I mean, for fuck's sake! We're not mystical creatures! What possible value does this article have? My job as a scientist has nothing to do with my love-life. That I am a human does.
call it 'fizzy pop' but yeah, 'fizzy drink' is better for me.
In my youth it was always 'fizzy drink', although 'fizzy pop' was heard occasionally. So long as it had 'fizzy' in it. 'Carbonated non-alcoholic beverage' is a bit much.
I'm going to check this thread for the word 'candy'.
Let me guess, it'll get caught in the ring-buffer.
Re:So when do we get its successor?
on
X Power Tools
·
· Score: 1
Windows XP has the GDI and Window Manager in the Executive. A lot would probably argue that this, and the most computationally intensive parts of the drivers should be in user-space, leaving the kernel to handle the protection of the low-level hardware interfaces.
Re:So when do we get its successor?
on
X Power Tools
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
When XP was first released its windowing system actually felt more responsive than X11 did on the hardware from that time.
This is what you get when most of your windowing system is run in the kernel: the low-level drawing and management routines are just a syscall away. Plus I believe the Windows window system is multithreaded (or, at least, much of the stuff runs in the applications' threads when they make windowing calls). X.org, on the other hand, is single-threaded and runs as a user-space process, so there's also context switching overhead. [All that "Ha-ha, NT runs its video drivers in the kernel" stuff is misleading; the criticism wasn't that the hardware support was in the kernel, which is where it should be, it was that a load of management stuff was there too.]
Personally I'd like to see a lot change in the structure of X11. I'm not fond of the way the 2D stuff appears to work by acquiring privileged maps to areas of physical memory, effectively subverting the kernel. I'd much rather it were all built using DRI. In-kernel modules would be responsible for mediating access to hardware registers. The heavy lifting and config part of the drivers should be done in user-space (much like MesaGL) with a minimal multi-threaded graphics server. X11 would be run as an application on top of this to provide network/legacy support, etc.
But then again I'm not an X.org developer and they probably know better.
It is weapons training day at military camp. The instructor is running through some of the kit trainees will be using. "OK, moving on. The next weapon I am showing you here can be used to devastating effect --- in the correct hands and under the right circumstances. We call it vmsplice_to_user()..."
Slashdot Mirror
And some of us would rather our torches didn't explode.
"Thank-you, NASA!"
Yep. The latest grub is 0.97.
Or are you talking about the space-munching change of layout?
I can hear someone learning to play the violin. Poik! Oh dear, sounds like they broke another string.
It's twenty-oh-fucking-eight, and still we have these silly people getting wound up about, of all things, a bunch of fairy tales.
Prats.
...takes a very long time on the product of two large prime codes.
I mean, for fuck's sake! We're not mystical creatures! What possible value does this article have? My job as a scientist has nothing to do with my love-life. That I am a human does.
Over-complicated fuckers.
People not getting to bed early enough; film at 11.
Whoa, one thing at a time — let's see off BSD first, OK?
"Lego" is a collective noun.
Yes, we are --- thanks for the reminder!
In my youth it was always 'fizzy drink', although 'fizzy pop' was heard occasionally. So long as it had 'fizzy' in it. 'Carbonated non-alcoholic beverage' is a bit much.
I'm going to check this thread for the word 'candy'.
"It's 'soda', not 'pop'."
"It's 'coke', not 'pop'."
"It's 'pop', not 'soda' or 'coke'."
Fuck you lot, it's 'fizzy drink' and you know it.
Hmm, yes... just like 802.3...
Let me guess, it'll get caught in the ring-buffer.
Windows XP has the GDI and Window Manager in the Executive. A lot would probably argue that this, and the most computationally intensive parts of the drivers should be in user-space, leaving the kernel to handle the protection of the low-level hardware interfaces.
This is what you get when most of your windowing system is run in the kernel: the low-level drawing and management routines are just a syscall away. Plus I believe the Windows window system is multithreaded (or, at least, much of the stuff runs in the applications' threads when they make windowing calls). X.org, on the other hand, is single-threaded and runs as a user-space process, so there's also context switching overhead. [All that "Ha-ha, NT runs its video drivers in the kernel" stuff is misleading; the criticism wasn't that the hardware support was in the kernel, which is where it should be, it was that a load of management stuff was there too.]
Personally I'd like to see a lot change in the structure of X11. I'm not fond of the way the 2D stuff appears to work by acquiring privileged maps to areas of physical memory, effectively subverting the kernel. I'd much rather it were all built using DRI. In-kernel modules would be responsible for mediating access to hardware registers. The heavy lifting and config part of the drivers should be done in user-space (much like MesaGL) with a minimal multi-threaded graphics server. X11 would be run as an application on top of this to provide network/legacy support, etc. But then again I'm not an X.org developer and they probably know better.
and watch him panic();
It is weapons training day at military camp. The instructor is running through some of the kit trainees will be using. "OK, moving on. The next weapon I am showing you here can be used to devastating effect --- in the correct hands and under the right circumstances. We call it vmsplice_to_user()..."