You must think Linux users sit around fretting about conpatibity with other distro's
Are you *BSD users this clueless.
Slackware Linux as a system has been incredinly safe and stable (hasn't crashed on me yet!). None of the utter confusion (including fragmented kernels), which IS happening in *BSD.
My impression is that no-one (except developers) really cares about fragmentation all that much. Most programs written for unix are written well enougth that fragmentation isn't a problem. The interface does not seriously change from unix to unix.
I am a poor uni student, but 500 meg would cost me way more than just hiring the movie (or even buying it). Uni would probably kick me out if I did 500 meg of downloading. (Plus i have nowhere to store that much stuff at uni, 10 meg quotas don't cut it!)
Ok, I do some linux development, and have a reasonable idea why people don't port their code to windows:
1) Windows optimisation is a different beast to linux optimisation. It is very difficult to optimise a program for windows when it is currently optimised for linux/unix.
2) Doing windows portability can be very bad for your source code, making a mess of what was cleanish code. Even with portabilty layers, I doubt windows porting is easy and doesn't wreak the code.
3) Development tools under windows can cost a lot of money, money many people won't pay for "just a hobby" when linux development tools are freely accessable. However there is the GCC compiler for windows, which could solve this problem.
4) We just don't care enough about working with windows to overcome all the above points.
I don't hate windows or its users, but I still can't work enough enthusiasm over it to actually try to port my code to windows.
So! People just don't get that spelling isn't really all that important, as long as it is readable. I don't have a spellchecker for posting, so there may be a few mistakes. Don't waste time pointing it out!! I want peoples opinions, not my spelling mistakes.
The probably wouldn't waste the time releasing drivers as binary.
Fortunatly binary modules often break with new kernel releases making binary modules a royal pain for any company stupid enougth to use them. Thus they are likely to release it as source.
Then again, the only thing that can be expected form large companies are stupid decisions. Anything better is just a bonus:)
Makes you want to reconsider becoming an Admin. I help set up and admin linux boxes for a school and keep them running. Fortunatly the people I help arn't very demanding in terms of service (as long as it works during the day when they are there). Even so, I often spend long days there. Fortunatly, I can do most of my work on linux without distrupting users.
If they use an ATI rage chip for graphics, then the Amiga WILL NOT very good!:( I have seen real amigas. The chipset they originally used rocked compared to anything else around.
If amiga is just going to mix a few hi-end components around into Yet another bloody computer, then they deserve to die, and die quickly!
Well written X software is just as portable as most normal well written software.
About xFree86, i don't think it ports to solaris (unless it is solaris x86, which may work), but sparc computers use different hardware to the x86 computer, so this is a non-issue.
Most other X corsortium software should be a snap to port, and if you have a working up to date X-server, should work
> You forgot about the convenient PIII User ID embedded into every chip (so they can keep track of our Internet habits, software, etc.)
Bullshit!, CPU numbers arn't like user numbers. Why on earth would intel want to waste vast amounts of money doing this when they SELL MICROPROCESSORS.
There are much better ways to track users internet habits (read cookies).
As for tracking software, the CPU ID is useless because CPU's fail, get upgraded, get replaced, get stolen (well, not at their current prices).
RISC chips have for a long time has CPU ID's. You poeple hype up the RISC chips so much, yet bag the P-III when it includes the CPU ID. (Note, i am not baging RISC chips, they are much better than x86)
--- Proud owner of a Celeron 333 and a Cyrix 6x86-200 and a AMD 486-133 and a Intel 8088.
I disagree. They were testing complete solutions and comparing them, not specific components or Operating Systems or platforms. They were saying I have $15000 and what is the best system I can get?
The minimum requirements would be standard for anyone buying a system. IE you can get more filesystem/ memory if you give up monitor space ect. By specifying a minimum, you stop them scimping on some components in favor for others.
Of course, all benchmarks, comparisons, ect? are useless!
Re:woopty do shit, i can rm -rf real fast
on
Reiserfs Released
·
· Score: 1
I do, when I have finished using (playing) with a program and its source, I do remove the source from my system. If you never use your system or don't clean up after yourself, than no, it wont be useful for you, but for me, anything to improve dismal unlink times is a godsend. BTW if anyone thinks ext2 is slow unlinking, try deltreeing a large directory without a disk cache loaded!
Also, some important programs need to do lots of unlinks occasionly. Take squid (web server cache) for example. So don't crap on about something you know nothing about.
Hopefully, unpacking tar files will be faster too, helping me when i download programs too.
This is probably a trend for the future. I can imagine that most of the integer parrellelism has been extracted from x86 code. I can only imagine x86 integer parrellelism would increase only via better compilers and optimizers. However, it is hard to expect significantly better performance from any new integer core for x86 code. 9% on unoptimized code is good, and I can imagine that the difference will increase slightly as optimization also increases.
Expect future x86 chips to focus on high MHZ, wide buses, and floating point performance.
Oh, and stellar FP will make AMD big if they can pull it off. Look at intel and it's celeron line. The only reason the celeron and PII/PIII was big (last time I checked) was that it had a good FP unit (compared to the K6) and did well on 32bit code.
Who really cares, all OS's suck in their own little way. Linux sucks because it is still hard to use (same all unixes). Windows sucks because it crashes my computer. OS/2 sucks because there is nothing to run on it and getting software for it is hard. Same with BeOS. DOS sucks becuse it combines the difficulty of linux with the stupidity of windows.
I defend my right to flame OS's and I don't care what others think of my flame! Thank you. Feel free to moderate me down:)
This article does a good job at saying nothing at all and abusing the standard I expect from internet article writing. This is just a whole lot of words thrown together that sound good but mean absolutely nothing. Gee, there isn't enough info here to clasify it as FUD even.
There is absolutely no information to justify what Bob is saying. Although I respect him, I can not take what is saying as true without a reason.
Gee, Bob, if ya want to kill linux, you must do better than that!
Not X itself, but i think KDE supports it using kaudioserver. However, I don't recommend running KDE in this situation because KDE likes to use LOTS of ram and it tends to cause X to bloat to obscene sizes.
Slashdot Mirror
You must think Linux users sit around fretting about conpatibity with other distro's
Are you *BSD users this clueless.
Slackware Linux as a system has been incredinly safe and stable (hasn't crashed on me yet!). None of the utter confusion (including fragmented kernels), which IS happening in *BSD.
My impression is that no-one (except developers) really cares about fragmentation all that much. Most programs written for unix are written well enougth that fragmentation isn't a problem. The interface does not seriously change from unix to unix.
I am a poor uni student, but 500 meg would cost me way more than just hiring the movie (or even buying it). Uni would probably kick me out if I did 500 meg of downloading. (Plus i have nowhere to store that much stuff at uni, 10 meg quotas don't cut it!)
Ok, I do some linux development, and have a reasonable idea why people don't port their code to windows:
1) Windows optimisation is a different beast to linux optimisation. It is very difficult to optimise a program for windows when it is currently optimised for linux/unix.
2) Doing windows portability can be very bad for your source code, making a mess of what was cleanish code. Even with portabilty layers, I doubt windows porting is easy and doesn't wreak the code.
3) Development tools under windows can cost a lot of money, money many people won't pay for "just a hobby" when linux development tools are freely accessable. However there is the GCC compiler for windows, which could solve this problem.
4) We just don't care enough about working with windows to overcome all the above points.
I don't hate windows or its users, but I still can't work enough enthusiasm over it to actually try to port my code to windows.
gcc-2.95 compiles ok on my machine ok. IT also seems to compile programs ok.
I am running slackware (4.0), libc 5.4.46, kenel 2.2.10 however YMMV.
Hope this helps
> you misspelled 'fortunately'. hope this helps.
So! People just don't get that spelling isn't really all that important, as long as it is readable. I don't have a spellchecker for posting, so there may be a few mistakes. Don't waste time pointing it out!! I want peoples opinions, not my spelling mistakes.
The probably wouldn't waste the time releasing drivers as binary.
:)
Fortunatly binary modules often break with new kernel releases making binary modules a royal pain for any company stupid enougth to use them. Thus they are likely to release it as source.
Then again, the only thing that can be expected form large companies are stupid decisions. Anything better is just a bonus
Makes you want to reconsider becoming an Admin. I help set up and admin linux boxes for a school and keep them running. Fortunatly the people I help arn't very demanding in terms of service (as long as it works during the day when they are there). Even so, I often spend long days there. Fortunatly, I can do most of my work on linux without distrupting users.
I feel for you
And I don't want to waste my CPU time checking other peoples work. My CPU time is worth more than that! :).
1) I AM A PROGRAMMER. There are a lot of us too :)
:)
2) Intels PDF does say 16 bit internal architechure and an 8 bit data bus, just like I said
Please read the "facts" and my post before claiming I look stupid.
If they use an ATI rage chip for graphics, then the Amiga WILL NOT very good! :( I have seen real amigas. The chipset they originally used rocked compared to anything else around.
If amiga is just going to mix a few hi-end components around into Yet another bloody computer, then they deserve to die, and die quickly!
> there was an 8 bit x86, it was called the 8088.
No, the 8088 was a 16 bit CPU, just like the 8086, with an 8bit data bas instead of a 16bit data bus!
Get you facts correct AC!
As for amiga, unless they can design a rocken chipset, i won't even consider it worthy of the name!
Well written X software is just as portable as most normal well written software.
About xFree86, i don't think it ports to solaris (unless it is solaris x86, which may work), but sparc computers use different hardware to the x86 computer, so this is a non-issue.
Most other X corsortium software should be a snap to port, and if you have a working up to date X-server, should work
> You forgot about the convenient PIII User ID embedded into every chip (so they can keep track of our Internet habits, software, etc.)
Bullshit!, CPU numbers arn't like user numbers. Why on earth would intel want to waste vast amounts of money doing this when they SELL MICROPROCESSORS.
There are much better ways to track users internet habits (read cookies).
As for tracking software, the CPU ID is useless because CPU's fail, get upgraded, get replaced, get stolen (well, not at their current prices).
RISC chips have for a long time has CPU ID's. You poeple hype up the RISC chips so much, yet bag the P-III when it includes the CPU ID. (Note, i am not baging RISC chips, they are much better than x86)
--- Proud owner of a Celeron 333 and a Cyrix 6x86-200 and a AMD 486-133 and a Intel 8088.
Unfortunatly, linux doesn't support async IO on files :(. It works fine for network sockets, but files, not yet. I hope someone fixes this soon
I disagree. They were testing complete solutions and comparing them, not specific components or Operating Systems or platforms. They were saying I have $15000 and what is the best system I can get?
The minimum requirements would be standard for anyone buying a system. IE you can get more filesystem/ memory if you give up monitor space ect. By specifying a minimum, you stop them scimping on some components in favor for others.
Of course, all benchmarks, comparisons, ect? are useless!
I do, when I have finished using (playing) with a program and its source, I do remove the source from my system. If you never use your system or don't clean up after yourself, than no, it wont be useful for you, but for me, anything to improve dismal unlink times is a godsend. BTW if anyone thinks ext2 is slow unlinking, try deltreeing a large directory without a disk cache loaded!
Also, some important programs need to do lots of unlinks occasionly. Take squid (web server cache) for example. So don't crap on about something you know nothing about.
Hopefully, unpacking tar files will be faster too, helping me when i download programs too.
> This is a terrible idea - LILO needs the kernel > image to be in the first 1024 cylinders due to
> BIOS limitations.
This is only for systems that don't support LBA operation or choose not to use it. It makes no difference if the hard drive is set up LBA
This is probably a trend for the future. I can imagine that most of the integer parrellelism has been extracted from x86 code. I can only imagine x86 integer parrellelism would increase only via better compilers and optimizers. However, it is hard to expect significantly better performance from any new integer core for x86 code. 9% on unoptimized code is good, and I can imagine that the difference will increase slightly as optimization also increases.
Expect future x86 chips to focus on high MHZ, wide buses, and floating point performance.
Oh, and stellar FP will make AMD big if they can pull it off. Look at intel and it's celeron line. The only reason the celeron and PII/PIII was big (last time I checked) was that it had a good FP unit (compared to the K6) and did well on 32bit code.
Who really cares, all OS's suck in their own little way. Linux sucks because it is still hard to use (same all unixes). Windows sucks because it crashes my computer. OS/2 sucks because there is nothing to run on it and getting software for it is hard. Same with BeOS. DOS sucks becuse it combines the difficulty of linux with the stupidity of windows.
:)
I defend my right to flame OS's and I don't care what others think of my flame! Thank you. Feel free to moderate me down
he says that unix is a 30 year old technology.
:)
ethernet is almost as old, isn't it?
Strikes as rather ironic
This article does a good job at saying nothing at all and abusing the standard I expect from internet article writing. This is just a whole lot of words thrown together that sound good but mean absolutely nothing. Gee, there isn't enough info here to clasify it as FUD even.
There is absolutely no information to justify what Bob is saying. Although I respect him, I can not take what is saying as true without a reason.
Gee, Bob, if ya want to kill linux, you must do better than that!
Not X itself, but i think KDE supports it using kaudioserver. However, I don't recommend running KDE in this situation because KDE likes to use LOTS of ram and it tends to cause X to bloat to obscene sizes.