democracy so was Iraq too since the elected Saddam Hussien as their "president" in the past year (before we "liberated" them.)
>>>>>>>>>>>
*That* wasn't a real election. There is no reason, however, to believe that the last election in Iran was the same way, because there was wide public support for Khatami.
I wouldn't consider Iran anything close to a democracy yet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;
More accurately, Iran's government has democratic elements within a theocratic framework. That's not a democracy, but its also a huge step away from totalitarian regimes like Iraq. Saddam took power by force. Iran's clerics were put into power by the people.
OS X isn't a UNIX desktop. OS X is a self-contained operating system based on UNIX. GNOME, KDE, and CDE are actual UNIX desktops in the sense that you can install them on a wide variety of UNIX OSs.
Most Solaris apps are compiled as 32-bits, but a fully 64-bit Solaris kernel *is* available, and apps running on this kernel can fully use 64-bit features. That counts as "fully 64-bit" to me. The fact that most userland apps are compiled as 32-bits is not a limitation but an optimization.
OS X is completely different. Userland apps cannot take full advantage of 64-bit features, because the kernel is not fully 64-bit.
Actually, due to the FreeQt agreements, Trolltech cannot drop the GPL for future versions of Qt without having the last GPL'ed version fall into the BSD license.
The license for QT is only free if you make free stuff.
>>>>>>>>>>
The Qt license is the GPL, which is "truly free." The GPL has restrictions, but they are to preserve freedom. I live in the United States, in a free society. Yet, I am restricted from stealing from my neighbor. Am I less free or more free than in a society that allows me to steal?
In the United States... You are not yet slaves to your jobs, rather, your jobs are slaves to you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Are we living in the same United States? Americans work more and vacation less than the fucking Japanese! The Japanese!
There did appear to be portability issues with the Windows codebase though. I remember that while NT 4.0 ran on Alpha, it ran in 32-bit mode rather than 64-bit mode.
If by "our" you mean US, then KDE is not "our" software. The bulk of KDE's developers are European.
Iran isn't a dictatorship. Its a theocracy. There is a difference. The people of Iran chose the goernment they have now. It wasn't a military coup or anything. There was a people's revolution, and the people instituted the government they wanted. Thus you ended up with an elected government running the details and a theocratical one overseeing the whole thing.
Of course, this was decades ago, and a new generation of people are expressing discontent with the current government. If and when the will of the people changes enough so that they demand a different government, then they will institute a new one.
Doesn't the Bible forbid the same thing? Are we perpetually beholden to exact words in the books some men in the desert wrote thousands of years ago? Modern christian countries don't follow the Bible word-for-word (well, except the lunatics), and there is no reason to assume that modern muslims do so either.
It is a troll because Islam is no more anti-women than Christianity. The Quran grants women the right to choose their marriage, divorce at any time, remarry, enter any profession, own property, run a business, enter into contracts, vote, and inherit from relatives. Most of these freedoms are not granted to women in the Bible. You can find out more at this page and at this page. Note, there *are* anti-women messages in particular portions of the Quran, because it was narrated by a number of different authors. You can find some of them at this page. This particular page shows that Biblical scholars and Quaranic scholars interpret the Quran differently, for example they use the same passage in Volume 7, Book 62, Number 113 to reach entirely different conclusions. While some points are differences in interpretation, others are valid. Note, however, that both the Bible and Quran are full if statements that modern scholars in both religions ignore, such as the Old Testements statements about slavery. As a whole, the Quran is actually rather equitable to women, and it is hard to argue that an anti-women stance is inherently Islamic.
Arab culture (which is not the same thing as Islamic culture!) is often anti-women, but then again, so was British/American culture until a couple of hundred years ago. Indeed, remnents of anti-women culture persist to this day in the southern United States. Progressive Islamic countries do not have this problem to the same degree as conservative Arab countries. In Iran, for example, 60% of university entrants are women. Several Islamic countries (Pakistan, Turkey, Bangladesh) have had women Prime Ministers in the last decade, while the United States has yet to elect a women president. Islamic countries have by no means caught up with Western nations in the area of women's equality, but many are not far behind. Most of the remaining inequality in progressive Islamic counries has little to do with religion and mostly to do with traditional conservative values. Consider the United States circa the 1950's, where women's magazines regularly talked about "how women should treat their man," stating things like "Always let your husband speak first --- whatever he has to say is more important than what you have to say."
That's Arab culture, not Islamic culture. Arabic culture encourages women (and people in general, really) to be fully covered*. In Islamic countries outside of the Arab regions, there are no such restrictions. Islamic women in India and Bangladesh, for example, do not cover their faces. Indeed, traditional dresses often expose the midriff and lower back.
* Interestingly, part of the reason why this is required is because of the desert climate of Arab countries. Not covering up is a good way to get burned by the sun. Other Islamic traditions have similar origins in desert life. There are restrictions against eating ham, because historically, ham goes bad extremely quickly in desert climates.
One thing that I feel important to note (because Slashdotters seem to be criminally unaware of the world around them) is that Iran's government is not the sort of dictatorship you'd find in Iraq. Its a conservative theocracy, yes, but believe it or not the people wanted it that way. There was a western-backed government in place before, and a student revolution overthrew it and instituted the current government.
Its hard for westerners to understand, but Muslim societies don't think like us. My parents are from Bangladesh, which is rather liberal for a muslim country. Their constitution originally specified no official religion, but after great pressure from the populace, the official religion was changed to Islam.
If OS X was 64-bit clean, they *would* have the same codebase on all their product lines. Aside from some architecture-specific components, Linux has the same kernel code for IA32 and AMD64. Heck, Apple wouldn't even need that much architecture-specific code, because there are minimal software-visible changes between the G4 and G5, while there are several architectural changes (like lack of segmentation, more visible registers, etc) between IA32 and AMD64.
Apple has many smart people working on this and tons of cash to buy help if they need it.
>>>>>>>>
So does Microsoft, and they are having troubling getting out 64-bit versions of Windows as well.
Nope. The P4's L1 cache is very fast, but it is 2 cycles for integer loads and 6 cyles for floating-point loads. However, they had to make it tiny (8KB) to get it that fast. The Athlon's large L1 cache (128KB) has a latency of 3 cyles.
Its not a big paperweight, but its pretty lightweight hardware. They have to have a sophisticated software error-correction system because the machine's lack of ECC RAM. Its fricking fast, but then again, a Pentium 4 blows away an UltraSparc in the raw speed department as well. At the high-end, speed isn't everything.
I'm not a Mac basher. I'm mostly a Linux person, but I really like MacOS classic. BeOS, which was very similar to MacOS classic in a lot of ways, was my favorite OS ever.
*But*
Sun and SGI took their UNIX systems, and made the 64-bit transition very quickly and easily. Yet, even though OS X is a UNIX under the hood, they are still managing to have problems moving to 64-bit. That's because they used such damn ancient UNIX code (Mach 3.0 and 4.4BSD) instead of basing the system on a more modern BSD. Apple had a very long and painful 68k to PowerPC transition, and you think after that they would have learned something about portability!
64-bit isn't a hard thing to do, as SGI and Sun proved. Microsoft may be having problems, but that is to be expected, its Windows after all! While Apple may have gotten their shit together in the processor department, they simply dropped the ball on the 64-bit transition.
Its not so much a rigged test, but a useless one, if you are going to be running optimized 64-bit code. If you're going to be running off the shelf Windows and Mac apps, its probably a fair comparison, but if you'll be running your own custom programs, or using a fully 64-bit OS like Linux, than its not.
They are having trouble. When Solaris was moved to 64-bit, they compiled all the system software in 64-bit mode, and added 32-bit compatibility libraries and 32-bit compatibility system calls to the kernel. Users got a full 64-bit OS on a 64-bit machine, and all their 32-bit apps worked just fine. No convincing required, just a regular upgrade, like from OS X 10.2 to 10.3. The fact that 10.3 isn't 64-bit implies that there are some problems, namely that not all the code is 64-bit clean.
The AMD64 has much more than 16 of each type of register. It has 16 user-visible integer registers, which makes for better processor optimizations. It has many more internal rename registers. I don't know how many the AMD64 has, but the Pentium4 draws its 8 integer and 8 floating-point registers from a bank of 128 internal GPRs. The AMD64 is probably comparable.
And in RISC systems, its 32 of each, seperated into integer and floating-point banks.
People who were complaining about Apple's pricing where complaining about having to pay for dog slow 1GHz G4s with hideously slow memory busses that couldn't even take full advantage of a stick of DDR 1600 RAM!
The G5 is the first good deal from Apple's desktop lineup in years. Dual 64-bit 2GHz for $3000? That's pretty good! Apple's will have to be aggressive with the pricing, though, because eventually, AMD64 chips will have to drop the premium 64-bit pricing and start competing with mid-range Xeons at $300 each. And IBM will have to keep ramping up the clock speed, because the nicest architecture in the world means jack shit in the face of a 3x clockspeed delta. If they can do that, the G5 will be successful. If they can't, it's back to G4-era "Macs are slow and expensive!"
Then its not 64-bit at all, it just lets you do 64-bit integer math. Well, hopefully a not-to-distant revision of OS X will get proper 64-bit support. Its kind of embarrasing that Apple's new UNIX-derived OS is having problems moving to 64-bit, when the big UNIX vendors like Sun and SGI made the 32-bit -> 64-bit transition rapidly and uneventfully years ago.
This is not true of the Opteron. 64-bit mode is about 20% faster than 32-bit mode.