The Sweden Solar System is the world's largest model of our planetary system, at a scale of 1:20 million. The Sun is represented by the Globe arena in Stockholm, the largest spherical building in the world. The planets are placed and sized according to scale with the inner planets being in Stockholm and Jupiter (diameter 7.3 m) at the International airport Arlanda. The outer planets follow in the same direction with Saturn in Uppsala and Pluto in Delsbo, 300 km from the Globe. At each planet station, exhibits provide information about astronomy and the natural sciences, and also about related mythology and culture.
With an unhealthy risk of being seriously flamed...;)
Microsoft tries to keep 100% back compatibility; well, for what whatever that is worth to end users. Yet, it does indeed remain their major constraint on improvement. Please, flamers, note that I wrote "tries to keep".
date event comment 20031217 2.6 test iso In order to widen 2.6 test, create a one or two CD set with kernel 2.6 20031231 Cooker snapshot 2 CDs with kernel 2.6.0 final as default, XFree86 4.4 pre, KDE 3.1.94, kolab-server 20040122 10.0 beta 1 kernel 2.6.1, kernel 2.4.25 pre6, 3 CDs, pb with i8XX, kde 3.1.95, mozilla 1.6 20040202 10.0 beta 2 kernel 2.6.2 rc3, kernel 2.4.25 pre7, 3 CDs 20040202 Packages version freeze Only bug fixing, no new versions 20040216 10.0 rc1 3 CDs, revert to XFree86 4.3 20040304 10.0 Community Download edition (4 CDs) to all club members Powerpack edition (5 CDs) to silver and above club members 20040312 10.0 Download 3 first CDs of download edition released to everyone 20040328 10.0 Official
There is a technical issue here, which may have been overlooked. What about run-time performance?! Hasn't ESR followed the decade-long OO discussion on Java vs C++? Or, is he stuck in the mantra?;)
The SEC will be *VERY* interested in this. The SCO debacle is a big story, but SCO may simply be a pawn in a bigger scandal. The big story is about market manipulation and insider trading. It isn't just about pump and dump. It is about buy, then pump, then short, then dump, then cover using the money of Royce clients and some assistance from the Royal Bank of Canada. SCOX investors are being played for fools.
Here we go...
Jonathan Cohen is the CEO of JHC Capital and is an investment advisor to Royce & Associates. Cohen is the fund manager for the Royce Technology Value fund. www.roycefunds.com/funds/technologyValue.ht ml Under Cohen's direction, this fund has acquired 430,000 shares of SCOX. www.roycefunds.com/funds/holdings_rtv.html He is also the CEO and Director of Technology Investment Capital Corporation (TICC) and owns 139,100 shares: www.ticc.com/management.html#cohen www.s ec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1259429/0000947871 03002580/xslF345X02/form3_112603cohenex.xml
Charles M. Royce is President, Chief Investment Officer of Royce & Associates. www.roycefunds.com/about/inside_royce .html The Royce Low-Priced Stock Fund owns 943,600 shares of SCOX: www.roycefunds.com/funds/holdings_rlp.html However, Charles Royce is also a Director of TICC and personally owns 69,500 shares of TICC. www.ticc.com/management.html#royce www.sec .gov/Archives/edgar/data/1259429/0000947871 03002585/xslF345X02/form3_112603royceex.xml
Royce & Associates owns a total of 1.4M shares of SCOX.
Cohen went on a whirlwind publicity tour the second half of last year to pump SCO for the Royce Technology Value fund that he manages for Royce & Associates. www.threenorth.com/sco/cohen.html At the same time Cohen stopped talking about SCOX and Deutsche Bank takes over the PR duties, initiating coverage with highly suspect rationale and rating: siliconvalley.internet.com/news/article.p hp/309220 1
RBC Dain Rauscher is the U.S. wealth management subsidiary of Royal Bank of Canada. www.rbcdain.com RBC Dain Rauscher Inc. was an underwriter for the IPO of Technology Investment Capital Corporation (TICC), underwriting an initial share allotment of 1,304,348 shares of TICC. www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1259429/000 0950136 03002896/file001.txt
Of course RBC initiates coverage of TICC with an "Outperform" rating. 10:22am 01/15/04 Tech Investment Capital started at 'outperform' by RBC - CBS MarketWatch.com
RBC also participated in the private placement for SCOX, accounting for 2.3M of the Series A shares. www.globetechnology.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.200312 09.gtscodec9/BNStory/Technology/ "An RBC spokesman was reluctant to comment, saying the SEC filing was about how SCO operates its business. He said that RBC's "investment in SCO is passive, made to hedge an economic exposure resulting from client transactions."
As part of my study of Operating Systems and embedded systems, one of the things I've been looking at is compilers. I'm interested in analyzing how different compilers optimize code for different platforms. As part of this comparison, I was looking at the Intel Compiler and how it optimizes code. The Intel Compilers have a free evaluation download from here: http://www.intel.com/products/software/inde x.htm?i id=Corporate+Header_prod_softwr&#compilers
One of the things that the version 8.0 of the Intel compiler included was an "Intel-specific" flag. According to the documentation, binaries compiled with this flag would only run on Intel processors and would include Intel-specific optimizations to make them run faster. The documentation was unfortunately lacking in explaining what these optimizations were, so I decided to do some investigating.
First I wanted to pick a primarily CPU-bound test to run, so I chose SPEC CPU2000. The test system was a P4 3.2G Extreme Edition with 1 gig of ram running WIndows XP Pro. First I compiled and ran spec with the "generic x86 flag" (-QxW), which compiles code to run on any x86 processor. After running the generic version, I recompiled and ran spec with the "Intel-specific flag" (-QxN) to see what kind of difference that would make. For most benchmarks, there was not very much change, but for 181.mcf, there was a win of almost 22% !
Curious as to what sort of optimizations the compiler was doing to allow the Intel-specific version to run 22% faster, I tried running the same binary on my friend's computer. His computer, the second test machine, was an AMD FX51, also with 1 gig of ram, running Windows XP Pro. First I ran the "generic x86" binaries on the FX51, and then tried to run the "Intel-only" binaries. The Intel-specific ones printed out an error message saying that the processor was not supported and exited. This wasn't very helpful, was it true that only Intel processors could take advantage of this performance boost?
I started mucking around with a dissassembly of the Intel-specific binary and found one particular call (proc_init_N) that appeared to be performing this check. As far as I can tell, this call is supposed to verify that the CPU supports SSE and SSE2 and it checks the CPUID to ensure that its an Intel processor. I wrote a quick utility which I call iccOut, to go through a binary that has been compiled with this Intel-only flag and remove that check.
Once I ran the binary that was compiled with the Intel-specific flag (-QxN) through iccOut, it was able to run on the FX51. Much to my surprise, it ran fine and did not miscompare. On top of that, it got the same 22% performance boost that I saw on the Pentium4 with an actual Intel processor. This is very interesting to me, since it appears that in fact no Intel-specific optimization has been done if the AMD processor is also capable to taking advantage of these same optimizations. If I'm missing something, I'd love for someone to point it out for me. From the way it looks right now, it appears that Intel is simply "cheating" to make their processors look better against competitor's processors.
Links: Intel Compiler:http://www.intel.com/products/software/in dex.htm?iid=Corporate+Header_prod_softwr&#compiler s
Here is the text:/*
* iccOut 1.0
*
* This program enables programs compiled with the intel compiler using the
* -xN flag to run on non-intel processors. This can sometimes result in
* large performance increases, depending on the application. Note that even
* though the check will be removed, the CPU runni
When we put source code into the Open Source community, the code we are putting in there, we have clearly patent clearence for in the sense we know what we put out in the Open Source community so we don't claim own patents on anyway. Our patents clearence process makes sure we are not infringing the patents of anybody else. We are doing it with our proprietary code, so we are fine.
What is wrong about this distribution, is basically the millions of lines of code that we never have seen. We don't know if there are any patent infringments [in this code] with somebody we don't know. We don't want to take the risk of being sued for a patent infringement. That is why we don't do distributions, and that's why we have distributors. Because distributors are not so much exposed [to being sued] as we are. So that's the basic deal as I understand it.
CGN: S.T.A.L.K.E.R. has been getting a lot of buzz due to its excellent graphics. What should users with lower-end computers expect from the play of this game? What are the system requirements?
Oleg: Here are the specs for comfortable gaming: P IV-1.4 Ghz / Athlon, 256 Mb RAM, GeForce 4 (or any other card of the same level). The PC hardware market dictates its rules and sets new limits for the games - the slower your computer and the older you video card is, the less details and effects you get. The better processor and video card, the better graphics you experience.. GeForce 2, GeForce 3, GeForce 4, GeForce FX cards and their counterparts have differences both in architecture and abilities so if your video card is more up-to-date you get more effects. For example, pixel and vertex shader effects (nice water surface, etc.) can be seen on GeForce 3 and higher cards. On the other hand, GeForce 2 will show an animated texture. GeForce FX will provide dynamic light sources and soft dynamic shadows cast from anything onto anything and bump-mapping on all surfaces which at least exceeds the Doom 3 technology.
Possibly, with GPL, India may be turning the braindrain the other way round. You often need somewhat mature code to play with in the beginning of your career, and, after all, there are hundreds of sourceforge/freshmeat projects which need to be better maintained.
Trolltech(r), a leader in single source, multiplatform software development tools, today announced that Adobe System's innovative new product, Adobe(r) Photoshop(r) Album, was developed using Trolltech's flagship product, Qt(r), a multiplatform C++ development framework.
"Trolltech has provided us with an intuitive, powerful tool. Qt simplified our task of developing Photoshop Album by providing high-level tools that we could customize to meet our needs," said Mike DePaoli, Photoshop Album Engineering Manager. "The product is excellent, the support was outstanding and we are extremely pleased with our decision to go with Qt."
Slashdot Mirror
"a clone of Jay Maynard's cool TRON costume"?
Please, do something even more cool - a Jayne Mansfield dress!
you're a looser ;)
Oh, baby? I would have said foetal.
The Sweden Solar System is the world's largest model of our planetary system, at a scale of 1:20 million. The Sun is represented by the Globe arena in Stockholm, the largest spherical building in the world. The planets are placed and sized according to scale with the inner planets being in Stockholm and Jupiter (diameter 7.3 m) at the International airport Arlanda. The outer planets follow in the same direction with Saturn in Uppsala and Pluto in Delsbo, 300 km from the Globe. At each planet station, exhibits provide information about astronomy and the natural sciences, and also about related mythology and culture.
With an unhealthy risk of being seriously flamed... ;)
Microsoft tries to keep 100% back compatibility; well, for what whatever that is worth to end users. Yet, it does indeed remain their major constraint on improvement. Please, flamers, note that I wrote "tries to keep".
Yes it does!
PIII-700 with a TNT2 M64
Low-end...
I may have 15-20 fps but runs with a fair amount of visual goodies anyhow!
Amazing, considering the age of the card.
date event comment
20031217 2.6 test iso In order to widen 2.6 test, create a one or two CD set with kernel 2.6
20031231 Cooker snapshot 2 CDs with kernel 2.6.0 final as default, XFree86 4.4 pre, KDE 3.1.94, kolab-server
20040122 10.0 beta 1 kernel 2.6.1, kernel 2.4.25 pre6, 3 CDs, pb with i8XX, kde 3.1.95, mozilla 1.6
20040202 10.0 beta 2 kernel 2.6.2 rc3, kernel 2.4.25 pre7, 3 CDs
20040202 Packages version freeze Only bug fixing, no new versions
20040216 10.0 rc1 3 CDs, revert to XFree86 4.3
20040304 10.0 Community Download edition (4 CDs) to all club members
Powerpack edition (5 CDs) to silver and above club members
20040312 10.0 Download 3 first CDs of download edition released to everyone
20040328 10.0 Official
Did you write that [very amusing] text in just four minutes, as suggested by the time diff versus your "parent"?!
H0W l33t!
But, what will happen if the corporation's lawyers will respond: "Hey, we downloaded it from the net, for free".
Will that make a difference here?
KDevelop supports Subversion natively along with CVS, Perforce, and ClearCase.
What's next? The current GPL, version 2, will not be GPL version 3 compliant?
There is a technical issue here, which may have been overlooked. What about run-time performance?! Hasn't ESR followed the decade-long OO discussion on Java vs C++? Or, is he stuck in the mantra? ;)
While Microsoft's code is as taboo for open source projects as is any other code, that code has a 700 pound gorilla behind it.
Apparently, some guy posting at Yahoo Finance has done some digging:
t ml s ec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1259429/0000947871 03002580/xslF345X02/form3_112603cohenex.xml
e .html c .gov/Archives/edgar/data/1259429/0000947871 03002585/xslF345X02/form3_112603royceex.xml
t the same time Cohen stopped talking about SCOX and Deutsche Bank takes over the PR duties, initiating coverage with highly suspect rationale and rating:p hp/309220 1
0 0950136 03002896/file001.txt
2 09.gtscodec9/BNStory/Technology/
The SEC will be *VERY* interested in this. The SCO debacle is a big story, but SCO may simply be a pawn in a bigger scandal. The big story is about market manipulation and insider trading. It isn't just about pump and dump. It is about buy, then pump, then short, then dump, then cover using the money of Royce clients and some assistance from the Royal Bank of Canada. SCOX investors are being played for fools.
Here we go...
Jonathan Cohen is the CEO of JHC Capital and is an investment advisor to Royce & Associates. Cohen is the fund manager for the Royce Technology Value fund.
www.roycefunds.com/funds/technologyValue.h
Under Cohen's direction, this fund has acquired 430,000 shares of SCOX.
www.roycefunds.com/funds/holdings_rtv.html
He is also the CEO and Director of Technology Investment Capital Corporation (TICC) and owns 139,100 shares:
www.ticc.com/management.html#cohen
www.
Charles M. Royce is President, Chief Investment Officer of Royce & Associates.
www.roycefunds.com/about/inside_royc
The Royce Low-Priced Stock Fund owns 943,600 shares of SCOX:
www.roycefunds.com/funds/holdings_rlp.html
However, Charles Royce is also a Director of TICC and personally owns 69,500 shares of TICC.
www.ticc.com/management.html#royce
www.se
Royce & Associates owns a total of 1.4M shares of SCOX.
Cohen went on a whirlwind publicity tour the second half of last year to pump SCO for the Royce Technology Value fund that he manages for Royce & Associates.
www.threenorth.com/sco/cohen.html
A
siliconvalley.internet.com/news/article.
RBC Dain Rauscher is the U.S. wealth management subsidiary of Royal Bank of Canada.
www.rbcdain.com
RBC Dain Rauscher Inc. was an underwriter for the IPO of Technology Investment Capital Corporation (TICC), underwriting an initial share allotment of 1,304,348 shares of TICC.
www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1259429/00
Of course RBC initiates coverage of TICC with an "Outperform" rating.
10:22am 01/15/04 Tech Investment Capital started at 'outperform' by RBC - CBS MarketWatch.com
RBC also participated in the private placement for SCOX, accounting for 2.3M of the Series A shares. www.globetechnology.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20031
"An RBC spokesman was reluctant to comment, saying the SEC filing was about how SCO operates its business. He said that RBC's "investment in SCO is passive, made to hedge an economic exposure resulting from client transactions."
I found the following little study here. Read on:
/*
As part of my study of Operating Systems and embedded systems, one of
the things I've been looking at is compilers. I'm interested in
analyzing how different compilers optimize code for different
platforms. As part of this comparison, I was looking at the Intel
Compiler and how it optimizes code. The Intel Compilers have a free
evaluation download from here:
http://www.intel.com/products/software/inde x.htm?i id=Corporate+Header_prod_softwr&#compilers
One of the things that the version 8.0 of the Intel compiler included
was an "Intel-specific" flag. According to the documentation, binaries
compiled with this flag would only run on Intel processors and would
include Intel-specific optimizations to make them run faster. The
documentation was unfortunately lacking in explaining what these
optimizations were, so I decided to do some investigating.
First I wanted to pick a primarily CPU-bound test to run, so I chose
SPEC CPU2000. The test system was a P4 3.2G Extreme Edition with 1 gig
of ram running WIndows XP Pro. First I compiled and ran spec with the
"generic x86 flag" (-QxW), which compiles code to run on any x86
processor. After running the generic version, I recompiled and ran
spec with the "Intel-specific flag" (-QxN) to see what kind of
difference that would make. For most benchmarks, there was not very
much change, but for 181.mcf, there was a win of almost 22% !
Curious as to what sort of optimizations the compiler was doing to
allow the Intel-specific version to run 22% faster, I tried running
the same binary on my friend's computer. His computer, the second test
machine, was an AMD FX51, also with 1 gig of ram, running Windows XP
Pro. First I ran the "generic x86" binaries on the FX51, and then
tried to run the "Intel-only" binaries. The Intel-specific ones
printed out an error message saying that the processor was not
supported and exited. This wasn't very helpful, was it true that only
Intel processors could take advantage of this performance boost?
I started mucking around with a dissassembly of the Intel-specific
binary and found one particular call (proc_init_N) that appeared to be
performing this check. As far as I can tell, this call is supposed to
verify that the CPU supports SSE and SSE2 and it checks the CPUID to
ensure that its an Intel processor. I wrote a quick utility which I
call iccOut, to go through a binary that has been compiled with this
Intel-only flag and remove that check.
Once I ran the binary that was compiled with the Intel-specific flag
(-QxN) through iccOut, it was able to run on the FX51. Much to my
surprise, it ran fine and did not miscompare. On top of that, it got
the same 22% performance boost that I saw on the Pentium4 with an
actual Intel processor. This is very interesting to me, since it
appears that in fact no Intel-specific optimization has been done if
the AMD processor is also capable to taking advantage of these same
optimizations. If I'm missing something, I'd love for someone to point
it out for me. From the way it looks right now, it appears that Intel
is simply "cheating" to make their processors look better against
competitor's processors.
Links:
Intel Compiler:http://www.intel.com/products/software/in dex.htm?iid=Corporate+Header_prod_softwr&#compiler s
Here is the text:
* iccOut 1.0
*
* This program enables programs compiled with the intel compiler
using the
* -xN flag to run on non-intel processors. This can sometimes result
in
* large performance increases, depending on the application. Note
that even
* though the check will be removed, the CPU runni
Yes, I know, this might be considered offtopic, but...
:)
If we get KDE and Gnome work together, then we might also, eventually get an installer too!!!
PLEASE!!!
Let KDE 4.0 and Gnome 3.0 be the same!!!
When we put source code into the Open Source community, the code we are putting in there, we have clearly patent clearence for in the sense we know what we put out in the Open Source community so we don't claim own patents on anyway. Our patents clearence process makes sure we are not infringing the patents of anybody else. We are doing it with our proprietary code, so we are fine.
What is wrong about this distribution, is basically the millions of lines of code that we never have seen. We don't know if there are any patent infringments [in this code] with somebody we don't know. We don't want to take the risk of being sued for a patent infringement. That is why we don't do distributions, and that's why we have distributors. Because distributors are not so much exposed [to being sued] as we are. So that's the basic deal as I understand it.
Karl-Heinz Strassemeyer, IBM
Excerpt from an interview by SSLUG, Denmark
Nope I was about to post the same message, when I saw yours. :)
Also - here is a brick. What did the house look like?
Internet, Linux, Groklaw!
Ant people!
A friend of mine sent me this snippet today:
CGN: S.T.A.L.K.E.R. has been getting a lot of buzz due to its excellent graphics. What should users with lower-end computers expect from the play of this game? What are the system requirements?
Oleg: Here are the specs for comfortable gaming: P IV-1.4 Ghz / Athlon, 256 Mb RAM, GeForce 4 (or any other card of the same level). The PC hardware market dictates its rules and sets new limits for the games - the slower your computer and the older you video card is, the less details and effects you get. The better processor and video card, the better graphics you experience.. GeForce 2, GeForce 3, GeForce 4, GeForce FX cards and their counterparts have differences both in architecture and abilities so if your video card is more up-to-date you get more effects. For example, pixel and vertex shader effects (nice water surface, etc.) can be seen on GeForce 3 and higher cards. On the other hand, GeForce 2 will show an animated texture. GeForce FX will provide dynamic light sources and soft dynamic shadows cast from anything onto anything and bump-mapping on all surfaces which at least exceeds the Doom 3 technology.
That sounds scarier than Doom 3 itself.
Possibly, with GPL, India may be turning the braindrain the other way round. You often need somewhat mature code to play with in the beginning of your career, and, after all, there are hundreds of sourceforge/freshmeat projects which need to be better maintained.
Unpentium? So, so, like this?
"But if you want to see Adobe Photoshop on Linux, expect your stupid QT license issues to matter, because Photoshop will not be sold with QT"
Don't be too sure. Read this:
Trolltech(r), a leader in single source, multiplatform software development tools, today announced that Adobe System's innovative new product, Adobe(r) Photoshop(r) Album, was developed using Trolltech's flagship product, Qt(r), a multiplatform C++ development framework.
"Trolltech has provided us with an intuitive, powerful tool. Qt simplified our task of developing Photoshop Album by providing high-level tools that we could customize to meet our needs," said Mike DePaoli, Photoshop Album Engineering Manager. "The product is excellent, the support was outstanding and we are extremely pleased with our decision to go with Qt."
That was from 2003-02-26.
Well, in that case, the non-Trolltech option is called Ximian... Or, should I now say Novell? ;)
He-he. Just kidding.
Hey, wait?! WTF? What's this? OMFG! ICBIFT...