"getting all of these pixels" is going to take the same length of time, (The processor has to have the data locally to act on it - and there is still the same number of buses from RAM into the chip) it's just the arithmatic on the values that is done in parallel.
Also, IIRC, brightness is a scaling function... (But that's just me being picky)
...but the first Bond after Sean Connery was *older* than Sean Connery when Sean Connery finished being Bond... (e.g. Roger Moore is older than Sean Connery by a few months...)
Theres the fact its a nicer looking product but theres another set of "iPod killers" that I think miss the point entirely.
A lot of manufacturers seem to think that adding a screen and video playback somehow makes their product an "iPod killer". You generally only want video playback when you're moving but aren't controlling the movement, (e.g. trains, planes, passengers in a car...) anywhere else, you'd use a DVD player. Demonstrations, possibly, I suppose. DVD players are handier anyway - you'd have to get the video into the video ones anyway.
The iPods get used for things CD players used to get used for - but they're smaller, handier, lighter, hold more music, are easier to use, less likely to jump... People can use them at the gym, when out running or cycling.
Anyway, I suppose I'm the sort of person that likes a mobile phone to be a mobile phone and not a PDA, a games console and dozens of other things, so perhaps I'm missing the point.
(No, IBM doesn't count, they don't directly make much, if anything, from their FOSS efforts.)
Maybe not directly but they will make money from all the PowerPC licences...
A lot of embedded systems out there are using PowerPCs and running Linux. IMHO, helping Linux will indirectly help sales of PowerPCs.
Helping Linux also sell Apple a bit more, and they seem to use the odd PowerPC here and there, apparently. (Mac OS X not being too far divorced from Linux and now having a lot of code that can be ported reasonably easily - people like having options)
IBM isn't doing this for nothing. If they didn't perceive some benefit from doing it, they wouldn't do it. (Even if that benefit was just the press from doing it) As you say at the end, they'll also be saying "Show me the money"
Isn't this also what scripting languages such as Perl and even Bourne shell do? What about those scripts that have large lumps of binary on the end that gets processed by the small shell script at the beginning?
Borrowed from The online version of The C Book, second edition (Yeah, its a historical book but never mind) (You can tell how often I use exit and the return values from main... (Embedded systems, eh?))
Also, a quick look at part of the DJGPP FAQ should help.
Finally, the exit stuff from the same source, suggests EXIT_SUCCESS and EXIT_FAILURE for portability (Non POSIX systems, for example) and that some systems will truncate the return value to 8 bits (0 to 255) for example.
exit and return should really do the same thing when they're in main (Assuming they're not within a locally declared function!) but compilers have bugs just like other software.
The reason UNIX software returns a pass or a fail is more to fit in with other systems, I think. You could sit and define errors all day and some systems would still define all errors as 1 and all non-errors as 0. Besides, where do you stop with the errors? And then you have to convince the people writing the software to adopt them. Sometimes its hard enough to get them to give a pass or a fail...
I don't particularly think that its an unfair or unbalanced article. Its just reporting what Kenneth Brown has said. The headline is "Accusatory Stufy" afterall.
I'd reread the last paragraph, which in particular points out that NT owes a lot to VMS and that the AdTI accepts money from Microsoft (As well as anybody else) but won't reveal how much.
Theres nothing in there that says that they're accusing Linus of anything and they do have quotes from people who disagree with it.
Since you should be bounds checking every array ANYWAY, I don't see where that hit matters.
Because you don't always need to bounds check? If you've got a circular buffer, for example, you only really have to bounds check it on the update to the index. (Or pointer if you're being perverse...)
Well, given that the most prolific embedded families is probably still the 8 bit 8051... (Still don't know why. They use bank switching to get around their 64k code limit. They're not the nicest of architecture (Well, for C anyway - PL/M-51 they're fine for) but I suppose they should be stable as a rock) The standard entry level AVRs and PICs also tend to be 8 bits. (Not sure about the AVRMegas...)
In my life as a software engineer, I've worked with 2 8051 derived chips, 1 ST9 derived chip, (16 bit) an AVR, (Specifically 8 bit) another device that could have been anything, (It was running a VM) and a couple of H8S devices. (16 bits)
Admittedly, the majority of this is 16 bit devices. (Current job has all been H8S based)
The company I currently work for makes a CD player which was initially launched in 1998.
I'd say it was a limited resources computing device, it has a microcontroller. The drawer acts as the only button on the front of the device.
When its playing, a press of the drawer makes it skip. A longer press makes it eject. I'd say thats 2 different "applications" depending on the length of the keypress...
Forgive mine too - the microcode on the later Pentiums can be updated (Which'll get done at startup by BIOS or Windows/Linux sometime if its needed) at startup.
The nastiest use of this would be to somehow change the microcode to add instructions to work around ring 0 (It is ring 0? Kernel level?) and gain full access to all the hardware and memory and use this to bypass any security in the OS...
It looks to me (Not being an expert in these things) that the compiler generates code and something similar to microcode which allows optimisation at 2 levels. (It could add one instruction to do a multiply by a fixed number if this is used often enough in the code)
Hang on, doesn't Microsofts own literature scream "We're a monopoly, if you don't use *our* software you won't be able to read any word processor files"?
Hmmm... Looks like a troll, smells like a troll...
Linux BIOS is there only to boot the main system. Its not the actual system that then runs. Its capable of setting up all the hardware on the motherboard and understanding partitions and all the other stuff required. It then loads in the bootloader and executes it with all the hardware set up.
Where it differs from current BIOS's is that they take ages to do the same thing. Although they are far easier to configure. (You get a menu rather than having to recompile and reflash)
(a) effective technological measures have been applied to a copyright work other than a computer program; and
(b) a person (B) does anything which circumvents those measures knowing, or with reasonable grounds to know, that he is pursuing that objective.
It appears that anybody creating anything that plays CDs is not allowed fix them for duff copy protection schemes - if they do this, they are knowingly circumventing a copy protection scheme. Admittedly, they're doing it to play the CD, but it doesn't say anything about circumventing it to play it or copy it...
Slashdot Mirror
Also, IIRC, brightness is a scaling function... (But that's just me being picky)
So, does are you saying that the telephone was discovered or that America was invented...?
...but the first Bond after Sean Connery was *older* than Sean Connery when Sean Connery finished being Bond... (e.g. Roger Moore is older than Sean Connery by a few months...)
The iPods get used for things CD players used to get used for - but they're smaller, handier, lighter, hold more music, are easier to use, less likely to jump... People can use them at the gym, when out running or cycling.
Anyway, I suppose I'm the sort of person that likes a mobile phone to be a mobile phone and not a PDA, a games console and dozens of other things, so perhaps I'm missing the point.
A lot of embedded systems out there are using PowerPCs and running Linux. IMHO, helping Linux will indirectly help sales of PowerPCs.
Helping Linux also sell Apple a bit more, and they seem to use the odd PowerPC here and there, apparently. (Mac OS X not being too far divorced from Linux and now having a lot of code that can be ported reasonably easily - people like having options)
IBM isn't doing this for nothing. If they didn't perceive some benefit from doing it, they wouldn't do it. (Even if that benefit was just the press from doing it) As you say at the end, they'll also be saying "Show me the money"
But *does* it try and suggest the optional Adware/Spyware is supposed to remove Adware/Spyware?
I'd say its fraud, myself. Claiming that theres something there that isn't and then selling something that doesn't do what its supposed to.
Or am I being plain nuts here?
e.g.:
Borrowed from The online version of The C Book, second edition (Yeah, its a historical book but never mind) (You can tell how often I use exit and the return values from main... (Embedded systems, eh?))Also, a quick look at part of the DJGPP FAQ should help.
Finally, the exit stuff from the same source, suggests EXIT_SUCCESS and EXIT_FAILURE for portability (Non POSIX systems, for example) and that some systems will truncate the return value to 8 bits (0 to 255) for example.
exit and return should really do the same thing when they're in main (Assuming they're not within a locally declared function!) but compilers have bugs just like other software.
The reason UNIX software returns a pass or a fail is more to fit in with other systems, I think. You could sit and define errors all day and some systems would still define all errors as 1 and all non-errors as 0. Besides, where do you stop with the errors? And then you have to convince the people writing the software to adopt them. Sometimes its hard enough to get them to give a pass or a fail...
Anyway, I suppose this is a little offtopic.
They use RF to power the device up and then communicate with it. Been about since I've been at university and I've had about 5 1/2 years worth of job.
So, by *this* argument, all the webservers out there that don't have X on them at all, aren't Unix/Linux? Do me a lemon...
Then again, I suppose there was a fractal generating postscript file that I saw a while back that recursed forever...
I'd reread the last paragraph, which in particular points out that NT owes a lot to VMS and that the AdTI accepts money from Microsoft (As well as anybody else) but won't reveal how much.
Theres nothing in there that says that they're accusing Linus of anything and they do have quotes from people who disagree with it.
Because you don't always need to bounds check? If you've got a circular buffer, for example, you only really have to bounds check it on the update to the index. (Or pointer if you're being perverse...)
Well, given that the most prolific embedded families is probably still the 8 bit 8051... (Still don't know why. They use bank switching to get around their 64k code limit. They're not the nicest of architecture (Well, for C anyway - PL/M-51 they're fine for) but I suppose they should be stable as a rock) The standard entry level AVRs and PICs also tend to be 8 bits. (Not sure about the AVRMegas...)
In my life as a software engineer, I've worked with 2 8051 derived chips, 1 ST9 derived chip, (16 bit) an AVR, (Specifically 8 bit) another device that could have been anything, (It was running a VM) and a couple of H8S devices. (16 bits)
Admittedly, the majority of this is 16 bit devices. (Current job has all been H8S based)
A lot of USB based devices use an embedded 8051.
Anyway, I suppose this is off topic.
Theres usually BIOS settings for waking it up from keyboard.
I'd say it was a limited resources computing device, it has a microcontroller. The drawer acts as the only button on the front of the device.
When its playing, a press of the drawer makes it skip. A longer press makes it eject. I'd say thats 2 different "applications" depending on the length of the keypress...
The nastiest use of this would be to somehow change the microcode to add instructions to work around ring 0 (It is ring 0? Kernel level?) and gain full access to all the hardware and memory and use this to bypass any security in the OS...
It looks to me (Not being an expert in these things) that the compiler generates code and something similar to microcode which allows optimisation at 2 levels. (It could add one instruction to do a multiply by a fixed number if this is used often enough in the code)
Just thinking about the way it goes on about migration and how that would be a problem for OOo but not MS Word...
Hang on, doesn't Microsofts own literature scream "We're a monopoly, if you don't use *our* software you won't be able to read any word processor files"?
Linux BIOS is there only to boot the main system. Its not the actual system that then runs. Its capable of setting up all the hardware on the motherboard and understanding partitions and all the other stuff required. It then loads in the bootloader and executes it with all the hardware set up.
Where it differs from current BIOS's is that they take ages to do the same thing. Although they are far easier to configure. (You get a menu rather than having to recompile and reflash)
I certainly very much doubt they're going to start rewriting kernels and device drivers in C# just yet...
Where do DVDs stand at this point?