It's a shame to see someone retording to their interpretation of what someones comment should mean opposed to what it actually means. Now had you actually refuted my points, opposed to making up your own, that would have been interesting.
Under-achieving eh?
How do you explain the fact that of the London suicide bombers was aided by a now disappeared PhD student studying Chemistry?
How is it that one of the Virginia Jihadist had a PhD in biochemistry?
How is it that one of the british suicide bombers that killed him self in Israel was public school-boy educated at the London School of Economics?
The list continues
The problem the west has isn't the fact that these people are disenfrancised misfits; it's the fact that they are otherwise normal, sometimes well educated, members of a particular society.
If Microsoft's history is anything to go by, then I'd say its taking then so long because there trying to tie it to every facet of the operating system... Internet Explorer anyone?
Yes, $600 million may be an accurate value for what it would cost to develop Linux from scratch, but how often do people buy software at the price it took to build.
I could purchase a copy of windows for $200 even though it cost a couple of billions to develop. So although this figure is interesting, it really doesn't mean anything -and thats assuming the licensing issues could be overcome.
I'm sorry, but why does having a suitable graphics application effect the suitablity of Linux on the desktop? The company I work for has a couple of million pounds worth of ASIC EDA software by companies like Synopsys and Cadence that run on Linux, but are unavailable for Windows. Does that mean that the low performance FPGA tools that appear for Windows make it unsuitable for the desktop as well?
Simply because Linux is Open Source doesn't mean that every application on it has to also be open source, whilst comparable to professionally financed close-sourced applications.
Firstly, they operate in a market where their customers could easily up and move to one of their competitors. Their bus architecture is standardised, so all it would take would be to floorplan a new CPU and port their software to the new platform. The embedded market does not have the tremendous momentum that the PC-compatible industry has.
Secondly, they are based in a country (the UK/EU) that actually UPHOLD it's competition laws; and thus they couldn't get away with what Micrsoft has in the US.
Yes, and that's probably what this whole thing is about! To steal developers away from the Linux Kernel, and concentrate them on a system that -ultimately- be under supreme control of Sun; and of significant control of that mysterious benefactor of Sun whom recently donated $2Billions to them.
No,
Given the fact that soon after IBM public requested that Sun Open Source Java, Microsoft mysteriously give them a $2Billion settlement, I think it's fair to say that would have been on the basis of NOT open sourcing JAVA. Do you actually think that settlement was on the basis of Microsoft caring about its past -anticompetitive- misdeeds, and saving a competitor thats bleeding revenue like river and would most likely not survive to see a true settlement through the court system?
Afterall, it would pretty much destroy.NET and Microsoft's plans for consumer lockin in Longhorn.
Would it be possible -and I'm no expert by any means- that this is a direct attack on Linux. By that I mean that in all likelyhood Sun will probably use a GPL incompatible license, and aim to steer development effort away from Linux and on to Solaris; over which they would have more control, causing, in essence, a fork in Linux Kernel Development.
I bet Microsoft got a good deal of influence on Sun's business decisions for $2Billions.
At the moment, the only way a company can be completely integrated is through an entirely Microsoft approved solution. The chinese government has every right (ironic since there citizens don't, but thats another comment) to support and develop standards that they can use without the Microsoft Tax or that they can understand and port with out having to re-engineer.
In fact, in the future, with the introduction of Longhorn (with it's all new propietry protocols) it may be that the new chinese way will be more interoperable (with respect to free software) than ours!
China may be communist, however, if they support new, and presumably -open- standards (especially if they want them to displace already established protocols) this could be a significant advantage for open source. In any case, it's highly unlikely that the Chinese authorities would impose a licensing-fee on the technology, afterall, that's pretty much counter to the socalist ideology.
Anyways, isn't it the case that China is supposed to be working with Japan and Korea to establish and develop a new operating system based on Linux for use by their governments and associated institutions. Maybe this is just another step in that direction.
The difficulty with that idea is that a good majority of the European Union ISN'T elected by anyone. Yeah, someone must have got their 'ocracies mixed up: democracy != beaurocracy.
The cache probably may well be made out of Static RAM, however, it almost certainly would not be made out of dynamic RAM as that requires additional power to refresh whereas the SRAM does not. The only form of power consumption in SRAM, except for switching, is the static power dissipation resulting from leakage current. This is usually very small (however it may be quite significant on a 90nm process).
It's pretty unlikely that the reason to include a 2MB cache was based solely on the need for increased performance, although it would undoubtably have an impact on it. If it was, all of Intel's top of the line Microprocessors would have them.
The large cache is probably more likely used to lower the power consumption of the processor. It's far cheaper (in terms of power) to drive short chip level wires to get commonly used data from a cache than it is to drive long, high capacitance, board level wires to memory.
No you need a license as well. Although I don't mind paying it. I believe the license is something like 50 for a black and white television and 30 for a radio. (Presumeably the internet is covered there somewhere).
Wavelet based compression does have better compression ratios than any of the DCT transforms. The reason *I think* it is being used, however, is because it allows for the dynamic scaling of the bitstream. For example, the videos could be recorded at very high resolution and stored on the server; clients would then stream the video at the rate their network connection would allow them and the video would automatically reduce resolution and frame rate to accommodate it. It's used in JPEG2000. As far as Wavelets go, I'm not too sure how much compute power they require to calculate, but I'm assuming they would be more computationally intensive than -say- a FFT (from which the DCT is based).
Ever since I heard that the BBC plans to put their achive on the internet it was clear that they would be far better served developing their own video codec. As a British Citizen, I am glad that those who have paid television licenses do not have to pay an additional toll in the form of Real Player.
It's called DISC, Dynamically Reconfigurable-Set Computer. It's existed for a few years now. If I remember correctly, there is a group at Berkley working in the area and have released a few nice papers on it.
Should they also demand that they also remove Internet Explorer?...It's already been proven (albeit in the US) that it was used to illegally wedge Netscape out of the browser market.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a shame to see someone retording to their interpretation of what someones comment should mean opposed to what it actually means. Now had you actually refuted my points, opposed to making up your own, that would have been interesting.
Under-achieving eh? How do you explain the fact that of the London suicide bombers was aided by a now disappeared PhD student studying Chemistry? How is it that one of the Virginia Jihadist had a PhD in biochemistry? How is it that one of the british suicide bombers that killed him self in Israel was public school-boy educated at the London School of Economics? The list continues The problem the west has isn't the fact that these people are disenfrancised misfits; it's the fact that they are otherwise normal, sometimes well educated, members of a particular society.
Your confusing Star Trek with reality...
If Microsoft's history is anything to go by, then I'd say its taking then so long because there trying to tie it to every facet of the operating system... Internet Explorer anyone?
Yes, $600 million may be an accurate value for what it would cost to develop Linux from scratch, but how often do people buy software at the price it took to build.
I could purchase a copy of windows for $200 even though it cost a couple of billions to develop. So although this figure is interesting, it really doesn't mean anything -and thats assuming the licensing issues could be overcome.
I'm sorry, but why does having a suitable graphics application effect the suitablity of Linux on the desktop? The company I work for has a couple of million pounds worth of ASIC EDA software by companies like Synopsys and Cadence that run on Linux, but are unavailable for Windows. Does that mean that the low performance FPGA tools that appear for Windows make it unsuitable for the desktop as well?
Simply because Linux is Open Source doesn't mean that every application on it has to also be open source, whilst comparable to professionally financed close-sourced applications.
Firstly, they operate in a market where their customers could easily up and move to one of their competitors. Their bus architecture is standardised, so all it would take would be to floorplan a new CPU and port their software to the new platform. The embedded market does not have the tremendous momentum that the PC-compatible industry has.
Secondly, they are based in a country (the UK/EU) that actually UPHOLD it's competition laws; and thus they couldn't get away with what Micrsoft has in the US.
Yes, and that's probably what this whole thing is about! To steal developers away from the Linux Kernel, and concentrate them on a system that -ultimately- be under supreme control of Sun; and of significant control of that mysterious benefactor of Sun whom recently donated $2Billions to them.
No, Given the fact that soon after IBM public requested that Sun Open Source Java, Microsoft mysteriously give them a $2Billion settlement, I think it's fair to say that would have been on the basis of NOT open sourcing JAVA. Do you actually think that settlement was on the basis of Microsoft caring about its past -anticompetitive- misdeeds, and saving a competitor thats bleeding revenue like river and would most likely not survive to see a true settlement through the court system? Afterall, it would pretty much destroy .NET and Microsoft's plans for consumer lockin in Longhorn.
Would it be possible -and I'm no expert by any means- that this is a direct attack on Linux. By that I mean that in all likelyhood Sun will probably use a GPL incompatible license, and aim to steer development effort away from Linux and on to Solaris; over which they would have more control, causing, in essence, a fork in Linux Kernel Development. I bet Microsoft got a good deal of influence on Sun's business decisions for $2Billions.
What about integration?
At the moment, the only way a company can be completely integrated is through an entirely Microsoft approved solution. The chinese government has every right (ironic since there citizens don't, but thats another comment) to support and develop standards that they can use without the Microsoft Tax or that they can understand and port with out having to re-engineer.
In fact, in the future, with the introduction of Longhorn (with it's all new propietry protocols) it may be that the new chinese way will be more interoperable (with respect to free software) than ours!
China may be communist, however, if they support new, and presumably -open- standards (especially if they want them to displace already established protocols) this could be a significant advantage for open source. In any case, it's highly unlikely that the Chinese authorities would impose a licensing-fee on the technology, afterall, that's pretty much counter to the socalist ideology.
Anyways, isn't it the case that China is supposed to be working with Japan and Korea to establish and develop a new operating system based on Linux for use by their governments and associated institutions. Maybe this is just another step in that direction.
The difficulty with that idea is that a good majority of the European Union ISN'T elected by anyone. Yeah, someone must have got their 'ocracies mixed up: democracy != beaurocracy.
The cache probably may well be made out of Static RAM, however, it almost certainly would not be made out of dynamic RAM as that requires additional power to refresh whereas the SRAM does not. The only form of power consumption in SRAM, except for switching, is the static power dissipation resulting from leakage current. This is usually very small (however it may be quite significant on a 90nm process). It's pretty unlikely that the reason to include a 2MB cache was based solely on the need for increased performance, although it would undoubtably have an impact on it. If it was, all of Intel's top of the line Microprocessors would have them.
The large cache is probably more likely used to lower the power consumption of the processor. It's far cheaper (in terms of power) to drive short chip level wires to get commonly used data from a cache than it is to drive long, high capacitance, board level wires to memory.
No you need a license as well. Although I don't mind paying it. I believe the license is something like 50 for a black and white television and 30 for a radio. (Presumeably the internet is covered there somewhere).
Wavelet based compression does have better compression ratios than any of the DCT transforms. The reason *I think* it is being used, however, is because it allows for the dynamic scaling of the bitstream. For example, the videos could be recorded at very high resolution and stored on the server; clients would then stream the video at the rate their network connection would allow them and the video would automatically reduce resolution and frame rate to accommodate it. It's used in JPEG2000. As far as Wavelets go, I'm not too sure how much compute power they require to calculate, but I'm assuming they would be more computationally intensive than -say- a FFT (from which the DCT is based).
Free to you yanks... 100 a year to us Brits, Gov'ner
This is absolutely brillant news!
Ever since I heard that the BBC plans to put their achive on the internet it was clear that they would be far better served developing their own video codec. As a British Citizen, I am glad that those who have paid television licenses do not have to pay an additional toll in the form of Real Player.
Reason for success?
Access to all of those accidently undocumented API's, of course.
It's called DISC, Dynamically Reconfigurable-Set Computer. It's existed for a few years now. If I remember correctly, there is a group at Berkley working in the area and have released a few nice papers on it.
Heh! I'd like to see Microsoft "innovate" themselves out of this one!
Steve...
Not being American -is that somewhere near UTAH? I heard SCO has an office there...
"Elsewhere, the Queen Mum was heard to exclaim, "Taxation, taxation, taxation! My forefathers believed in it, and look what happened to them!""
Forget about her forefathers... Look what happened to her! -She's DEAD!
Why stop there?
...It's already been proven (albeit in the US) that it was used to illegally wedge Netscape out of the browser market.
Should they also demand that they also remove Internet Explorer?
Steve.