I got a HP deskjet 930C. Cost me much more than a cheap lexmark would have... but lexmark make shit inkjet printers.
It has massive and reasonably priced black ink cartridges that I can refill if I so desire. Colour is more expensive though, so I avoid using it when I don't need it.
And it is built much better than any cheap printer I have seen.
And it actually has a decent number of buttons on it, unlike most cheap inkjet printers... hmmm buttons.
And it has a cool looking blue autoconfigure alignment light.
And it has a horizontal paper tray, which saves space and doesn't get your paper all bent up from sitting around for a few weeks.
You don't ignore patent law when you want to eventually sell your products into Europe, America and the rest of the world.
Re:Basically, though, this is voice over IP
on
U.S. Endorses ENUM
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Of course there is enough bandwidth. It isn't like the current telephone network system has insuffient bandwidth to cover all the voice calls we currently make.
Don't forget that all voice calls are transmitted over the phone networks on 64K virtual circuts.
Voice over IP, as long as we can keep the IP networks sufficently responsive (a big if), should work fine since telephone companies would be forced to redirect their current voice bandwidth into IP bandwidth.
In australia, the lack of region protection in DVD players is even more pronounced. Even companies like sony are building region-free players for the Australian Market.
Region protection doesn't really seem to be taking any sort of serious hold here.
You brought a crap Trident PCI video card for a crap price, then have the balls to complain that modern video cards are all crap. And with no explaination or proof of your conclusion. LOL
Despite the fact that: 1) The 2d acceleration on modern AGP cards is vastly better than and old Trident provided. 2) The 3d acceleration on even really cheap Nvidia cards is enough to power any game. 3) You even get TV out for free on cheap GF4 MX.
You can even get a GF4 MX440 for about $50, which barely costs more than your old PCI card.
Since I have fallen for a troll, I'll shut up now!
Well, as noted later in the replies of this thread, the OEMs (at least powercolor) seem pretty upset with ATI over this. That seems to support that the drivers are part of the Radeon chipset deal.
Browsing ATI's website also reveals that ATI is pretty deeply involved in the support and drivers for "powerd by ATI" cards. They even say their drivers will work with them.
ATI also goes to pretty elaborate lengths to describe the relationship with the board makers as partnerships rather than plain old OEM builders.
WTF are you smoking. Whatever it is, you should stop posting to slashdot while under the influence.
The boards the drivers don't work with are boards built by 3rd party board manufacturers, using chips that ATI sold to them. (ie not reverse engineered, not stolen, not illegal or immoral in any way) These boards, while not made by ATI themselves, are as legal and sanctioned as the ones made by ATI. They are not jerry-ridded, hacked or downscaled in any way. In fact, ATI lets these manufacturers use the logo "powered by ATI". If any manufacturer was making cards that ATI was not happy with, ATI would simply refuse to sell the Radeon chipsets to them.
This driver incomaptibility is a silly restriction, probably due to a rushed release schedual or poor foresight from the driver writers. It could be simply because the driver has not been tested with "powered by ATI" hardware yet. I expect that this will be fixed.
Why do you want to disable the block on ports 137-139. It isn't like you don't have another 65532 ports that you could use instead!
These ports are used by windows file sharing and many ISP's block access to these ports so that users don't get hacked the moment they step on-line.
There is absolutely NO need to be running a windows sharing or a samba server on the public internet. Use HTTP, FTP, peer2peer, rsync or any of the other protocols that are actually designed to be used over the public internet.
I can understand why Roadrunner would mess with kazaa. If I had to put up with wankers like you, I'd be messing with kazaa just as much.
After you have designed your nice, new architecture, and have everyone moved to it, whats to stop it becoming another crufty, crummy design after 10 years that people constantly want to brush aside because it doesn't fit with the mentality of the day.
By replacing the current x86 architecture with a cruft free and fully optimized system, at prices that people can afford, you probably wouldn't even get a 2x increase in speed. That is less than 2 years difference. Hardly worth throwing out all our software, which took many years to develop, just for that minor improvement.
> Except of course that, as the article says, for > most instructions on this chip, there's a 1:1 > correspondence - nothing like the one:many > breakdown that takes place on x86.
But that actually gives the x86 an advantage. This implies that the x86 CPU has more expressive instructions than the PPC architecture. (also, notice how x86 executables are much smaller than PPC executables as a result)
Its the clasic RISC vs CISC debate, except the rest of the world has moved on realizing that they really arn't that different from each other. RISC is slightly faster, CISC is slightly more expressive and tighter code. (in general)
I own a ECS K7S5A, and it works perfectly. It was utterly boring to set up, (with a PCI sound blaster live no less) and is solid as a rock. (after many hours game playing + divx encoding) I even get to use my old SDRAM, while I find money to replace it with DDR RAM. No flakyness at all. The ecs board also costs a lot less than any Nvidia motherboard (about $60US)
Of course, the Nvidia board is probably also very good:). And probably a good 10% faster than the ECS when both are properly configured for best performance. (with DDR SDRAM, AGP video cards ect)
It all really depends on what your needs are. I needed a good, solid, inexpensive board with support for my older RAM, to do an upgrade using. You wanted a board with decent onboard audio and video, with slightly better all out performance.
They have NEVER created a product that didn't sucked.
From the lowly Trident 512K 8900, to the 94XX semi-accelerated cards, the the latest and greatest Blade3d cards, they have all sucked compared to almost everything else on the market.
As for old chipsets, the ones that rocked, for me at least:
ET4000A (unacceleated, but pretty quick for ISA) WD 8920 (unacceleated, a bit slower than the ET4000A on ISA) Chips and Technologies 60300 GUI (balanced accereration, i am not sure about the chip number, been a long time since I used this 2 meg VLB card)
and correct me if I am wrong, but ins't there vast quanities of plankton and other clorophil plants (the stuff that performs photosynthisis) in the ocean?
Could you elaborate more on the 2d side of things. I have a Nvidia Geforce ddr card (quite an old card now), and I have always found the 2d perfomance to be extremely quick. How could ATI cards be that much better that you would even spend the time noting it?
This is not a flame, just a question since I have never seen an ATI card in the flesh?
2) Find the parent sshd process and kill that one only! (don't do a killall) "pstree -p" is good at that.
3) fire up the new sshd and ensure it is working properly (by establishing a new ssh connection on another terminal). If it isn't, now is the time to fix it
4) Exit all ssh sessions you have initiated, then you can reconnect if you wish.
Nothing goes wrong if the something goes wrong in the reactor.
The tomahawk fusion reactor performs fusion very, very carefully and it is very delicate. The small quantity of plasma (superheated gas) where fusion occurs is confined within the doughnut shaped reactor using magnetic fields away from the walls. This magnetic field maintains the plasma temperature and pressure that allows fusion to occur. There is no direct cooling like in fission reactors. If the magnetic field were to fail, then the plasma will lose pressure, fall in temperature signifcantly as it expands before hitting the reactor wall. The magnetic field is the only reason why the plasma can get hot enough to fuse, without it the plasma expands and cools to the point where it isn't dangerous. If anything else serious fails in the reactor (ie, the steam turbine cooling), and didn't cause the fusion reaction to be shut down, then the worst that could happen is that the reactor walls will melt. This would cause the vacuum within the reactor to fail, and the resulting inrush of air cools the plasma down and stops fusion from occuring.
Unlike most fission reactors, fusion reactors have to excert a lot of effort to extract energy. If the fusion reactor stops, the fusion stops with it.
VLB (VESA Local Bus) is used mostly on 486 computers. It uses a direct connection to the CPU (no bridges like modern PCI computers or older ISA buses). It was designed to be a cheap solution more than anything else, by not requiring a fancy bridge like EISA did.
VLB has the following characteristics:
Bus speed is same as Motherboard bus speed, typcially 33mhz.
When operated at 33mhz, a maximum of 3 cards can be attached.
At 40 mhz, only 2 cards.
At 50 mhz, only 1 card.
This limitiation is caused by the amount of current the CPU could send over the IO lines to the VLB cards. Since there is no bridge between the VLB bus and the CPU, the signal strength from the CPU can not be amplified to service more cards.
Cards for VLB include network cards, video cards and disk controllers (SCSI and EIDE).
Perhaps you should realize that the only holy wars that go on between Unix software (all types) are on slashdot or on some usenet channels.
You need to get some fresh air (away from the internet) and note that most of the real life work around unix is not destructive. Rather people administer and use whatever they like, for whatever task needs to be done, whether it is Irix, solaris, linux, BSD or windows. The decisions are not made around what is said on slashdot.org or any other advocatcy(sp) channel.
Just what can be done with 64 CPU's that most users cant be done with 1 cpu?
Most users already have enough cpu power for what they do. Web browsers, word processing, database clients (not servers) and most other software doesn't really get any faster if you throw any more cpu at it. Most computers are used for this function (most computers are in buisnesses) and cannot really benefit from multiple CPU's.
The areas I can think of at the moment where multiple CPU's can have success are large database servers, enryption cracking, bulk data processing and scientific computing. For these mainframes and super-computers are always going to be needed.
The only personal computing areas that can be improved with multiple processors are games (maybe) and image/video manipulation (compression, images filters). For these tasks, SIMD instructions generally work better and are cheaper to implement.
Also programming for 64 cpus is a very challenging task. Only the most parrellel of algorithms can ever hope to see a linear performace increase with increasing CPU count.
The difficulty of writing parrellel programs by itself will drive up the price of software.
Also motherboard technology is going to limit what you can do with multiple CPU's. Motherboards need to be cheap, reliable, and run without extreme cooling. Putting many CPU's on one chip will mean requiring a massive bus to the memory to feed the CPU's, reducing reliablity and increacing cost. Putting many CPU's in separate chips on a motherboard requires instead lots of separate buses, a lot of testing to iron out timing problems, and lots of physical space. This will make motherboards supporting 64 CPU's very expensive any way you look at it.
Finally, CPU technology is far from being fully exploited. The wall has not been reached yet, and probably won't be for at least 10 years. Even if we do reach the wall in 10 years, it doesn't nessesarily mean most general computers will need multiple CPUs. Software will have to evaluate the available CPU power and write for it rather that expecting more CPU will be avaliable to handle more feature. A good example of this is in the console market. Games for consoles usually always limit what they do to what the hardware will allow. Eventually computer software will have to do the same.
Some people have said for ages that "all" future computers will need multiple CPU's. I now say that the economics of doing it are stupid, and that for most tasks, it isn't nessessary.
Anyway, EOR (end of rant)
Re:More to installing 2.4?
on
2.2 vs 2.4
·
· Score: 1
make sure you upgrade modutils to 2.4.X (X is biggest available) before installing the 2.4 kernel.
2.4 changes the layout of modules, and the new modutils handles the new layout.
Re:SCSI performance analysis
on
2.2 vs 2.4
·
· Score: 1
Slashdot Mirror
Heh,
... but lexmark make shit inkjet printers.
... hmmm buttons.
... I am rambling :D
I got a HP deskjet 930C. Cost me much more than a cheap lexmark would have
It has massive and reasonably priced black ink cartridges that I can refill if I so desire. Colour is more expensive though, so I avoid using it when I don't need it.
And it is built much better than any cheap printer I have seen.
And it actually has a decent number of buttons on it, unlike most cheap inkjet printers
And it has a cool looking blue autoconfigure alignment light.
And it has a horizontal paper tray, which saves space and doesn't get your paper all bent up from sitting around for a few weeks.
And
You don't ignore patent law when you want to eventually sell your products into Europe, America and the rest of the world.
Of course there is enough bandwidth. It isn't like the current telephone network system has insuffient bandwidth to cover all the voice calls we currently make.
Don't forget that all voice calls are transmitted over the phone networks on 64K virtual circuts.
Voice over IP, as long as we can keep the IP networks sufficently responsive (a big if), should work fine since telephone companies would be forced to redirect their current voice bandwidth into IP bandwidth.
In australia, the lack of region protection in DVD players is even more pronounced. Even companies like sony are building region-free players for the Australian Market.
Region protection doesn't really seem to be taking any sort of serious hold here.
Huh,
You brought a crap Trident PCI video card for a crap price, then have the balls to complain that modern video cards are all crap. And with no explaination or proof of your conclusion. LOL
Despite the fact that:
1) The 2d acceleration on modern AGP cards is vastly better than and old Trident provided.
2) The 3d acceleration on even really cheap Nvidia cards is enough to power any game.
3) You even get TV out for free on cheap GF4 MX.
You can even get a GF4 MX440 for about $50, which barely costs more than your old PCI card.
Since I have fallen for a troll, I'll shut up now!
Well, as noted later in the replies of this thread, the OEMs (at least powercolor) seem pretty upset with ATI over this. That seems to support that the drivers are part of the Radeon chipset deal.
Browsing ATI's website also reveals that ATI is pretty deeply involved in the support and drivers for "powerd by ATI" cards. They even say their drivers will work with them.
ATI also goes to pretty elaborate lengths to describe the relationship with the board makers as partnerships rather than plain old OEM builders.
WTF are you smoking. Whatever it is, you should stop posting to slashdot while under the influence.
The boards the drivers don't work with are boards built by 3rd party board manufacturers, using chips that ATI sold to them. (ie not reverse engineered, not stolen, not illegal or immoral in any way) These boards, while not made by ATI themselves, are as legal and sanctioned as the ones made by ATI. They are not jerry-ridded, hacked or downscaled in any way. In fact, ATI lets these manufacturers use the logo "powered by ATI". If any manufacturer was making cards that ATI was not happy with, ATI would simply refuse to sell the Radeon chipsets to them.
This driver incomaptibility is a silly restriction, probably due to a rushed release schedual or poor foresight from the driver writers. It could be simply because the driver has not been tested with "powered by ATI" hardware yet. I expect that this will be fixed.
Why do you want to disable the block on ports 137-139. It isn't like you don't have another 65532 ports that you could use instead!
These ports are used by windows file sharing and many ISP's block access to these ports so that users don't get hacked the moment they step on-line.
There is absolutely NO need to be running a windows sharing or a samba server on the public internet. Use HTTP, FTP, peer2peer, rsync or any of the other protocols that are actually designed to be used over the public internet.
I can understand why Roadrunner would mess with kazaa. If I had to put up with wankers like you, I'd be messing with kazaa just as much.
As another point to the original poster,
After you have designed your nice, new architecture, and have everyone moved to it, whats to stop it becoming another crufty, crummy design after 10 years that people constantly want to brush aside because it doesn't fit with the mentality of the day.
By replacing the current x86 architecture with a cruft free and fully optimized system, at prices that people can afford, you probably wouldn't even get a 2x increase in speed. That is less than 2 years difference. Hardly worth throwing out all our software, which took many years to develop, just for that minor improvement.
> Except of course that, as the article says, for
> most instructions on this chip, there's a 1:1
> correspondence - nothing like the one:many
> breakdown that takes place on x86.
But that actually gives the x86 an advantage. This implies that the x86 CPU has more expressive instructions than the PPC architecture. (also, notice how x86 executables are much smaller than PPC executables as a result)
Its the clasic RISC vs CISC debate, except the rest of the world has moved on realizing that they really arn't that different from each other. RISC is slightly faster, CISC is slightly more expressive and tighter code. (in general)
I like the old one better :P
RMA your board. I havn't had that problem.
I resent that comment :P
:). And probably a good 10% faster than the ECS when both are properly configured for best performance. (with DDR SDRAM, AGP video cards ect)
I own a ECS K7S5A, and it works perfectly. It was utterly boring to set up, (with a PCI sound blaster live no less) and is solid as a rock. (after many hours game playing + divx encoding) I even get to use my old SDRAM, while I find money to replace it with DDR RAM. No flakyness at all. The ecs board also costs a lot less than any Nvidia motherboard (about $60US)
Of course, the Nvidia board is probably also very good
It all really depends on what your needs are. I needed a good, solid, inexpensive board with support for my older RAM, to do an upgrade using. You wanted a board with decent onboard audio and video, with slightly better all out performance.
Correction,
They have NEVER created a product that didn't sucked.
From the lowly Trident 512K 8900, to the 94XX semi-accelerated cards, the the latest and greatest Blade3d cards, they have all sucked compared to almost everything else on the market.
As for old chipsets, the ones that rocked, for me at least:
ET4000A (unacceleated, but pretty quick for ISA)
WD 8920 (unacceleated, a bit slower than the ET4000A on ISA)
Chips and Technologies 60300 GUI (balanced accereration, i am not sure about the chip number, been a long time since I used this 2 meg VLB card)
Huh, doesn't the ocean have an ecosystem too?
and correct me if I am wrong, but ins't there vast quanities of plankton and other clorophil plants (the stuff that performs photosynthisis) in the ocean?
Could you elaborate more on the 2d side of things. I have a Nvidia Geforce ddr card (quite an old card now), and I have always found the 2d perfomance to be extremely quick. How could ATI cards be that much better that you would even spend the time noting it?
This is not a flame, just a question since I have never seen an ATI card in the flesh?
Simple
1) Install the new openssh.
2) Find the parent sshd process and kill that one only! (don't do a killall) "pstree -p" is good at that.
3) fire up the new sshd and ensure it is working properly (by establishing a new ssh connection on another terminal). If it isn't, now is the time to fix it
4) Exit all ssh sessions you have initiated, then you can reconnect if you wish.
Sigh,
Nothing goes wrong if the something goes wrong in the reactor.
The tomahawk fusion reactor performs fusion very, very carefully and it is very delicate. The small quantity of plasma (superheated gas) where fusion occurs is confined within the doughnut shaped reactor using magnetic fields away from the walls. This magnetic field maintains the plasma temperature and pressure that allows fusion to occur. There is no direct cooling like in fission reactors. If the magnetic field were to fail, then the plasma will lose pressure, fall in temperature signifcantly as it expands before hitting the reactor wall. The magnetic field is the only reason why the plasma can get hot enough to fuse, without it the plasma expands and cools to the point where it isn't dangerous. If anything else serious fails in the reactor (ie, the steam turbine cooling), and didn't cause the fusion reaction to be shut down, then the worst that could happen is that the reactor walls will melt. This would cause the vacuum within the reactor to fail, and the resulting inrush of air cools the plasma down and stops fusion from occuring.
Unlike most fission reactors, fusion reactors have to excert a lot of effort to extract energy. If the fusion reactor stops, the fusion stops with it.
Some info about VLB.
VLB (VESA Local Bus) is used mostly on 486 computers. It uses a direct connection to the CPU (no bridges like modern PCI computers or older ISA buses). It was designed to be a cheap solution more than anything else, by not requiring a fancy bridge like EISA did.
VLB has the following characteristics:
Bus speed is same as Motherboard bus speed, typcially 33mhz.
When operated at 33mhz, a maximum of 3 cards can be attached.
At 40 mhz, only 2 cards.
At 50 mhz, only 1 card.
This limitiation is caused by the amount of current the CPU could send over the IO lines to the VLB cards. Since there is no bridge between the VLB bus and the CPU, the signal strength from the CPU can not be amplified to service more cards.
Cards for VLB include network cards, video cards and disk controllers (SCSI and EIDE).
Perhaps you should realize that the only holy wars that go on between Unix software (all types) are on slashdot or on some usenet channels.
You need to get some fresh air (away from the internet) and note that most of the real life work around unix is not destructive. Rather people administer and use whatever they like, for whatever task needs to be done, whether it is Irix, solaris, linux, BSD or windows. The decisions are not made around what is said on slashdot.org or any other advocatcy(sp) channel.
Remember: "Slashdot.org is not real life!"
Just what can be done with 64 CPU's that most users cant be done with 1 cpu?
Most users already have enough cpu power for what they do. Web browsers, word processing, database clients (not servers) and most other software doesn't really get any faster if you throw any more cpu at it. Most computers are used for this function (most computers are in buisnesses) and cannot really benefit from multiple CPU's.
The areas I can think of at the moment where multiple CPU's can have success are large database servers, enryption cracking, bulk data processing and scientific computing. For these mainframes and super-computers are always going to be needed.
The only personal computing areas that can be improved with multiple processors are games (maybe) and image/video manipulation (compression, images filters). For these tasks, SIMD instructions generally work better and are cheaper to implement.
Also programming for 64 cpus is a very challenging task. Only the most parrellel of algorithms can ever hope to see a linear performace increase with increasing CPU count.
The difficulty of writing parrellel programs by itself will drive up the price of software.
Also motherboard technology is going to limit what you can do with multiple CPU's. Motherboards need to be cheap, reliable, and run without extreme cooling. Putting many CPU's on one chip will mean requiring a massive bus to the memory to feed the CPU's, reducing reliablity and increacing cost. Putting many CPU's in separate chips on a motherboard requires instead lots of separate buses, a lot of testing to iron out timing problems, and lots of physical space. This will make motherboards supporting 64 CPU's very expensive any way you look at it.
Finally, CPU technology is far from being fully exploited. The wall has not been reached yet, and probably won't be for at least 10 years. Even if we do reach the wall in 10 years, it doesn't nessesarily mean most general computers will need multiple CPUs. Software will have to evaluate the available CPU power and write for it rather that expecting more CPU will be avaliable to handle more feature. A good example of this is in the console market. Games for consoles usually always limit what they do to what the hardware will allow. Eventually computer software will have to do the same.
Some people have said for ages that "all" future computers will need multiple CPU's. I now say that the economics of doing it are stupid, and that for most tasks, it isn't nessessary.
Anyway, EOR (end of rant)
make sure you upgrade modutils to 2.4.X (X is biggest available) before installing the 2.4 kernel.
2.4 changes the layout of modules, and the new modutils handles the new layout.
re-read it :-), You are reading the graph wrong
> That wouldn't happen to be a KT133, would it? :P
:-)
> I've just bought a new mobo (haven't installed
> yet) and you just sent shivers down my spine
I have my geforce DDR working fine with my new KT133 board and duron processor, so your chances are quite good
I pretty sure you should know this, but
slashdot!=linux community