Twenty times the number of dots as a typical PC sounds a lot like tired claims of "50 times faster than a phone modem!". This display has basically five times as many dots as the current high-end of CRT monitors. If you are going to build a high end system, you have to compare it with other high-end systems.
The other thing that gets me is the use of the term resolution. In raw terms, this display actually has very poor resolution: about 28 dots per inch. If you stand way back from it, it might have a high number of dots per degree of arc of vision. But then, how bright is it from 100 feet away?
No, actually you are not. HTML and other markup languages are structured data. The data MUST be transformed before it can be shown to the user. Therefore, it is impossible for your content to be delivered to the user unaltered.
My viewer might show your content the way you expected, or it might translate it into a different language, read it aloud, hyperlink everything into a dictionary, or create a lexicographic analysis from it. You have no control over how markup is rendered, please relieve yourself of this concept.
It doesn't even need to be old. Just buy any VCR with a manual input gain control (a.k.a recording level control), and Macrovision can't touch it. Macrovision works by fucking with the automatic gain controls in VCR with huge intensity bursts. Manual gain controls aren't fooled this way.
The only disadvantage I've found of Postgres is that it lacks replication. MySQL has a replication facility that barely hobbles along if you carefully supervise it, but Postgres doesn't even attempt replication.
Read the fucking documentation, perhaps? Some slackware users have a clue, and aren't the sort of people who would install random-irc-opengl-mp3-plugin.rpm as root without knowing exactly what is going on. Anyway, a.tgz can check dependencies if it wants, by looking in/var/log/packages and bailing out of its install scripts.
I hardly think this is the fastest drive alive. Seagate specifies the seek time at 8.9 ms. Their X15 drive, possibly the fastest drive on the market, is specified at 3.9 ms. The new drive has 40 GB per platter, but the X15 has 3.7 GB. Scaling for the X15's 2.6" platters and the Barracuda's slow spindle speed and lack of platters, the Barracuda might have a 14% advantage over the X15 in sequential transfer rate.
When rotational latency is factored in, the Barracuda should have an access time of about 15.4 ms, while the X15 has a measured access time of 6.8 ms. Access time is the most important aspect of disk drive performance, and the X15 has a 225% advantage over the Barracuda in that category. Barracuda's 14% STR advantage can never make up for the disparity.
Perhaps Seagate meant to claim the fastest drive ever to hold the name Barracuda ATA?
What box of theirs was unique? I just bought a 1221, one of VA's latest. It has 2 CPUs, a ServerWorks chipset, two hot-swap SCSI bays, and two full-length 64/66 PCI slots in a 1U chassis. Just from a quick Google, I found three other vendors selling very nearly the same gear. The only thing I was unable to determine was whether the other vendors have a front-panel serial port. That isn't a feature that would sway my decision.
It isn't as if VA made the hardware in the first place. Someone else made it for them and slapped their label on the front. I've bought six machines from VA, but I'll have no problem buying the same hardware at the same price from someone else.
Their sales staff were dumb as stumps. Troy T., I'm talking to you.
I personally tried to acquire three different ES40 achines fom Compaq, but Compaq were completely incapable of selling them to me. You can't buy them direct if you are smaller than a national government, and you can't find a damn reseller because nobody resells them. Even some of the links on Compaq's Alpha Resellers web page are dead. Reseller links to nowhere, thanks a lot Compaq.
At least DEC, infamous for their inability to market anything to anyone, used to send me a paper catalog, and I could call a 1-800 number and order whatever I wanted. I bought a UDB and a PWS that way.
Put the crack away. The ia32 architecture is currently very problematic for those of us who need to program for it. The basic problem is the 32-bit memory space. Sure, the kernel can address more than that, but no individual process can address that because the pointer is only 32 bits wide. Want to mmap a 2.1GB file? Better get a 64-bit machine. The move to 64 bits gives programmers the ability to write the obvious and natural algorithm, instead of spending their time fretting over their implementation of a sliding mmap window or some other hack.
The main kernel improvements from Tux have been merged into the mainline kernel, so there really isn't anything interesting that Tux can do which can't be done in user space. I agree that running a web server in the kernel is a risk. Moving that to user space and running as a regular user should be the next step. There has been much yakking on linux-kernel about a user space web server that outperforms Tux.
This impressive range seems to have more to do with your car having a massive fuel tank (860/50 = 17 gal), than 50 mpg being a particularly revolutionary efficiency. Well above average, but not a technological leap.
You drive your car for 1,000 km at 100 km/hr, while your 4-stroke 2 L engine runs at 2,500 rpm. Your engine burns 1,500,000 liters of air, plus some gasonline. Dry air at sea level has density 1.225 kg/m^3. 1,500,000 liters of dry air at sea level has mass 1800 kg.
Pioneer has been selling a professional model 60" display with d-sub and bnc rgbhv inputs for at least 18 months. This display is only 1" bigger.
Re:Why the X-Box cannot be a linux machine
on
PS2 As PC
·
· Score: 2
But there is an issue of licensing. It's fine, according to Linus, for the kernel to load binary modules. It is NOT fine for the kernel itself to be shipped as a binary, without source modifications made public. So the question really boils down to whether or not a driver for something as basic as the system controller can be loaded as a module. The "real" Linux kernel would have to be able to boot, mount a file system, and load the module without help from any uncumbered proprietary drivers.
Re:Consider the limitations
on
PS2 As PC
·
· Score: 5
X is not a memory hog. X looks like a memory hog because the system accounting charges the RAM on the video card against the X process. X applications use shared memory to store (and sometimes leak) bitmapped images, and this memory is also charged against the X server. On my very fully featured X server, X takes up about 5 MB of system memory, plus it gets charged the 32 MB or RAM on my video card, possibly twice. If I turn off a lot of the extensions, X uses even less than 5MB. This is perfectly acceptable and the reason people were able to run X on 8MB 486s in 1993.
Why the X-Box cannot be a linux machine
on
PS2 As PC
·
· Score: 1
The X-Box will never be a killer Linux machine because it is based around an nvidia chipset. Nvidia do not release their programming specifications to the Linux community. Their OpenGL drivers are binary only. We have no reason to believe that they would release the programming manuals for their new chipset, so the best we can hope for out of the X-Box is that the nvidia chipset will be compatible with some older Intel chipset. Then, at least, Linux could boot it. Until nvidia's stance changes, the X-Box will not be a good Linux 3D gaming machine.
Hate GIMP on Linux, why would I like it on MacOS?
on
GIMP And OS X
·
· Score: 2
Seriously, GIMP on Linux in intolerable. I load up a 33MB TIFF, wait. rotate 90 degrees: THRAAASHSSHSSHSH, wait. Apply inverse gamma: THRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHH wait. I have a 1.2GHz Athlon CPU and 512MB of RAM, and a SCSI RAID that is capable of swamping my 40MB/s SCSI bus.
For image scaling, color/level correction, gamma correction, format conversion, and even effects, I almost always find myself using ImageMagick. ImageMagick can manipulate those huge TIFF files with time and space efficiency. ImageMagick is scriptable with my favorite scripting languages. ImageMagick butters my toast, and is all things to all people.
Hate GIMP on Linux, why would I like it on MacOS?
on
GIMP And OS X
·
· Score: 1
Seriously, GIMP on Linux in intolerable. I load up a 33MB TIFF, wait. rotate 90 degrees: THRAAASHSSHSSHSH, wait. Apply inverse gamma: THRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHH wait. I have a 1.2GHz Athlon CPU and 512MB of RAM, and a SCSI RAID that is capable of swamping my 40MB/s SCSI bus.
For image scaling, color/level correction, gamma correction, format conversion, and even effects, I almost always find myself using ImageMagick. ImageMagick can manipulate those huge TIFF files with time and space efficiency. ImageMagick is scriptable with my favorite scripting languages. ImageMagick butters my toast, and is all things to all people.
Now, I'll grant you that for creating images, GIMP is a lot of fun. But it can't match the "real" tools that are available to people using MacOS.
Slashdot Mirror
The other thing that gets me is the use of the term resolution. In raw terms, this display actually has very poor resolution: about 28 dots per inch. If you stand way back from it, it might have a high number of dots per degree of arc of vision. But then, how bright is it from 100 feet away?
My viewer might show your content the way you expected, or it might translate it into a different language, read it aloud, hyperlink everything into a dictionary, or create a lexicographic analysis from it. You have no control over how markup is rendered, please relieve yourself of this concept.
It doesn't even need to be old. Just buy any VCR with a manual input gain control (a.k.a recording level control), and Macrovision can't touch it. Macrovision works by fucking with the automatic gain controls in VCR with huge intensity bursts. Manual gain controls aren't fooled this way.
The only disadvantage I've found of Postgres is that it lacks replication. MySQL has a replication facility that barely hobbles along if you carefully supervise it, but Postgres doesn't even attempt replication.
Sounds like the BEST thing to do is not have a central office.
What, no threaded view in Pine? Type $O (dollar, oh)
Nice short-term investment outlook. Here's a different chart that shows the real quality of an investment in adobe.
Read the fucking documentation, perhaps? Some slackware users have a clue, and aren't the sort of people who would install random-irc-opengl-mp3-plugin.rpm as root without knowing exactly what is going on. Anyway, a .tgz can check dependencies if it wants, by looking in /var/log/packages and bailing out of its install scripts.
When rotational latency is factored in, the Barracuda should have an access time of about 15.4 ms, while the X15 has a measured access time of 6.8 ms. Access time is the most important aspect of disk drive performance, and the X15 has a 225% advantage over the Barracuda in that category. Barracuda's 14% STR advantage can never make up for the disparity.
Perhaps Seagate meant to claim the fastest drive ever to hold the name Barracuda ATA?
What's sick is that a machine I just bought for $6500 is going for $2200 at VA's fire sale.
What box of theirs was unique? I just bought a 1221, one of VA's latest. It has 2 CPUs, a ServerWorks chipset, two hot-swap SCSI bays, and two full-length 64/66 PCI slots in a 1U chassis. Just from a quick Google, I found three other vendors selling very nearly the same gear. The only thing I was unable to determine was whether the other vendors have a front-panel serial port. That isn't a feature that would sway my decision.
Their sales staff were dumb as stumps. Troy T., I'm talking to you.
Why don't you change the name to "Fuck Steve Case with a Red Hot Poker" and see what happens?
At least DEC, infamous for their inability to market anything to anyone, used to send me a paper catalog, and I could call a 1-800 number and order whatever I wanted. I bought a UDB and a PWS that way.
Put the crack away. The ia32 architecture is currently very problematic for those of us who need to program for it. The basic problem is the 32-bit memory space. Sure, the kernel can address more than that, but no individual process can address that because the pointer is only 32 bits wide. Want to mmap a 2.1GB file? Better get a 64-bit machine. The move to 64 bits gives programmers the ability to write the obvious and natural algorithm, instead of spending their time fretting over their implementation of a sliding mmap window or some other hack.
The main kernel improvements from Tux have been merged into the mainline kernel, so there really isn't anything interesting that Tux can do which can't be done in user space. I agree that running a web server in the kernel is a risk. Moving that to user space and running as a regular user should be the next step. There has been much yakking on linux-kernel about a user space web server that outperforms Tux.
This impressive range seems to have more to do with your car having a massive fuel tank (860/50 = 17 gal), than 50 mpg being a particularly revolutionary efficiency. Well above average, but not a technological leap.
You drive your car for 1,000 km at 100 km/hr, while your 4-stroke 2 L engine runs at 2,500 rpm. Your engine burns 1,500,000 liters of air, plus some gasonline. Dry air at sea level has density 1.225 kg/m^3. 1,500,000 liters of dry air at sea level has mass 1800 kg.
Pioneer has been selling a professional model 60" display with d-sub and bnc rgbhv inputs for at least 18 months. This display is only 1" bigger.
But there is an issue of licensing. It's fine, according to Linus, for the kernel to load binary modules. It is NOT fine for the kernel itself to be shipped as a binary, without source modifications made public. So the question really boils down to whether or not a driver for something as basic as the system controller can be loaded as a module. The "real" Linux kernel would have to be able to boot, mount a file system, and load the module without help from any uncumbered proprietary drivers.
X is not a memory hog. X looks like a memory hog because the system accounting charges the RAM on the video card against the X process. X applications use shared memory to store (and sometimes leak) bitmapped images, and this memory is also charged against the X server. On my very fully featured X server, X takes up about 5 MB of system memory, plus it gets charged the 32 MB or RAM on my video card, possibly twice. If I turn off a lot of the extensions, X uses even less than 5MB. This is perfectly acceptable and the reason people were able to run X on 8MB 486s in 1993.
The X-Box will never be a killer Linux machine because it is based around an nvidia chipset. Nvidia do not release their programming specifications to the Linux community. Their OpenGL drivers are binary only. We have no reason to believe that they would release the programming manuals for their new chipset, so the best we can hope for out of the X-Box is that the nvidia chipset will be compatible with some older Intel chipset. Then, at least, Linux could boot it. Until nvidia's stance changes, the X-Box will not be a good Linux 3D gaming machine.
For image scaling, color/level correction, gamma correction, format conversion, and even effects, I almost always find myself using ImageMagick. ImageMagick can manipulate those huge TIFF files with time and space efficiency. ImageMagick is scriptable with my favorite scripting languages. ImageMagick butters my toast, and is all things to all people.
For image scaling, color/level correction, gamma correction, format conversion, and even effects, I almost always find myself using ImageMagick. ImageMagick can manipulate those huge TIFF files with time and space efficiency. ImageMagick is scriptable with my favorite scripting languages. ImageMagick butters my toast, and is all things to all people.
Now, I'll grant you that for creating images, GIMP is a lot of fun. But it can't match the "real" tools that are available to people using MacOS.
Also who-let pack-aard