Just for all those who are making the US out to look like the good guy here, try some statistics The US consistantly ranks dead last among the 22 richest nations in terms of its foreign aid as a percentage of Gross National Product. The kicker is that it is behind Italy (which is in the midst of a political crisis) and Japan (which is in the middle of a decade long recession). If anything, the US should be apologizing for not having milled the corn in the first place.
Look, I'm not here to demonize America. I like it here a lot. I just want to get it out there that as far as foreign policy is concerned, the American people are in the dark, and the American government does whatever is in its best interest. While I don't suddenly expect everyone to become foreign policy gurus, and the American government to be totally self-less (it shouldn't) some steps towards a nice middle ground would be a good start.
Yes, they own lots of car companies. They fully own Jaguar, Volvo, and Aston-Martin, among others. They bought these companies so they could compete effectively with the likes of BMW and Diamler-Chrysler at the high-end. I'm sure they want to be more competitive by buying these companies, but do they necessarily want to be an illegal monopoly? Sounds like quite a strech to me.
PS> As for the Mazda thing, its done all the time by car makers. Ford used to make some of Nissan's cars (an SUV and a minivan) from a line parallel to their Mercury brand. A lot of times particular manufacturers do not have a product in a popular market (in the case of Mazda, small trucks) so they make a deal with another company to get in on the action. Volvo, for example did this with its S40 compact, which is actually made by Mitsubishi.
Wow. Have a little more faith in corporate America. NVIDIA has proven to be a good company, which is why its users like it. I'm sure most companies want to get to and stay on top, but I doubt that many of them want to do so by becoming an illegal monopoly.
Not just that. A lot of people complained that UHCI was (a) too hard to write drivers for cuz it was so low level and (b) a voracious devourer of CPU power (I'm streching;) because it required the CPU to do work better left to the host controller. EHCI is just fixing up stuff that had to be fixed up. Its not all that different from previous standards. Besides, USB 2.0 is a complete specification and needs to talk about things (like signaling, cables, etc) that are *very* different when jumping from 12mbps to 480mbps.
Then just when the industry was in the process of filling that gap with a cross-platform standard, namely OpenGL, Microsoft jumped in with a standard that was tied to Windows. Amazing. >>>> You don't seem to understand. Hardware that is constrained to a single register standard cannot evolve as well as hardware where the standardization lies at a higher level. You seem to pine for the days of VGA when a few simple register tricks would work on all chips. Well, in this day of vertex shaders and multi-sample anti-aliasing, a single HW level standard is far too constraining. Hell, even something high-level like DirectX (which is more than just Direct3D!) is getting constraining.
Actually, with Linux, I can interface with any sound hardware that is SoundBlaster-compatible. I thank SB for providing the standard. >>>>>>> Wow. Boy do you live in the 80's. SB Compatibility is dead. Everyone and their mother has moved on to compatibility at the API level. HW manufacturers like it. End-users like it. Game developers like it. You can't seem to grok it.
> Do you remember how much DR-DOS sucked? Point taken. I meant in comparison to modern OSs (like UNIX), not DOS itself.
Wrong. Mainframes have hardware assists for virtual memory. They don't waste the CPU's time transferring bytes in and out of real memory. >>>>>>> Mainframes are also really anachronistic. They get the job done, but at the cost of a ton of hardware that could be better spent on more modern designs. Are you claiming that every single modern OS (Linux, Solaris, IRIX, etc) and every single modern CPU (MIPS, SPARC, Alpha) all of which use the traditional kernel-controlled on-CPU MMU virtual memory design somehow missed to boat when they didn't catch on to DOS EMS cards?
Oh, please. Everyone else (e.g. OS/2, Linux) seems to be able to run DOS software without giving up on 386 memory protection. >>>>>>> Not like Win95 can. Try running programs that directly access certain hardware under Linux, and it *will* get killed. There is just no way around it. Win95 leaves that hardware open, so moldy old DOS programs still work.
All you are telling me is that Microsoft is too incompetent to do it. In fact, look back to the earlier quotes, where DR-DOS was able to achieve near-perfect backward compatibility with MS-DOS, while Microsoft could not. >>>>>>>> And DR-DOS was a fully preemptive, multithreaded, 32-bit, protected mode OS?
(S)VGA was a standard. And you're right, it's out-of date. But that's exactly the point. If (S)VGA is out-of-date, then why isn't there a new standard to replace it? The answer is because Microsoft has sabotaged the standards process. >>>>> The answer is because hardware vendors realized that grand-unified hardware standards had gone the way of the dinosaur. Newer chips were reaching the complexity of CPUs, and simply could not adhere to one register standard. Try reading a modern graphics card register-spec sometime (I suggest Matrox's, they're free online). Now tell me that these interfaces (which are several generations out of date with current HW mind you) would not be held back if they had to conform to something like a new VGA.
Now, in place of video standards, we have unique, complex drivers for each video card. These drivers are tied so closely to the OS, that they even have to be rewritten to go from one version of Windows to the next. And for some versions of Windows, such as NT, a lot of drivers don't even get ported. >>>>>>>>. These drivers don't have to be tied closely with the OS. Take a look at NVIDIA's kernel driver wrapper code. It's quite OS independent. A graphics driver needs only a few basic functions (allocating memory, managing interrupts, etc) and has no need to interface to complex internal OS structures. What is needed is not a hardware standard, but something like XFree86's binary module mechanism. It specifies an abstraction layer for graphics drivers. Any OS that supports this abstraction layer can theoretically load XFree86 drivers, even in binary form.
So Microsoft only succeeded in slowing down the spread of OpenGL. It doesn't change the fact that they tried to kill it. Of course, Microsoft hasn't given up yet, as demonstrated by Microsoft's claim that their recently-purchased SGI patents gives them control over parts of OpenGL. >>>> They're on the ARB, they have control anyway. To tell the truth, the ARB did more than anyone to hurt OpenGL. They stagnated it for so long that it really started looking pitiful next to Direct3D. Thank god 3DLabs had the balls to come forward with OpenGL 2.0
> Yes, Linux runs on platforms nobody buys.
You mean like Intel-based PCs, 64-bit PCs (already being used, with Linux, in supercomputer clusters), IBM mainframes, Macintoshes, Sun boxes, HP boxes, Tivos, IBM RS6000s, and so on? Those sorts of "platforms that nobody buys?" >>>>>>>>> Yes, compared to the millions upon millions of Windows-based PCs. Microsoft (until only recently) wasn't in that business. Who cares if their products weren't suited for it?
Haha. You're funny guy. The fact is that Microsoft tried to make the move to 64-bit servers, and they failed! They failed miserably! They failed because they weren't good enough! >>>>>>> I highly doubt Microsoft lacks the technical skill to make a 64-bit OS. The Alpha, PPC, and MIPS ports of Windows were never really intended to be blockbuster products. I'm sure they had some plans to target that market, but it was more to show off the cool new design of Windows NT (back when portability, along with object orientation and microkernels, and multiple OS personalities was all the rage).
- If Microsoft hadn't taken steps to prevent it, we would now be running PCs with mainframe-style hardware-assisted virtual memory. >>>>>>> Clarify this. As far as I can see, the virtual memory layout on my PC is (a) hardware assisted (the CPU takes care of reading the page tables for me) and (b) is the same style of virtual memory as in 64-proc Sun and SGI boxes. Now, if you're talking about multiple-OS images running in fixed partitions of memory, maybe you are right, but to beg the question, how useful is that? My current machine (1.5GHz Athlon XP) barely has enough horsepower to run Linux/KDE-3, much less both Linux and WinXP simultainiously. Plus, if its such a useful feature, why doesn't Sun or SGI have it?
- If Windows had been able to support the new capabilities of the 386, Intel could have been selling it years sooner. >>>>>>>> If people hadn't bitched about backwards compatibility, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 98 SE, and Windows ME wouldn't have been necessary!
- If Microsoft had been able to provide a stable-enough OS, then Intel and PC manufacturers could have been selling server hardware to compete with the Unix vendors. >>>>> Until recently (hell, even now) PC hardware is not enough to compete with real UNIX machines. MS provided a super-stable OS with NT 3.x. Why didn't PCs take the server market by storm? Cuz they weren't ready!
Apple... hardware is better >>>>>>>>>> Umm, Apple's hardware sucks. Most macs have a slow processor talking over a slow bus to slow RAM. Most of them also have slow graphics, using GeForce-4 MXs where comparable (pecking order not price) PCs would use GeForce 4 4200s. Apples integration and build quality might be great, but not its hardware.
Re:Changes the dynamic of the business
on
Borrowing ROMs
·
· Score: 2
I'm a big fan of blockbuster. 90% of the stuff out there is crap. I shouldn't have to purchase games that take less than a week to beat and have zero replay value. As I see it, if U rent it from blockbuster instead of buying it for $50, I'm saving $45 and essentially getting the same playtime out of it. Same thing for a lot of movies. If these media companies want people to buy their products instead of renting them, they could try coming out with products people actually want to own for longer than a week.
Huh? Firewire is copper too! The real reason firewire didn't take over was (a) Apple and their evil patents, and (b) firewire chipsets are more complex. However, USB 2.0's EHCI standard also requires more complex chipsets, so the difference is not much smaller.
Microsoft's primary role has been to hold the hardware developers back. >>>>>. I hate MS as much as the next guy, but this isn't really true. If it hadn't been for Microsoft making DirectX, game developers would still be writing their own drivers for the dozen different soundcard types on the market. Or, Creative Labs would have just gotten a monopoly on the market and Sound Blaster compatibility would still be important. Plus, MS keeps adding features to the API, and hardware manufacturers rush ahead to support them. That helps innovation, not hurts it.
Thus, Microsoft tied memory management into Windows, thereby destroying further developer on PC VM capabilities. >>>> Do you remember how much DR-DOS sucked? Every modern OS has had built in virtual memory. Microsoft building it in was them following CS theory. And remember, the PC VM hardware is still there, and still works if you care to use it.
Do you remember when the 386 came out, with its new memory protection capabilties? >>>> And do you realize that people are STILL bitching and moaning about Windows XP not running their DOS programs? Don't blame Microsoft, blame backwards compatibility. Or more aptly, closed-source software that can't be recompiled to be used when OSs evolve.
Remember when Microsoft destroyed that stability by allowing video drivers to run in kernel mode, in NT 4.0? Microsoft's history is riddled with backward steps. >>>>> So MS decided that microkernels were out. Along with everybody else! As for video drivers, those aren't the real problem. The real problem was moving the GDI into the kernel.
Remember when, in 1990, everyone had a capable GUI, that is, eveyone but Microsoft? By the end of the eighties, we had the Macintosh, the Amiga, the Atari ST, and OS/2 and Geoworks for the PC. It wasn't until five years later that Microsoft came out with something even remotely similar, in Windows 95. >>>>> This holds back hardware developers how?
Remember when there were simple standards for LANs (SMP), security (Kerberos), printers (PCL), and video (VGA)? Microsoft didn't want open standards, because that might help another OS to compete with Windows. Now, because of Microsoft, we have polluted protocols, and complex devices drivers, tied closely into Windows. >>>> Windows 2000 uses TCP/IP for LANs, and supports Kerberos security. It fully supports Postscript printers, and the WinPrinters and WinModems came out because hardware developers were lazy, not Microsoft. As for the VGA bit, you're joking, right? (S)VGA is an anachronism that doesn't support linear memory, high-res/high-bandwidth modes, and most importantly, acceleration. And acceleration is hideosly complex, which is why graphics drivers are complex. As for open standards, VESA had the potential to be one, but they screwed themselves when they tried to charge for VBE/AF. Besides, hardware these days cannot keep the same programming interface. Just look at ATI. They've been unable to keep their drivers compatible across even two generations (R200 -> R300) of cards. The real problem is a lack of register specs from graphics manufacturers, not great Microsoft technologies like DirectX (their one positive contribution to computing).
Further development of interface standards for PC hardware has slowed to a crawl. >>> Blame the HW manufacturers, who try to keep charge for even basic things like the PCI specs.
Remember when Microsoft tried to sabotage the standards for Java and OpenGL? Remember the Halloween document where Microsoft stated their plans to "decommoditize" (i.e. destroy the openness of) Internet protocols? Have you noticed that Microsoft has been carrying through on that threat? >>>> And have you noticed that OpenGL is more important than ever? And Java never really took off client-side anyway?
Were you paying attention to how long it took for Microsoft to provide a 64-bit version of Windows? The DEC Alpha version of Windows was a joke, because it was just a 32-bit version of Windows, slightly modified to be able to run on 64-bit hardware. Even now, there is doubt about Microsoft's claim of being 64-bit-ready. Meanwhile, Linux has been running on 64-bit platforms for years. >>> Yes, Linux runs on platforms nobody buys. Windows just runs on platforms people actually purchase. You can't blame them for being in a different business.
Have you noticed all of the hardware innovation that has been taking place with Linux? Just in the last few years, we have seen Linux based supercomputers, Linux-based clusters for movie graphics, Linux on IBM mainframes, Linux in car radios, Linux-based store kiosks, Linux-based digital video recorders, and so on. Many of those innovations could have taken place ten years ago, except for one thing -- they were being held back by Microsoft. >>>>> I see how Linux helps driver hardware innovation because its a free, open source, embeddable soluation, but I fail to see how Microsoft hurt it. It's like blaming your car for not being a helicopter.
Nvidia => no BSD support, no support if your Linux kernel strays too far from the snapshots they use. >>>> That's crap. Based on some patches for 2.5.17 floating around, I managed to get my set working on 2.5.23. If you take a look at the actual abstraction layer, it is complete. You could port the kernel driver to OS X if you wanted to (oh wait, they already have!)
1) make money 2) once 1 is done, gain a monopoly >>>>>> I suppose you'll now tell us that you learned this at Harvard business school. Exactly where do you get off making up your own economic theories? Ford is profitable, are they a monopoly? Dell is profitable, are they a monopoly?
Isn't that what I just said? The guy I was responding to said that other people were protective of their homeland. I pointed out that he would have *zero* trouble if he wanted to move to India. It's amazing how many countries allow people with American passports to come in without visas. There are lots of places where waving an American passport will get you fast-tracked through customs and security, too.
Its classless to respond to your own post, but I'll do it anyway. Anybody who's read the Constitution knows what I'm talking about. The thing is so clear and straightforward. Then, you look at the multi-thousand page laws about how people should wipe their asses, and you wonder how real intellectuals (the founding fathers) got replaced by wanabee's who get off on technical details rather than purity of design.
Since when did we become slaves to exactly what the law said? The basis of our law system is that laws provide strong guidelines but judges are given a great deal of power exactly so that these kind of idiocies don't happen. The guy pointed out that the system was borked. He didn't do anything wrong in the process. The IT department should thank him for pointing out the flaw, fix it, and move on with their lives. The judge should have thrown out the case after a preliminary hearing because it was stupid. It's incredible that we've gotten to the point where we're intellectualizing these things so much (and both sides are at fault here, both people defending him and opposing him) that we're treating the law like the synactical rules of C++ rather than the very different rules of a human society.
He committed a crime while in the presence of a public official. It DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER what his "intent" was. >>>>> Actually, if I run down somebody in the presence of a public official, it matters. If there was intent, its murder (probably first degree because by inviting the official, it was premeditated). In that case, you are looking at the death penalty or life imprisonment. If it was an accident, its vechicular manslaughter, which is a misdemeanor in many places, so its community service and a fine or a short jail term.
But a bomb doesn't hurt people kilometers away from the blast. Also, because the laser is a precision weapon, there will be a desire to use it in places where precision is required (duh). These places (like the communications lines, etc in the story) tend to have civilians nearby.
Here's another of the pro-immigration bullshit arguments: Well we can come and take what we'd like because 100s of years ago you did the same. Of course, almost all of these groups FERVENTLY protect the sanctity of THEIR homeland. The reality is that most of these "open the doors" people are VERY protective of their own homeland, and deep in their mind many keep the idea that at some point they'll go back. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anytime you want to move to India, I'm sure they'll be happy to have you...
Well the nice thing about it is that it uses tools that already exist, so they get client/server essentially for free. WebDAV, for example, is an existing protocol for document versioning over networks. Makes it a perfect fit for this. Also, because it uses Apache, it can take advantage of the proven security and stability of the server. What would be bad is if Subversion rolled its own server and protocol.
Exactly why do you care what protocol the server uses? If HTTP is good enough for credit card numbers, it should be good enough for a source control system.
Actually, the install's not that bad. You download and compile berkeley db 4.0.14. Get apache from CVS and compile that. Download the subversion tarball, and compile that. Use that version to checkout a new version from the repository, wget neon and untar it, and compile it. Then, just edit the apache config file. The nice thing about it is that while it is long, the install document is *extremely* precise. It basically tells you exactly what commands to type in. Editing the apache config, file, for example, had the potential to be disastrous for someone like me who had never set up apache before. Yet, I just copied what it said in the config file, and it worked! The configure script is also very good. It makes sure to properly check all the dependencies, and installing a missing one is a matter of reading the very helpful error message and typing in [urpmi/emerge/apt-get install] "offending-library."
(2) the "average consumer" is capable of learning to use something that's different (not harder; different), then it (or something like it) will succeed. And it won't have to be a Windows clone. >>>>>>> I entirely agree with you. I'd bet good money that the majority of the populace would love to just be able to type apt-get dist-upgrade (or emerge -u world) and have all their apps automatically upgraded.
What about the people? >>> The people stopped caring a long time ago. You really can't blame the congress people. When the turnout rates for congressional elections hover around 36% why SHOULD they care what the public wants? It's strange. I'd like to have more faith in the public than this. Honestly, not everyone out there is like the cattle-brained "average american" stereotype. Most people are entirely decent and reasonably intelligent. Perhaps its just the prevalent lifestyle, which consists mainly of working, eating, and sleeping, which gives people that extremely narrow outlook on life. One key difference, though, I think that makes it seem like the U.S. is worse off than other countries with respect to its population's intelligence is its media. We have this history of glorifying the common person, and this is reflected in our media. Other cultures tend to glorify the exemplery members of their societies instead, which gives people the impression that the society is smarter as a whole.
Wow. This is so off base its not even funny. This has nothing to do with vector code. Any given Cg program is highly non-vectorizible. They have a very limited number of inputs and only one output. Sure, multiple vertex units can run the same vertex program on different verticies (or pixel shaders can run same pixel program on different pixels) but a vectorizing compiler has nothing to do with it. Besides that fact, a C compiler is quite a leap away from a Cg compiler. We're talking about a machine that can't do loops properly...
Slashdot Mirror
Just for all those who are making the US out to look like the good guy here, try some statistics The US consistantly ranks dead last among the 22 richest nations in terms of its foreign aid as a percentage of Gross National Product. The kicker is that it is behind Italy (which is in the midst of a political crisis) and Japan (which is in the middle of a decade long recession). If anything, the US should be apologizing for not having milled the corn in the first place.
More points:
a) Half of all US foreign aid is directed towards military purposes.
b) Of course, you might think this is just the democratic process at work. Americans don't want to spend that much on foreign aid. Of course, Americans also don't know how much we actually spend on foreign aid. Since they think we spend 15%, and we actually spend less than 1%, the first poll mentioned holds no water.
Look, I'm not here to demonize America. I like it here a lot. I just want to get it out there that as far as foreign policy is concerned, the American people are in the dark, and the American government does whatever is in its best interest. While I don't suddenly expect everyone to become foreign policy gurus, and the American government to be totally self-less (it shouldn't) some steps towards a nice middle ground would be a good start.
I'm also thinkin of getting a dell notebook. Which res screen would this be?
Yes, they own lots of car companies. They fully own Jaguar, Volvo, and Aston-Martin, among others. They bought these companies so they could compete effectively with the likes of BMW and Diamler-Chrysler at the high-end. I'm sure they want to be more competitive by buying these companies, but do they necessarily want to be an illegal monopoly? Sounds like quite a strech to me.
PS> As for the Mazda thing, its done all the time by car makers. Ford used to make some of Nissan's cars (an SUV and a minivan) from a line parallel to their Mercury brand. A lot of times particular manufacturers do not have a product in a popular market (in the case of Mazda, small trucks) so they make a deal with another company to get in on the action. Volvo, for example did this with its S40 compact, which is actually made by Mitsubishi.
Wow. Have a little more faith in corporate America. NVIDIA has proven to be a good company, which is why its users like it. I'm sure most companies want to get to and stay on top, but I doubt that many of them want to do so by becoming an illegal monopoly.
Not just that. A lot of people complained that UHCI was (a) too hard to write drivers for cuz it was so low level and (b) a voracious devourer of CPU power (I'm streching ;) because it required the CPU to do work better left to the host controller. EHCI is just fixing up stuff that had to be fixed up. Its not all that different from previous standards. Besides, USB 2.0 is a complete specification and needs to talk about things (like signaling, cables, etc) that are *very* different when jumping from 12mbps to 480mbps.
Then just when the industry was in the process of filling that gap with a cross-platform standard, namely OpenGL, Microsoft jumped in with a standard that was tied to Windows. Amazing.
>>>>
You don't seem to understand. Hardware that is constrained to a single register standard cannot evolve as well as hardware where the standardization lies at a higher level. You seem to pine for the days of VGA when a few simple register tricks would work on all chips. Well, in this day of vertex shaders and multi-sample anti-aliasing, a single HW level standard is far too constraining. Hell, even something high-level like DirectX (which is more than just Direct3D!) is getting constraining.
Actually, with Linux, I can interface with any sound hardware that is SoundBlaster-compatible. I thank SB for providing the standard.
>>>>>>>
Wow. Boy do you live in the 80's. SB Compatibility is dead. Everyone and their mother has moved on to compatibility at the API level. HW manufacturers like it. End-users like it. Game developers like it. You can't seem to grok it.
> Do you remember how much DR-DOS sucked?
Point taken. I meant in comparison to modern OSs (like UNIX), not DOS itself.
Wrong. Mainframes have hardware assists for virtual memory. They don't waste the CPU's time transferring bytes in and out of real memory.
>>>>>>>
Mainframes are also really anachronistic. They get the job done, but at the cost of a ton of hardware that could be better spent on more modern designs. Are you claiming that every single modern OS (Linux, Solaris, IRIX, etc) and every single modern CPU (MIPS, SPARC, Alpha) all of which use the traditional kernel-controlled on-CPU MMU virtual memory design somehow missed to boat when they didn't catch on to DOS EMS cards?
Oh, please. Everyone else (e.g. OS/2, Linux) seems to be able to run DOS software without giving up on 386 memory protection.
>>>>>>>
Not like Win95 can. Try running programs that directly access certain hardware under Linux, and it *will* get killed. There is just no way around it. Win95 leaves that hardware open, so moldy old DOS programs still work.
All you are telling me is that Microsoft is too incompetent to do it. In fact, look back to the earlier quotes, where DR-DOS was able to achieve near-perfect backward compatibility with MS-DOS, while Microsoft could not.
>>>>>>>>
And DR-DOS was a fully preemptive, multithreaded, 32-bit, protected mode OS?
(S)VGA was a standard. And you're right, it's out-of date. But that's exactly the point. If (S)VGA is out-of-date, then why isn't there a new standard to replace it? The answer is because Microsoft has sabotaged the standards process.
>>>>>
The answer is because hardware vendors realized that grand-unified hardware standards had gone the way of the dinosaur. Newer chips were reaching the complexity of CPUs, and simply could not adhere to one register standard. Try reading a modern graphics card register-spec sometime (I suggest Matrox's, they're free online). Now tell me that these interfaces (which are several generations out of date with current HW mind you) would not be held back if they had to conform to something like a new VGA.
Now, in place of video standards, we have unique, complex drivers for each video card. These drivers are tied so closely to the OS, that they even have to be rewritten to go from one version of Windows to the next. And for some versions of Windows, such as NT, a lot of drivers don't even get ported.
>>>>>>>>.
These drivers don't have to be tied closely with the OS. Take a look at NVIDIA's kernel driver wrapper code. It's quite OS independent. A graphics driver needs only a few basic functions (allocating memory, managing interrupts, etc) and has no need to interface to complex internal OS structures. What is needed is not a hardware standard, but something like XFree86's binary module mechanism. It specifies an abstraction layer for graphics drivers. Any OS that supports this abstraction layer can theoretically load XFree86 drivers, even in binary form.
So Microsoft only succeeded in slowing down the spread of OpenGL. It doesn't change the fact that they tried to kill it. Of course, Microsoft hasn't given up yet, as demonstrated by Microsoft's claim that their recently-purchased SGI patents gives them control over parts of OpenGL.
>>>>
They're on the ARB, they have control anyway. To tell the truth, the ARB did more than anyone to hurt OpenGL. They stagnated it for so long that it really started looking pitiful next to Direct3D. Thank god 3DLabs had the balls to come forward with OpenGL 2.0
> Yes, Linux runs on platforms nobody buys.
You mean like Intel-based PCs, 64-bit PCs (already being used, with Linux, in supercomputer clusters), IBM mainframes, Macintoshes, Sun boxes, HP boxes, Tivos, IBM RS6000s, and so on? Those sorts of "platforms that nobody buys?"
>>>>>>>>>
Yes, compared to the millions upon millions of Windows-based PCs. Microsoft (until only recently) wasn't in that business. Who cares if their products weren't suited for it?
Haha. You're funny guy. The fact is that Microsoft tried to make the move to 64-bit servers, and they failed! They failed miserably! They failed because they weren't good enough!
>>>>>>>
I highly doubt Microsoft lacks the technical skill to make a 64-bit OS. The Alpha, PPC, and MIPS ports of Windows were never really intended to be blockbuster products. I'm sure they had some plans to target that market, but it was more to show off the cool new design of Windows NT (back when portability, along with object orientation and microkernels, and multiple OS personalities was all the rage).
- If Microsoft hadn't taken steps to prevent it, we would now be running PCs with mainframe-style hardware-assisted virtual memory.
>>>>>>>
Clarify this. As far as I can see, the virtual memory layout on my PC is (a) hardware assisted (the CPU takes care of reading the page tables for me) and (b) is the same style of virtual memory as in 64-proc Sun and SGI boxes. Now, if you're talking about multiple-OS images running in fixed partitions of memory, maybe you are right, but to beg the question, how useful is that? My current machine (1.5GHz Athlon XP) barely has enough horsepower to run Linux/KDE-3, much less both Linux and WinXP simultainiously. Plus, if its such a useful feature, why doesn't Sun or SGI have it?
- If Windows had been able to support the new capabilities of the 386, Intel could have been selling it years sooner.
>>>>>>>>
If people hadn't bitched about backwards compatibility, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 98 SE, and Windows ME wouldn't have been necessary!
- If Microsoft had been able to provide a stable-enough OS, then Intel and PC manufacturers could have been selling server hardware to compete with the Unix vendors.
>>>>>
Until recently (hell, even now) PC hardware is not enough to compete with real UNIX machines. MS provided a super-stable OS with NT 3.x. Why didn't PCs take the server market by storm? Cuz they weren't ready!
Apple ... hardware is better
>>>>>>>>>>
Umm, Apple's hardware sucks. Most macs have a slow processor talking over a slow bus to slow RAM. Most of them also have slow graphics, using GeForce-4 MXs where comparable (pecking order not price) PCs would use GeForce 4 4200s. Apples integration and build quality might be great, but not its hardware.
I'm a big fan of blockbuster. 90% of the stuff out there is crap. I shouldn't have to purchase games that take less than a week to beat and have zero replay value. As I see it, if U rent it from blockbuster instead of buying it for $50, I'm saving $45 and essentially getting the same playtime out of it. Same thing for a lot of movies. If these media companies want people to buy their products instead of renting them, they could try coming out with products people actually want to own for longer than a week.
Huh? Firewire is copper too! The real reason firewire didn't take over was (a) Apple and their evil patents, and (b) firewire chipsets are more complex. However, USB 2.0's EHCI standard also requires more complex chipsets, so the difference is not much smaller.
Microsoft's primary role has been to hold the hardware developers back.
>>>>>.
I hate MS as much as the next guy, but this isn't really true. If it hadn't been for Microsoft making DirectX, game developers would still be writing their own drivers for the dozen different soundcard types on the market. Or, Creative Labs would have just gotten a monopoly on the market and Sound Blaster compatibility would still be important. Plus, MS keeps adding features to the API, and hardware manufacturers rush ahead to support them. That helps innovation, not hurts it.
Thus, Microsoft tied memory management into Windows, thereby destroying further developer on PC VM capabilities.
>>>>
Do you remember how much DR-DOS sucked? Every modern OS has had built in virtual memory. Microsoft building it in was them following CS theory. And remember, the PC VM hardware is still there, and still works if you care to use it.
Do you remember when the 386 came out, with its new memory protection capabilties?
>>>>
And do you realize that people are STILL bitching and moaning about Windows XP not running their DOS programs? Don't blame Microsoft, blame backwards compatibility. Or more aptly, closed-source software that can't be recompiled to be used when OSs evolve.
Remember when Microsoft destroyed that stability by allowing video drivers to run in kernel mode, in NT 4.0? Microsoft's history is riddled with backward steps.
>>>>>
So MS decided that microkernels were out. Along with everybody else! As for video drivers, those aren't the real problem. The real problem was moving the GDI into the kernel.
Remember when, in 1990, everyone had a capable GUI, that is, eveyone but Microsoft? By the end of the eighties, we had the Macintosh, the Amiga, the Atari ST, and OS/2 and Geoworks for the PC. It wasn't until five years later that Microsoft came out with something even remotely similar, in Windows 95.
>>>>>
This holds back hardware developers how?
Remember when there were simple standards for LANs (SMP), security (Kerberos), printers (PCL), and video (VGA)? Microsoft didn't want open standards, because that might help another OS to compete with Windows. Now, because of Microsoft, we have polluted protocols, and complex devices drivers, tied closely into Windows.
>>>>
Windows 2000 uses TCP/IP for LANs, and supports Kerberos security. It fully supports Postscript printers, and the WinPrinters and WinModems came out because hardware developers were lazy, not Microsoft. As for the VGA bit, you're joking, right? (S)VGA is an anachronism that doesn't support linear memory, high-res/high-bandwidth modes, and most importantly, acceleration. And acceleration is hideosly complex, which is why graphics drivers are complex. As for open standards, VESA had the potential to be one, but they screwed themselves when they tried to charge for VBE/AF. Besides, hardware these days cannot keep the same programming interface. Just look at ATI. They've been unable to keep their drivers compatible across even two generations (R200 -> R300) of cards. The real problem is a lack of register specs from graphics manufacturers, not great Microsoft technologies like DirectX (their one positive contribution to computing).
Further development of interface standards for PC hardware has slowed to a crawl.
>>>
Blame the HW manufacturers, who try to keep charge for even basic things like the PCI specs.
Remember when Microsoft tried to sabotage the standards for Java and OpenGL? Remember the Halloween document where Microsoft stated their plans to "decommoditize" (i.e. destroy the openness of) Internet protocols? Have you noticed that Microsoft has been carrying through on that threat?
>>>>
And have you noticed that OpenGL is more important than ever? And Java never really took off client-side anyway?
Were you paying attention to how long it took for Microsoft to provide a 64-bit version of Windows? The DEC Alpha version of Windows was a joke, because it was just a 32-bit version of Windows, slightly modified to be able to run on 64-bit hardware. Even now, there is doubt about Microsoft's claim of being 64-bit-ready. Meanwhile, Linux has been running on 64-bit platforms for years.
>>>
Yes, Linux runs on platforms nobody buys. Windows just runs on platforms people actually purchase. You can't blame them for being in a different business.
Have you noticed all of the hardware innovation that has been taking place with Linux? Just in the last few years, we have seen Linux based supercomputers, Linux-based clusters for movie graphics, Linux on IBM mainframes, Linux in car radios, Linux-based store kiosks, Linux-based digital video recorders, and so on. Many of those innovations could have taken place ten years ago, except for one thing -- they were being held back by Microsoft.
>>>>>
I see how Linux helps driver hardware innovation because its a free, open source, embeddable soluation, but I fail to see how Microsoft hurt it. It's like blaming your car for not being a helicopter.
Without looking at the specs to see, it's rather obvious that the hardware people just redesigned the interface all over again.
>>>>>>>>>
Well, here are the specs so you don't have to make stuff up:
USB 2.0
USB 1.0
The real difference is here:
OHCI (USB 1.0 host controller, this is the better one)
UHCI (USB 1.0 host controller, the sucky one)
EHCI (USB 2.0 host controller spec, has more smarts like OHCI)
Nvidia => no BSD support, no support if your Linux kernel strays too far from the snapshots they use.
>>>>
That's crap. Based on some patches for 2.5.17 floating around, I managed to get my set working on 2.5.23. If you take a look at the actual abstraction layer, it is complete. You could port the kernel driver to OS X if you wanted to (oh wait, they already have!)
1) make money
2) once 1 is done, gain a monopoly
>>>>>>
I suppose you'll now tell us that you learned this at Harvard business school. Exactly where do you get off making up your own economic theories? Ford is profitable, are they a monopoly? Dell is profitable, are they a monopoly?
Isn't that what I just said? The guy I was responding to said that other people were protective of their homeland. I pointed out that he would have *zero* trouble if he wanted to move to India. It's amazing how many countries allow people with American passports to come in without visas. There are lots of places where waving an American passport will get you fast-tracked through customs and security, too.
Its classless to respond to your own post, but I'll do it anyway. Anybody who's read the Constitution knows what I'm talking about. The thing is so clear and straightforward. Then, you look at the multi-thousand page laws about how people should wipe their asses, and you wonder how real intellectuals (the founding fathers) got replaced by wanabee's who get off on technical details rather than purity of design.
Since when did we become slaves to exactly what the law said? The basis of our law system is that laws provide strong guidelines but judges are given a great deal of power exactly so that these kind of idiocies don't happen. The guy pointed out that the system was borked. He didn't do anything wrong in the process. The IT department should thank him for pointing out the flaw, fix it, and move on with their lives. The judge should have thrown out the case after a preliminary hearing because it was stupid. It's incredible that we've gotten to the point where we're intellectualizing these things so much (and both sides are at fault here, both people defending him and opposing him) that we're treating the law like the synactical rules of C++ rather than the very different rules of a human society.
He committed a crime while in the presence of a public official. It DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER what his "intent" was.
>>>>>
Actually, if I run down somebody in the presence of a public official, it matters. If there was intent, its murder (probably first degree because by inviting the official, it was premeditated). In that case, you are looking at the death penalty or life imprisonment. If it was an accident, its vechicular manslaughter, which is a misdemeanor in many places, so its community service and a fine or a short jail term.
But a bomb doesn't hurt people kilometers away from the blast. Also, because the laser is a precision weapon, there will be a desire to use it in places where precision is required (duh). These places (like the communications lines, etc in the story) tend to have civilians nearby.
Here's another of the pro-immigration bullshit arguments: Well we can come and take what we'd like because 100s of years ago you did the same. Of course, almost all of these groups FERVENTLY protect the sanctity of THEIR homeland. The reality is that most of these "open the doors" people are VERY protective of their own homeland, and deep in their mind many keep the idea that at some point they'll go back.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Anytime you want to move to India, I'm sure they'll be happy to have you...
Well the nice thing about it is that it uses tools that already exist, so they get client/server essentially for free. WebDAV, for example, is an existing protocol for document versioning over networks. Makes it a perfect fit for this. Also, because it uses Apache, it can take advantage of the proven security and stability of the server. What would be bad is if Subversion rolled its own server and protocol.
Exactly why do you care what protocol the server uses? If HTTP is good enough for credit card numbers, it should be good enough for a source control system.
Actually, the install's not that bad. You download and compile berkeley db 4.0.14. Get apache from CVS and compile that. Download the subversion tarball, and compile that. Use that version to checkout a new version from the repository, wget neon and untar it, and compile it. Then, just edit the apache config file. The nice thing about it is that while it is long, the install document is *extremely* precise. It basically tells you exactly what commands to type in. Editing the apache config, file, for example, had the potential to be disastrous for someone like me who had never set up apache before. Yet, I just copied what it said in the config file, and it worked! The configure script is also very good. It makes sure to properly check all the dependencies, and installing a missing one is a matter of reading the very helpful error message and typing in [urpmi/emerge/apt-get install] "offending-library."
(2) the "average consumer" is capable of learning to use something that's different (not harder; different), then it (or something like it) will succeed. And it won't have to be a Windows clone.
>>>>>>>
I entirely agree with you. I'd bet good money that the majority of the populace would love to just be able to type apt-get dist-upgrade (or emerge -u world) and have all their apps automatically upgraded.
What about the people?
>>>
The people stopped caring a long time ago. You really can't blame the congress people. When the turnout rates for congressional elections hover around 36% why SHOULD they care what the public wants? It's strange. I'd like to have more faith in the public than this. Honestly, not everyone out there is like the cattle-brained "average american" stereotype. Most people are entirely decent and reasonably intelligent. Perhaps its just the prevalent lifestyle, which consists mainly of working, eating, and sleeping, which gives people that extremely narrow outlook on life. One key difference, though, I think that makes it seem like the U.S. is worse off than other countries with respect to its population's intelligence is its media. We have this history of glorifying the common person, and this is reflected in our media. Other cultures tend to glorify the exemplery members of their societies instead, which gives people the impression that the society is smarter as a whole.
Wow. This is so off base its not even funny. This has nothing to do with vector code. Any given Cg program is highly non-vectorizible. They have a very limited number of inputs and only one output. Sure, multiple vertex units can run the same vertex program on different verticies (or pixel shaders can run same pixel program on different pixels) but a vectorizing compiler has nothing to do with it. Besides that fact, a C compiler is quite a leap away from a Cg compiler. We're talking about a machine that can't do loops properly...