I know what I'm talking about. Apparently you don't.
Instructions per clock cycle doesn't mean threads per clock cycle.
Nehalem can, as I understand it, execute up to five instructions from two threads per clock cycle on each core, if sufficient resources are available, based on Intel documentation and numerous articles on its architecture.
If you believe otherwise, perhaps you could provide some proof?
Hyperthreading is a way of trying to mitigate stalls. Nothing else.
Not true. So I don't understand why you've been modded 'insightful'.
I'd wager that in less than 8 years your statement of "If you want fast graphics then you buy a discrete graphics card." will sound just as outdated and clueless as "If you want to crunch numbers faster than you buy a dedicated math co-processor.".
Except there's an infinite capacity to use graphics power, so there's no way that in only eight years we will have reached an effective limit on processing power.
Logical cores are a marketing gimmick. Just like you. See what I did thar?
No they're not. They're particularly important on Atoms, which can't use out-of-order execution to hide pipeline delays and need something to fill up those clock cycles, and the Nehalem architecture has additional execution units to greatly increase the chance that it will be able to execute instructions from two threads in a single clock cycle.
This means AMD old genration processors are capable of the same performance as brand new Intel ones. I don't think this is called being left behind for AMD.
Being faster than a brand new Intel Atom isn't really a great selling point for a modern CPU.
Actually, AMD's has a great chance of beating Intel in the future. You fail to recognize that AMD has ATI now and they are going to be fusing CPU's and GPU's onto the same die in the future.
If you want fast graphics then you buy a discrete graphics card. If you're using integrated graphics you don't much care whether it's a crappy ATI chip or a crappy Intel chip because it won't run modern games at any reasonable speed either way.
But I'm having a hard time imagining an application that would break if the current directory were just removed from the search path. Shipping DLLs in the application directory is common practice, but expecting them in the current directory? Why would you do that?
I've used a number of programs which would fail to run if you didn't start them from their install directory; I don't know whether they're looking for DLLs or data files, but I can be pretty sure that at least some programmers have relied on this behaviour without even realising... 'yeah, but we always run from our install directory, right?'
The WebDAV issue is a much more severe problem, but it has been known and circulating for many month now and isn't a new problem, the hidden service (it doesn't show up in services.msc) can be disabled by setting a value in the registry.
Mmm, secret, hidden, insecure services which can only be disabled by magic registry settings.
It's so long since I've used Windows much that I'd completely forgotten what a security nightmare it was.
A list of what is allowed provides far better protection than an ever changing list of what is not allowed.
The problem is that vast numbers of Windows programs rely on being able to do things that shouldn't be allowed, and people only buy Windows because it will run all their old Windows programs. So Microsoft are screwed either way.
Maybe it could be done in 20 years when most people have replaced most software with new versions, or by virtualising all old applications, but it would not be an easy job.
I always thought that WinSxS was quite an elegant fix to a difficult problem.
Weird, I always thought it was a horrible kludge.
Put it this way, I still have nightmares about DLL Hell from the bad old days, but have yet to encounter a problem due to WinSxS.
Either you're lucky or I'm unlucky, because my old XP PC has a serious case of 'SxS Hell' that I've been totally unable to fix. It's a long time since I've booted it, but I remember spending hours poking around in the SxS directories trying to figure out what the hell Windows had screwed up there to prevent some applications from running. It also refuses to install the service pack for the.Net Framework, apparently for the same reason.
I'm so glad I run Linux for anything other than Windows-only games and video editing these days.
I don't see how you could argue that taking the money out in taxes but not putting it back into the system wouldn't have any kind of negative impact however.
What exactly do you think happens to that money when you use it to pay down the debt? It doesn't just vanish, it goes to the person who lent that money to the government, who then does something wtih it... and something that's likely to be far more useful than anything a government bureaucrat might decide to do with the same amount of money.
Why does 'news' take decades to catch up with things that SF writers and fans have been pointing out for decades?
That said, I'm far from convinced that AI will turn out to be as easy as some people expect it to be; it's been a couple of decades away for as long as I remember.
In the case of unrealIRCD not even the developers of the program knew that the version they were serving had been switched to a version with a trojan in it until months after they had been serving the files.
Yeah, one tar file on one server had been hacked. If your distro is downloading random unauthenticated tar files (no signature, not even a checksum) and shipping them out to end-users then you have much bigger problems than a random X-server exploit.
The part where an exploit that allows malicious programs to be run without the user's knowledge? Or did you think there were no such exploits?
So in order to exploit this exploit you need to make up another exploit which already allows them to do anything on my PC with my user privileges, which means that they've already installed a keylogger in Firefox and stolen my bank passwords and I no longer give a flying monkey turd about whether they've trashed my OS.
How far down this 'but what if there was another exploit too!' rabbit-hole do you intend to run?
I honestly don't see why you seem to think that the XOrg vulnerability has something to do with your software updater, rather than being one where any GUI app run by any user can run anything as root.
Sigh.
Which part of 'the only way the average Linux user is going to be running malicious software is if their distro ships it to them' is proving so hard for Windows users to understand?
Just because a patch was issued doesn't mean every single system was patched and that there won't be countless people still running a vulnerable version.
So now the disto just has to install a malicious trojan on their system and they're doomed. Because if the distro developers are malicious, that would be so much easier than just installing a trojan that runs as root.
I honestly don't see why people can't understand the huge difference between requiring malicious software to be installed on your PC by a software updater that _already runs as root and can change any file on the system_ and requiring you to open a malicious Word document.
Sure, maybe Joe Sixpack is dumb enough to install a random 'Naked Chicks Screensaver' that exploits a Linux bug, but the vast majority of people only install software from their Linux distro, which they have little choice but to trust.
Yeah, I'm far more worried about a _fixed_ exploit that requires I install a malicious GUI app than an active exploit that just requires I open a malicious Word document.
It's getting ridiculous when in addition to the Steam DRM, you are subjected to Securom (or worse) AND have to enter a CD key to use online AND have to sign up for a Live account.
Don't forget GTA4: Steam and Windows Live and Rockstar logins required just to play a single-player game.
I conclude therefore, that all American programmers are shitty, and I wouldn't buy a car if I knew that the programming has been done in the USA. Fair enough?
Don't worry, I wouldn't buy an American car either.
Slashdot Mirror
What are you talking about?
I know what I'm talking about. Apparently you don't.
Instructions per clock cycle doesn't mean threads per clock cycle.
Nehalem can, as I understand it, execute up to five instructions from two threads per clock cycle on each core, if sufficient resources are available, based on Intel documentation and numerous articles on its architecture.
If you believe otherwise, perhaps you could provide some proof?
Hyperthreading is a way of trying to mitigate stalls. Nothing else.
Not true. So I don't understand why you've been modded 'insightful'.
The future is untethered, which means low power battery operated systems. Your discrete graphics card will never be more than a niche market.
So no-one is going to play PC games anymore? I guess you could be right, but Microsoft better hope you're wrong.
I'd wager that in less than 8 years your statement of "If you want fast graphics then you buy a discrete graphics card." will sound just as outdated and clueless as "If you want to crunch numbers faster than you buy a dedicated math co-processor.".
Except there's an infinite capacity to use graphics power, so there's no way that in only eight years we will have reached an effective limit on processing power.
Logical cores are a marketing gimmick. Just like you. See what I did thar?
No they're not. They're particularly important on Atoms, which can't use out-of-order execution to hide pipeline delays and need something to fill up those clock cycles, and the Nehalem architecture has additional execution units to greatly increase the chance that it will be able to execute instructions from two threads in a single clock cycle.
A processor (or core) can only execute one instruction at a time, hyperthreading or not.
Uh, no. That hasn't been true for years.
Nehalem, I believe, can execute up to five instructions per clock per core; though you'll rarely be able to reach that limit.
This means AMD old genration processors are capable of the same performance as brand new Intel ones. I don't think this is called being left behind for AMD.
Being faster than a brand new Intel Atom isn't really a great selling point for a modern CPU.
Actually, AMD's has a great chance of beating Intel in the future. You fail to recognize that AMD has ATI now and they are going to be fusing CPU's and GPU's onto the same die in the future.
If you want fast graphics then you buy a discrete graphics card. If you're using integrated graphics you don't much care whether it's a crappy ATI chip or a crappy Intel chip because it won't run modern games at any reasonable speed either way.
But I'm having a hard time imagining an application that would break if the current directory were just removed from the search path. Shipping DLLs in the application directory is common practice, but expecting them in the current directory? Why would you do that?
I've used a number of programs which would fail to run if you didn't start them from their install directory; I don't know whether they're looking for DLLs or data files, but I can be pretty sure that at least some programmers have relied on this behaviour without even realising... 'yeah, but we always run from our install directory, right?'
The WebDAV issue is a much more severe problem, but it has been known and circulating for many month now and isn't a new problem, the hidden service (it doesn't show up in services.msc) can be disabled by setting a value in the registry.
Mmm, secret, hidden, insecure services which can only be disabled by magic registry settings.
It's so long since I've used Windows much that I'd completely forgotten what a security nightmare it was.
The exploit requires user action. So the exploit isnt going to be as bad as it could have been.
Until some virus starts writing compromised .DLL files to every network share in the company.
The problem is that vast numbers of Windows programs rely on being able to do things that shouldn't be allowed, and people only buy Windows because it will run all their old Windows programs. So Microsoft are screwed either way.
Maybe it could be done in 20 years when most people have replaced most software with new versions, or by virtualising all old applications, but it would not be an easy job.
I always thought that WinSxS was quite an elegant fix to a difficult problem.
Weird, I always thought it was a horrible kludge.
Put it this way, I still have nightmares about DLL Hell from the bad old days, but have yet to encounter a problem due to WinSxS.
Either you're lucky or I'm unlucky, because my old XP PC has a serious case of 'SxS Hell' that I've been totally unable to fix. It's a long time since I've booted it, but I remember spending hours poking around in the SxS directories trying to figure out what the hell Windows had screwed up there to prevent some applications from running. It also refuses to install the service pack for the .Net Framework, apparently for the same reason.
I'm so glad I run Linux for anything other than Windows-only games and video editing these days.
I don't see how you could argue that taking the money out in taxes but not putting it back into the system wouldn't have any kind of negative impact however.
What exactly do you think happens to that money when you use it to pay down the debt? It doesn't just vanish, it goes to the person who lent that money to the government, who then does something wtih it... and something that's likely to be far more useful than anything a government bureaucrat might decide to do with the same amount of money.
Why does 'news' take decades to catch up with things that SF writers and fans have been pointing out for decades?
That said, I'm far from convinced that AI will turn out to be as easy as some people expect it to be; it's been a couple of decades away for as long as I remember.
In the case of unrealIRCD not even the developers of the program knew that the version they were serving had been switched to a version with a trojan in it until months after they had been serving the files.
Yeah, one tar file on one server had been hacked. If your distro is downloading random unauthenticated tar files (no signature, not even a checksum) and shipping them out to end-users then you have much bigger problems than a random X-server exploit.
The part where an exploit that allows malicious programs to be run without the user's knowledge? Or did you think there were no such exploits?
So in order to exploit this exploit you need to make up another exploit which already allows them to do anything on my PC with my user privileges, which means that they've already installed a keylogger in Firefox and stolen my bank passwords and I no longer give a flying monkey turd about whether they've trashed my OS.
How far down this 'but what if there was another exploit too!' rabbit-hole do you intend to run?
If your distro is installing malicious software on your system, then you have much more to worry about than an X-server bug.
I honestly don't see why you seem to think that the XOrg vulnerability has something to do with your software updater, rather than being one where any GUI app run by any user can run anything as root.
Sigh.
Which part of 'the only way the average Linux user is going to be running malicious software is if their distro ships it to them' is proving so hard for Windows users to understand?
Just because a patch was issued doesn't mean every single system was patched and that there won't be countless people still running a vulnerable version.
So now the disto just has to install a malicious trojan on their system and they're doomed. Because if the distro developers are malicious, that would be so much easier than just installing a trojan that runs as root.
I honestly don't see why people can't understand the huge difference between requiring malicious software to be installed on your PC by a software updater that _already runs as root and can change any file on the system_ and requiring you to open a malicious Word document.
Sure, maybe Joe Sixpack is dumb enough to install a random 'Naked Chicks Screensaver' that exploits a Linux bug, but the vast majority of people only install software from their Linux distro, which they have little choice but to trust.
There's no detail here, not even cursory detail, on what filetypes or applications to avoid.
Presumably anything that runs on Windows would be a good first approximation.
Then worry about this:
Yeah, I'm far more worried about a _fixed_ exploit that requires I install a malicious GUI app than an active exploit that just requires I open a malicious Word document.
It's getting ridiculous when in addition to the Steam DRM, you are subjected to Securom (or worse) AND have to enter a CD key to use online AND have to sign up for a Live account.
Don't forget GTA4: Steam and Windows Live and Rockstar logins required just to play a single-player game.
I have 8 GB of ram on my machine and I'm continually amused to see every web browser I have used push >2GB memory usage after only a few days usage.
I don't know what you're doing, but Firefox has been running on my PC for several days and is using 260MB with 20-30 tabs open.
It's more like they've bought a legitimate copy of a Hollywood movie, duped it (so what?), and sold tickets to see it in their back yard.
Surely it's more like they watched a Hollywood movie, then charged people to watch them reenact it in their back yard with their mates?
I conclude therefore, that all American programmers are shitty, and I wouldn't buy a car if I knew that the programming has been done in the USA. Fair enough?
Don't worry, I wouldn't buy an American car either.