------- A fork is when a person or a group takes a source tree and starts doing development independently on it. For instance, Xorg vs XFree. As it says, it's got nothing to do with development branches. -------
Oh OK so if 'Xorg' and 'Xfree' were released by the same company it wouldn't be a fork it would be a development branch, I see. Got it, everything to do with external vs. internal and nothing to do with effort. Given that definition, I agree with you. Of course I also think it is a pretty useless definition.:)
Given the fact that I've been in development for about 25 years and given the fact that I've held about every position from grunt programmer to architect to CTO, I can reasonablly argue that's not been common usage at least in my circles.
Where I come from fork has everything to do with long term maintenance of two trees with overlapping code (or at least common parent but since it doesn't all change day one it is usually also overlapping). Sometimes the trees are worked on by different development staffs sometime by a single staff. The main difference between fork and branch is one of scope (both lines of code and longevity). If a few lines change (a fix to version 1 released while version 2 is in QA) it is obviously a branch. However, no dev manager I ever met would state that two concurrently improved trees that differ by say 60% of the code are a 'branch', it is usually referred to as a fork from version 2.1.3 or something similar (no there is no magic number like 42% is a branch but 43% is a fork and no magic definition of time, less that 3 revs is a branch but 3+ is a fork). But hey, this is really your thread in the discussion that I'm jumping in, if you define fork vs. branch as external vs. internal then I'll just agree and move on.
As to 1-3: 1 - see above. 2 - true, but sort of falls into the toolkit issues I raised, you give up some control (look and feel) and the point is to provide the user with a common user experience. I can't believe you REALLY advocate that everyone code for Gnome and just run all the apps under KDE as is. 3 - not really germane to the point is it. The fact that it is a small app so the fork/branch is small is simply one of happenstance. Unless you are really claiming that no large Linux desktop apps should ever be written.
I believe my point is exactly that it doen't happen in Windows. If I code to the Win32 user API (admittedly it only covers 90+% or so if things get complex but 99.99% in most simple UI cases) I get consistent look and feel (and behavior) on most 32 bit Windows platforms. Open a window code is open a window code, display a button in the window code is display a button code no changes. It may appear as a 2d or 3d button depending on the OS but that's consistent with the rest of the buttons in that OS.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a big Windows fan I like Linux, but give credit where credit is due, they have a consistent coding paradigm and good backward compatibility. They also learn from the competition, the new IE will have FireFox style tabbed browsing. Linux should also learn from the competition. Remember, you can write bad code in any language, but you shouldn't. Similarly, multiple desktop managers can make life hell for developers, but they shouldn't.
Like you said, nice way of missing the point. Gnome and KDE do CAUSE forking. Let's say I'm writing a Linux desktop app, which do I code for? Answer I fork my code and code for both (or give up some large percentage of my 'market'). You seem concerned about forking from a user perspective, try looking at it from a developer perspective.
I can code to basic Win32, runs on Win 2000, Win XP, Win 2003 server, even Win ME and Win 98 in some cases. Pick a Linux desktop, fork your code in most cases. THAT'S one of the main reasons Linux is losing the desktop war, instead of developing 2 applications, Linux developers get to develop one app 2 times (or 3 or 4 or 'how many desktop models do you support' times). A bit hard to catch up that way, especially given that Windows had a head start in the desktop applications department to begin with.
Yes, there are ways to mitigate the issue, yes there are toolkits that sit on top of multiple desktops, yes it is not REALLY 2 times the total effort. But it is either more work (code directly to both), or envolves a trade off in control or performance (use a 'common toolkit layer' as the desktop API or go to X as the API).
-- And I'm waiting for the day that a processor has more cache than my first comp had disk space. --
*sigh* you HAD to mention that, some of us are already there...
The 8 inch floppies (pre hard drives) on some of the kits had 200K disk (180K, 160K, I forget), the pentium processors (300 mhz & 333 mhz) I just tossed out had 512K cache so I'm sure the ones running ( 1+ ghz & 3+ ghz) exceed the drive drive size.
I'm not sure what size floppy drives the C64 and Vic 20 had, I think ~180K for the 1541 model. I THINK the CBM 8032 had a 5MB hard drive option. The old Apple floppies were small too, not sure about the hard drive option where it finally arrived. So yeah, I've passed the 'first drive' level and am now waiting for first hard drive.
Agreed. However my reply was to the quote of the constitution where the poster implies that the Federal Gov't had no right to regulate at all under the constitution. In fact I specificly stated that one might state that Congress has to explicitly pass a law (i.e., the legislative branch DOES have power to pass laws and may have to do so as the FCC can't).
As a note it IS possible under the constitution for the Congress to pass a law giving the FCC broad powers (some would claim they have) and that the FCC is/is not over reaching those vaguely defined broad powers if it regulates a broadcast flag. Personally I think the Judge is correct, the FCC doesn't have that broad a mandate.
However, whether they can under the constitution is a different but important question. Quoting that everything not explicitly granted to the Feds belongs to the States is true but may not count depending on how Article I Section 8 is interperted by the Supreme Court (i.e., they MAY have the power under the constitution if a law is passed, it may not be a states' rights issue).
For the record, the communications act of 1934 created the FCC with the charter of:
For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national defense, for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communications, and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority heretofore granted by law to several agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication, there is created a commission to be known as the ''Federal Communications Commission'', which shall be constituted as hereinafter provided, and which shall execute and enforce the provisions of this chapter.
Which is pretty broad. Not broad enough in my opinion, but I don't have a fancy robe and important chair.
-- Hmmm... according to the Tenth Ratified Ammendment to the Constitution of the United States of America: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. --
From Article I, section 8 (The "Congress shall have the power to" section) . . .
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; . . . To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
So while you MIGHT be able to argue that Congress has to expressly pass a law. It is difficult to state "Congress has absolutely no right". That is unless you happen to be one of a VERY select group of people that sit on the Supreme Court of the United States.
Bottom line, there is SOME constitutional cover. Whether it is enough, only the select group gets to decide.
And no I'm not pro broadcast flag, I think it stinks. However I am pro Constitution and your claiming something is unconstitutional doesn't mean squat even if you should happen to be Professor of Law at Columbia. You have to be one of the few with the fancy robes sitting in the important chair. More importantly you have to be one of the few in the majority with the fancy robes and important chair. Something more people should account for when voting for Senate and President, you know the guys that get to decide who gets the fancy robe and important chair.
Well, considering we are not talking about sales tax, it won't matter. The issue is NOT sales tax, it is a specific tax on cigs. Just like states have specific taxes on booze (remember those little stamp like stickers, usually on/over the cap), they have specific taxes on tobacco (and gasoline, and diesel, and...). These (tobacco and alcohol) taxes are usually called 'sin taxes' and are used by many states to keep general taxes lower and 'officially' to reduce 'bad behavior' (it's more the cash than the social modification, it's simply a policitically correct group to whack). Other specific taxes (e.g. gasoline) are usually somewhat targeted to a specific purpose (road maint, bridges,...).
Yeah we do that some but it is not really practical for dev staff, too many reboots. Develop either low level stuff where a crash causes a reboot or large stuff where a compile crushes CPUs and tell me 10 developers will work on a single system.
Hey, 100 million here, a 100 million there and pretty soon we're talking real savings.
Seriously, I used 10 million machines, very low given the US alone, and roughly 1 watt/hour to poll mail, probably low. But in any event 100 million to 1 billion KwHr/yr is real energy and real emmissions from coal plants or oil fired power plants, and real money from the economy.
In the NE of the US acid rain reduction and $20million + of economy are of interest.
On your own machine that MAY make sense. As your time costs you 'nothing'.
I too work at a dev company (CTO). My 'internal developers' make ~$40/hr. So if I had to pay you 2-3 days to work out all the compatability issues, price hunt, order, assemble parts, test hardware, install software, and configure/test the machine software combo, I'd spend $600-1000 on your time. I can buy a 3 ghz HT P4 with 1GB ram, 100+GB HD, OS pro software including basic MS office, a good 'office' vid card (NV 5200 128MB), and 3 years parts and service for $1600 at gateway.
Oh yeah, if a get a more typical machine (non developer) say 2.8 ghz P4 not HT same 1GB, 3 years service, integrated video, same MS XP Pro OS, and use OOffice instead of MS office the price is $1000.
Admittedly neither has a monitor (replacement desktop, not new staff). Also this is web site list price, i.e. before any discounts/freebies due to volume purchases or deals through resellers (yes, others sell gateway, or at least used to sell gateway).
--- Why _load_ Firefox/OOffice when you can run it in the ROM? It might run a bit slower, but the perceived responsiveness is often determined by application startup time.
Joe Average might have a bit of trouble installing patches or new versions. Are these disposable PCs, add to the landfill and buy a new one every 6 months or so?
--- Also, it can't hurt to modify the hardware slightly so that a LED indicates there are new emails even if the whole box is switched off, to save energy.
Ahhh, not quite switched off then is it? I mean if it can detect new email it MUST be checking periodically (every 10 mins? every hour?...). Now let's see, 10 million machines at say an additional Kilowatt hour per month is about 120 MILLION KwHr/year. Hmmmm, own stock in the oil companies? Power companies? An opponent of 'EnergyStar'?
(s)He isn't saying where the line is. I believe the comment was directed to the point: "if people repeatedly run up to their interpretation of the line, the court tends to dial up the contrast so everyone sees the same line". So the MIT guys playing games with the line is apt to cause more court cases to allow the court to dial up the contrast.
Ahhh, I thought they (FBI) HAD told us why. They executed a seizure on an MLAT request. You are ASSUMING the FBI was told WHY the seizure was requested. In an international request, the requestor does not necessarily have to meet all the requirements of our (US) system, they need to meet the requirements of the treaty. If the treaty says they only need to state it is a legit ongoing investigation and certify a warrant has been issued under the rules of the 'source' country, then the FBI might not know (or more specifically might only ask if they cared sufficiently). Now if the treaty states a reason must be certified as part of the process (e.g., a copy of the warrant attached to the request), then...
Does anyone know the ACTUAL requirements under MLAT? (Yes, I'm too lazy/uninterested to look it up right now.)
Actually, you are correct, which is why you are wrong:). As you correctly state, whiteboard (and setup) costs are significant. SO when a standard 32 bit design arrives that costs 'the same' as an 8 bit design, everyone will move to the off-the-shelf (OTS) 32 bit design manufactured in quantity instead of paying for custom runs of old 8 bit stuff that is no longer in stock. Now it will not happen overnight as stocks of 4/8/16 bit designs exist and tooling still exists BUT to use an OTS 32 bit item will become cheaper than retooling for a new run of old 4/8/16 bit stuff eventually. Consequently at some point all new development will move to the new 'standard controller' (admittedly rewriting old controller code may be more expensive than retooling so old products may go to 'mature mode'). The key is cost and a true 'standard controller'. If the cost of the 32 bit standard controller is not 'the same' as the 8 bit controller then it may still be cheaper to use 8 bit in some cases. If the 32 bit market fragments then a 'standard controller' may not exist and software retooling expense may make it non viable.
Bottomline, not much new development is done on 4 bit controllers, which used to own the market. Eventually not much new development will be happening on 8 bit controllers as 32 bit controllers mature and become more price competitive. IF a standard 32 bit controller emerges, people will move to it to reduce the whiteboard costs you mention. Especially if it runs something remotely standard and feature robust, like a version of Linux.
I agree. If fact there is a simple solution to the entire problem Gartner raises. All computer manufacturers that offer Linux based machine should offer a 'no OS' machine for say $5-15 less (a Linux media or installation charge). Any one that is buying Linux based machines to avoid the MS tax can avoid both the MS and Linux 'tax' and buy the 'no OS' machine. Gartner can then rewrite the article to state that machines without an OS are the issue and we shouldn't allow it. See now everyone is happy:).
**** No. You paid for a license that lets you use Windows on a very specific the way Microsoft intends it and not otherwise, laws to the contrary be dammed. ****
OK, interesting question, assume I buy a box preloaded with Win XXX. Now I buy a new MB and chip and upgrade, then I buy a case and upgrade, then I buy a CD drive and.... Am I still licensed? If not, when did I lose my license? What if I take all the left over/old parts and reassemble and install Linux, does that invalidate the original license? Exactly what upgrade path causes the license to 'go bad'?
Actually it's the SECOND company that gets rich. The first guys pay the R&D and solve the hard problems, paying all the way along. The second guy(s) learns from the first, has 20% of the R&D costs and rakes in just about as much money (there are LOTS of asteriods). Most large companies know that. Netscape was the first practical browser, CP/M was the first generally available 'PC' computer OS, seen either of them recently? History is full of even better examples of wave1 technology/invention finding a market and wave2-n owning the market.
Brilliant, certainly solves the "don't let him install a backdoor" problem (assuming you have an equally smart second hacker to review the logs, you do right?). Now how do you know the list of holes he didn't patch (so he could exploit them from home)? Or put another way...
PLEEEEESE, monitoring doesn't work. If you have the actual capability to correctly monitor, you don't need him. If you don't, you damn well need to trust him. In fact, a basic security tenet should be, audit AND trust. Ultimately for true security you would need at least a two guy approach, one works, one audits, the auditor is randomly assigned from a decently sized pool (no 'buddies').
In the real world that's expensive so it is not pervasive. You wind up with some combination of trust and auditing. Bottom line, if you can't trust them, don't hire them. Once you hire them, (at a minimum) periodically audit them to ensure you can still trust them.
Note: nothing in this approach implies you can't hire an ex-hacker, it just needs to be one you trust.
Actually the 'general public' doesn't understand the difference between 256MB chips and 256Mb chips. If you don't believe me, read some of the comments here and remember this is the 'technically informed' public not the general public.
As to it being DDR vs. Flash, it is actually both if you read the article. I will admit to using 2Gb as the flash value when the article mentions 8Gb flash and 2Gb DDR. So I screwed up the size not the type, my bad. But hey this is/., I should get points for reading even SOME of the article:).
Yes BUT... the general public is pretty stupid and would assume that a 2 gigabit flash chip advertized as 256 megabytes would mean 1 chip is all I need to upgrade from 128MB flash to 256MB flash. Needless to say that's not true (the chip is 2gbit x 1bit NOT 256mb x 8bits). In fact, in some applications you MAY need 9 or 10 of them to get 2 gigabytes of usable memory (parity or ECC memory applications).
Plus as someone pointed out, claiming 256MB is not good marketing. The 'general public' is going to say, 'So what, I can get a 512MB card at best buy today, no big deal'.
Slashdot Mirror
-------
:)
A fork is when a person or a group takes a source tree and starts doing development independently on it. For instance, Xorg vs XFree. As it says, it's got nothing to do with development branches.
-------
Oh OK so if 'Xorg' and 'Xfree' were released by the same company it wouldn't be a fork it would be a development branch, I see. Got it, everything to do with external vs. internal and nothing to do with effort. Given that definition, I agree with you. Of course I also think it is a pretty useless definition.
Given the fact that I've been in development for about 25 years and given the fact that I've held about every position from grunt programmer to architect to CTO, I can reasonablly argue that's not been common usage at least in my circles.
Where I come from fork has everything to do with long term maintenance of two trees with overlapping code (or at least common parent but since it doesn't all change day one it is usually also overlapping). Sometimes the trees are worked on by different development staffs sometime by a single staff. The main difference between fork and branch is one of scope (both lines of code and longevity). If a few lines change (a fix to version 1 released while version 2 is in QA) it is obviously a branch. However, no dev manager I ever met would state that two concurrently improved trees that differ by say 60% of the code are a 'branch', it is usually referred to as a fork from version 2.1.3 or something similar (no there is no magic number like 42% is a branch but 43% is a fork and no magic definition of time, less that 3 revs is a branch but 3+ is a fork). But hey, this is really your thread in the discussion that I'm jumping in, if you define fork vs. branch as external vs. internal then I'll just agree and move on.
As to 1-3:
1 - see above.
2 - true, but sort of falls into the toolkit issues I raised, you give up some control (look and feel) and the point is to provide the user with a common user experience. I can't believe you REALLY advocate that everyone code for Gnome and just run all the apps under KDE as is.
3 - not really germane to the point is it. The fact that it is a small app so the fork/branch is small is simply one of happenstance. Unless you are really claiming that no large Linux desktop apps should ever be written.
I believe my point is exactly that it doen't happen in Windows. If I code to the Win32 user API (admittedly it only covers 90+% or so if things get complex but 99.99% in most simple UI cases) I get consistent look and feel (and behavior) on most 32 bit Windows platforms. Open a window code is open a window code, display a button in the window code is display a button code no changes. It may appear as a 2d or 3d button depending on the OS but that's consistent with the rest of the buttons in that OS.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a big Windows fan I like Linux, but give credit where credit is due, they have a consistent coding paradigm and good backward compatibility. They also learn from the competition, the new IE will have FireFox style tabbed browsing. Linux should also learn from the competition. Remember, you can write bad code in any language, but you shouldn't. Similarly, multiple desktop managers can make life hell for developers, but they shouldn't.
You mean like I said, a toolkit like API that sits on top of both, geez I should have thought of that. No one reads the actual comments.
Like you said, nice way of missing the point. Gnome and KDE do CAUSE forking. Let's say I'm writing a Linux desktop app, which do I code for? Answer I fork my code and code for both (or give up some large percentage of my 'market'). You seem concerned about forking from a user perspective, try looking at it from a developer perspective.
I can code to basic Win32, runs on Win 2000, Win XP, Win 2003 server, even Win ME and Win 98 in some cases. Pick a Linux desktop, fork your code in most cases. THAT'S one of the main reasons Linux is losing the desktop war, instead of developing 2 applications, Linux developers get to develop one app 2 times (or 3 or 4 or 'how many desktop models do you support' times). A bit hard to catch up that way, especially given that Windows had a head start in the desktop applications department to begin with.
Yes, there are ways to mitigate the issue, yes there are toolkits that sit on top of multiple desktops, yes it is not REALLY 2 times the total effort. But it is either more work (code directly to both), or envolves a trade off in control or performance (use a 'common toolkit layer' as the desktop API or go to X as the API).
--
...
And I'm waiting for the day that a processor has more cache than my first comp had disk space.
--
*sigh* you HAD to mention that, some of us are already there
The 8 inch floppies (pre hard drives) on some of the kits had 200K disk (180K, 160K, I forget), the pentium processors (300 mhz & 333 mhz) I just tossed out had 512K cache so I'm sure the ones running ( 1+ ghz & 3+ ghz) exceed the drive drive size.
I'm not sure what size floppy drives the C64 and Vic 20 had, I think ~180K for the 1541 model. I THINK the CBM 8032 had a 5MB hard drive option. The old Apple floppies were small too, not sure about the hard drive option where it finally arrived. So yeah, I've passed the 'first drive' level and am now waiting for first hard drive.
Agreed. However my reply was to the quote of the constitution where the poster implies that the Federal Gov't had no right to regulate at all under the constitution. In fact I specificly stated that one might state that Congress has to explicitly pass a law (i.e., the legislative branch DOES have power to pass laws and may have to do so as the FCC can't).
As a note it IS possible under the constitution for the Congress to pass a law giving the FCC broad powers (some would claim they have) and that the FCC is/is not over reaching those vaguely defined broad powers if it regulates a broadcast flag. Personally I think the Judge is correct, the FCC doesn't have that broad a mandate.
However, whether they can under the constitution is a different but important question. Quoting that everything not explicitly granted to the Feds belongs to the States is true but may not count depending on how Article I Section 8 is interperted by the Supreme Court (i.e., they MAY have the power under the constitution if a law is passed, it may not be a states' rights issue).
For the record, the communications act of 1934 created the FCC with the charter of:
For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national defense, for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communications, and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority heretofore granted by law to several agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication, there is created a commission to be known as the ''Federal Communications Commission'', which shall be constituted as hereinafter provided, and which shall execute and enforce the provisions of this chapter.
Which is pretty broad. Not broad enough in my opinion, but I don't have a fancy robe and important chair.
--
Hmmm... according to the Tenth Ratified Ammendment to the Constitution of the United States of America: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
--
From Article I, section 8 (The "Congress shall have the power to" section)
.
.
.
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
.
.
.
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
.
.
.
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
So while you MIGHT be able to argue that Congress has to expressly pass a law. It is difficult to state "Congress has absolutely no right". That is unless you happen to be one of a VERY select group of people that sit on the Supreme Court of the
United States.
Bottom line, there is SOME constitutional cover. Whether it is enough, only the select group gets to decide.
And no I'm not pro broadcast flag, I think it stinks. However I am pro Constitution and your claiming something is unconstitutional doesn't mean squat even if you should happen to be Professor of Law at Columbia. You have to be one of the few with the fancy robes sitting in the important chair. More importantly you have to be one of the few in the majority with the fancy robes and important chair. Something more people should account for when voting for Senate and President, you know the guys that get to decide who gets the fancy robe and important chair.
--
Correct me if I err, but I believe that washing machines do not qualify as COMMUNICATIONS equipment.
--
You mean just like VCRs, DVRs, and PVRs are not communications equipment?
Well, considering we are not talking about sales tax, it won't matter. The issue is NOT sales tax, it is a specific tax on cigs. Just like states have specific taxes on booze (remember those little stamp like stickers, usually on/over the cap), they have specific taxes on tobacco (and gasoline, and diesel, and ...). These (tobacco and alcohol) taxes are usually called 'sin taxes' and are used by many states to keep general taxes lower and 'officially' to reduce 'bad behavior' (it's more the cash than the social modification, it's simply a policitically correct group to whack). Other specific taxes (e.g. gasoline) are usually somewhat targeted to a specific purpose (road maint, bridges, ...).
--
Am I supposed to feel sad because some stupid rapper asshat can't steel the movies anymore?
--
No you're supposed to feel bad because you don't know the difference between steel and steal.
Yeah we do that some but it is not really practical for dev staff, too many reboots. Develop either low level stuff where a crash causes a reboot or large stuff where a compile crushes CPUs and tell me 10 developers will work on a single system.
Hey, 100 million here, a 100 million there and pretty soon we're talking real savings.
Seriously, I used 10 million machines, very low given the US alone, and roughly 1 watt/hour to poll mail, probably low. But in any event 100 million to 1 billion KwHr/yr is real energy and real emmissions from coal plants or oil fired power plants, and real money from the economy.
In the NE of the US acid rain reduction and $20million + of economy are of interest.
Could someone briefly exlain this 'problem'. Apaprently students of architecutre aren't taught about such things. Who'd a thought?
Students of architecture read slashdot! Who'd a thought?
On your own machine that MAY make sense. As your time costs you 'nothing'.
I too work at a dev company (CTO). My 'internal developers' make ~$40/hr. So if I had to pay you 2-3 days to work out all the compatability issues, price hunt, order, assemble parts, test hardware, install software, and configure/test the machine software combo, I'd spend $600-1000 on your time. I can buy a 3 ghz HT P4 with 1GB ram, 100+GB HD, OS pro software including basic MS office, a good 'office' vid card (NV 5200 128MB), and 3 years parts and service for $1600 at gateway.
Oh yeah, if a get a more typical machine (non developer) say 2.8 ghz P4 not HT same 1GB, 3 years service, integrated video, same MS XP Pro OS, and use OOffice instead of MS office the price is $1000.
Admittedly neither has a monitor (replacement desktop, not new staff). Also this is web site list price, i.e. before any discounts/freebies due to volume purchases or deals through resellers (yes, others sell gateway, or at least used to sell gateway).
So, how are you saving me money?
---
...). Now let's see, 10 million machines at say an additional Kilowatt hour per month is about 120 MILLION KwHr/year. Hmmmm, own stock in the oil companies? Power companies? An opponent of 'EnergyStar'?
Why _load_ Firefox/OOffice when you can run it in the ROM? It might run a bit slower, but the perceived responsiveness is often determined by application startup time.
Joe Average might have a bit of trouble installing patches or new versions. Are these disposable PCs, add to the landfill and buy a new one every 6 months or so?
---
Also, it can't hurt to modify the hardware slightly so that a LED indicates there are new emails even if the whole box is switched off, to save energy.
Ahhh, not quite switched off then is it? I mean if it can detect new email it MUST be checking periodically (every 10 mins? every hour?
(s)He isn't saying where the line is. I believe the comment was directed to the point: "if people repeatedly run up to their interpretation of the line, the court tends to dial up the contrast so everyone sees the same line". So the MIT guys playing games with the line is apt to cause more court cases to allow the court to dial up the contrast.
Ahhh, I thought they (FBI) HAD told us why. They executed a seizure on an MLAT request. You are ASSUMING the FBI was told WHY the seizure was requested. In an international request, the requestor does not necessarily have to meet all the requirements of our (US) system, they need to meet the requirements of the treaty. If the treaty says they only need to state it is a legit ongoing investigation and certify a warrant has been issued under the rules of the 'source' country, then the FBI might not know (or more specifically might only ask if they cared sufficiently). Now if the treaty states a reason must be certified as part of the process (e.g., a copy of the warrant attached to the request), then ...
Does anyone know the ACTUAL requirements under MLAT? (Yes, I'm too lazy/uninterested to look it up right now.)
Actually, you are correct, which is why you are wrong:). As you correctly state, whiteboard (and setup) costs are significant. SO when a standard 32 bit design arrives that costs 'the same' as an 8 bit design, everyone will move to the off-the-shelf (OTS) 32 bit design manufactured in quantity instead of paying for custom runs of old 8 bit stuff that is no longer in stock. Now it will not happen overnight as stocks of 4/8/16 bit designs exist and tooling still exists BUT to use an OTS 32 bit item will become cheaper than retooling for a new run of old 4/8/16 bit stuff eventually. Consequently at some point all new development will move to the new 'standard controller' (admittedly rewriting old controller code may be more expensive than retooling so old products may go to 'mature mode'). The key is cost and a true 'standard controller'. If the cost of the 32 bit standard controller is not 'the same' as the 8 bit controller then it may still be cheaper to use 8 bit in some cases. If the 32 bit market fragments then a 'standard controller' may not exist and software retooling expense may make it non viable.
Bottomline, not much new development is done on 4 bit controllers, which used to own the market. Eventually not much new development will be happening on 8 bit controllers as 32 bit controllers mature and become more price competitive. IF a standard 32 bit controller emerges, people will move to it to reduce the whiteboard costs you mention. Especially if it runs something remotely standard and feature robust, like a version of Linux.
OK, I'll bite.
:)
:-).
Kernel rebuilds
VOIP
Speech synth
Game SERVERS
SETI @ home
protein folding
running Windows
Seriously it isn't only graphics that count. Some other CPU oriented tasks occur in the real world.
I've gotta say I upgraded a Linux box from a 233mhz Pentium with MMX to a 1.2G AMD and my compile times seemed to shrink remarkably
Ahh, the average slashdotter is too much of a geek to buy a 'cheap ass computer', we'd prefer the 'optimal price performance point'.
I agree. If fact there is a simple solution to the entire problem Gartner raises. All computer manufacturers that offer Linux based machine should offer a 'no OS' machine for say $5-15 less (a Linux media or installation charge). Any one that is buying Linux based machines to avoid the MS tax can avoid both the MS and Linux 'tax' and buy the 'no OS' machine. Gartner can then rewrite the article to state that machines without an OS are the issue and we shouldn't allow it. See now everyone is happy :).
****
.... Am I still licensed? If not, when did I lose my license? What if I take all the left over/old parts and reassemble and install Linux, does that invalidate the original license? Exactly what upgrade path causes the license to 'go bad'?
No. You paid for a license that lets you use Windows on a very specific the way Microsoft intends it and not otherwise, laws to the contrary be dammed.
****
OK, interesting question, assume I buy a box preloaded with Win XXX. Now I buy a new MB and chip and upgrade, then I buy a case and upgrade, then I buy a CD drive and
Actually it's the SECOND company that gets rich. The first guys pay the R&D and solve the hard problems, paying all the way along. The second guy(s) learns from the first, has 20% of the R&D costs and rakes in just about as much money (there are LOTS of asteriods). Most large companies know that. Netscape was the first practical browser, CP/M was the first generally available 'PC' computer OS, seen either of them recently? History is full of even better examples of wave1 technology/invention finding a market and wave2-n owning the market.
Brilliant, certainly solves the "don't let him install a backdoor" problem (assuming you have an equally smart second hacker to review the logs, you do right?). Now how do you know the list of holes he didn't patch (so he could exploit them from home)? Or put another way ...
PLEEEEESE, monitoring doesn't work. If you have the actual capability to correctly monitor, you don't need him. If you don't, you damn well need to trust him. In fact, a basic security tenet should be, audit AND trust. Ultimately for true security you would need at least a two guy approach, one works, one audits, the auditor is randomly assigned from a decently sized pool (no 'buddies').
In the real world that's expensive so it is not pervasive. You wind up with some combination of trust and auditing. Bottom line, if you can't trust them, don't hire them. Once you hire them, (at a minimum) periodically audit them to ensure you can still trust them.
Note: nothing in this approach implies you can't hire an ex-hacker, it just needs to be one you trust.
Actually the 'general public' doesn't understand the difference between 256MB chips and 256Mb chips. If you don't believe me, read some of the comments here and remember this is the 'technically informed' public not the general public.
/., I should get points for reading even SOME of the article :).
As to it being DDR vs. Flash, it is actually both if you read the article. I will admit to using 2Gb as the flash value when the article mentions 8Gb flash and 2Gb DDR. So I screwed up the size not the type, my bad. But hey this is
Yes BUT ... the general public is pretty stupid and would assume that a 2 gigabit flash chip advertized as 256 megabytes would mean 1 chip is all I need to upgrade from 128MB flash to 256MB flash. Needless to say that's not true (the chip is 2gbit x 1bit NOT 256mb x 8bits). In fact, in some applications you MAY need 9 or 10 of them to get 2 gigabytes of usable memory (parity or ECC memory applications).
Plus as someone pointed out, claiming 256MB is not good marketing. The 'general public' is going to say, 'So what, I can get a 512MB card at best buy today, no big deal'.