If it was him, he'd probably know that we love Alphas, and he was one of the main designers behind DEC's Alpha, and lots of their engineers are ex-DEC engineers
and then provided all the support and positive encouragement that would obviously be needed to successfully complete such an undertaking. He knew from the outset that Linux was going to be a massive hit
No, he didn't. He told linus he'd have gave him a F in OS design, told him that "microkernels have won" and believed that all the future operative systems would be microkernels. I can't see how he "knew that linux was going to be a massive hit" and how he "encouraged" linus...
The Firefox guys should really get a MSI build ready for easy deployment _and_ update. Firefox is just not 100% enterprise ready like IE is with it's managabilty by group policies
Stop blaming software makers for that. Microsoft pushed for a _long_ time the _crazy_ idea that "programs must have their own.exe installer", which lead to companies to create (crappy) installer products (!!), which leads to thousands of different installers not being able to update your system as they should, which leads to the DLL hell and other hells. Just because Microsoft hasn't been able to fix their OS and make software developers easier to have decent installers for a long time doesn't mean everybody has to support it right now.
There're thousands of non-MSI installers out there not just Firefox, there're _tons_ of installers that have dialogs that need to be clicked to be installed (they don't have command line options), there're tons of installers that won't even _start_ unless you've administrator rights. There're thousand of programs that can't be "upgraded", you need to uninstall (if you're lucky, you can't automate it either) and then install the new version. It's the Windows plataform who is not "easy-management-compliant" not software, and it's Microsoft who must be blamed for not adopting package-like technologies when windows 98 was out, not software makers.
"We managed the cache to increase performance by introducing what we call XL4 server accelerator cache -- the L4 cache in our 445. Now we've removed the need for it because the chipset helps the processor to run faster. It actually reduces latency -- the L3 cache gets in the way of four-way processing.
At design time, there was a maniacal focus on latency reduction. When you can cut the time it takes it gets from one point to the next you can increase performance, so chipset latency has been cut by two and half times -- down from 265 nanoseconds to 108 nanoseconds.
The way we do that is through snoop bus filtering. It looks across to the other bus -- because the system uses two buses, two per CPU -- and the snoop filter does intelligent caching. It can see what's in the other cache without having to send traffic across the FSB to find out. Other chipsets cannot do that and need the L3. And if you don't need L3 cache you shouldn't have to pay the premium to buy it.
We've done nothing different than others could do, we've just been smarter. It's a technique that's been in other IBM server products for a long time -- its taking mainframe-inspired technology and bringing it down to an industry standard server."
I didn't brought up IA64. Good or bad, Itanium is targetted for servers, no matter what POV you take. 128 GPRs? Huge amounts of cache? It's possible to sell a desktop CPUs based in itanium? I don't think so....but releasing another 64-bit architecture for desktops? Doesn't have sense either. God knows
I don't know what intel was preparing before AMD's opteron was released, but it's clear to me that prescotts weren't in their roadmap - they KNEW presscots weren't suitable for that. There was something, and Intel had to stop it because the x86-64 acceptance ruined it.
Not to mention that other people (serverworks - serverworks announced a chipset for amd but it's still smoke, IBM )
That's the reason that Intel still dominates at High-end: serious people doesn't puts a nvidia chipset in a 24h/7d server. The ONE decent chipset for opterons is AMD's one, and not everybody uses it. Amd needs to be backed by "serious" motherboard makers. Microstar did it recently. It'll take a while to have competitive offerings for AMD
For example, you can buy a IBM Xeon server with this Hurricane chipsets, which features weird features like "bus sniffing" which apparentl no other x86 (amd or intel) chipset has and can make Xeons look good against Opterons.
After that Intel has seemingly been focusing on making the 'fastest processor' and not improving on the design much.
Yeah, Intel is stupid. Their engineers didn't realize that their obviously-old netburst architecture couldn't compete against amd. How idiots they were.
They probably should have hired you - It's clear that there's nobody in that multi-million company knew what you know!
I wonder: if Intel would have been designing a complete revamp of their architecture supporting dual core and 64-bit instructions, and suddenly amd would have figured out a very crappy way of extending the 20-years-old x86 instruction set (you call that "improved design"?) to 64 bits (which had been previosly extended to support 32 bits) and AMD would have released it sooner than Intel, and the whole computer world would have supported AMD and operative system makers would have ported their OS to AMD's architecture, and the success of AMD's architecture would mean that the industry wouldn't accept future Intel's 64-bit designs because they're not compatible with AMD's architecture; would have Intel delayed their "architecture revamp" and would have Intel continue speeding up their old netburst architecture as a extreme measure meanwhile they redesign their roadmap?
They have so much in the way of resources to throw at this too.... why?
They probably did, but x86-64 got there sooner. IMO, it's clear that Intel _did_ have something. Hell, do people really think that intel didn't planned nothing after pentium4 and that they were going to keep releasing faster & hotter pentium4's forever? Intel _did_ have to have something, but x86-64 instruction set would have made it obsolete. Perhaps a alternative 64-bit CPU for desktops? God knows. As torvalds said once, even for Intel or AMD making a CPU from papers to the fabs can take even 2 years or even more. AMD did beat intel with x86-64 success, now Intel has to change all their roadmap. I think it'll take a while for intel to compete & beat amd again, presscot and those dual xeons are just a emergency measure they're taking meanwhile they redesign their roadmap
(I hate talking like I could predict the future, but it has to be true dammit, Intel is not stupid)
Wrong, Office new document format is OPEN. OPEN. Microsoft CAN'T "lock-in" nobody with their new document. They've opened it, anyone can write a office suite supporting them cleanly
So, if Office supports a open document format (new office format) why on earth wouldn't they add support to ANOTHER open format like opendocument? Why wouldn't they, in fact, add support for PDF (as they've say they will do)? They're all open, microsoft is trying to "lock-in" customer with other things, the time for closed formats has gone.
After building the package and before it gets packed into a deb, a dependency checker is run through it and it will automatically figure out the runtime dependencies for you. On FreeBSD Ports and Gentoo Portage, you have to figure out and specify runtime dependencies yourself
I like APT more than portage and BSD ports, but this is not a "problem" with portage and/or ports, the fact that they have "dynamic runtime dependencies" is one of their "design decisions" - it's something they like to have, not a problem they need to fix
And they're coming to Linux in 2.6.14, the port of the 9P protocol has been included. FUSE (a alternative filesystem-in-userspace approach) has also been included
And how will you solve that by dropping RPM and using deb?
The ONE showstopper which makes impossible to make software installable between different distros is the per-distro "package namespace". In redhat X.org is called "xorg-foo", in debian it's called "xserver-xorg". No matter how good your packing system and how good your "dependency solver" is, if every distro names every package differently THINGS ARE NOT GOING TO WORK.
There's no point in redhat adopting deb. Fedora X.org package would not work in debian because fedora's x.org package "provides" xorg not xserver-xorg. Now apply this same logic to all the 15000 libraries in debian.
The one way to solve that compatibility problem is to make programmers to package things instead of distros. If every project would package things and tell distros how the package is named and set the dependencies (builds with libc x.y.z, optional feature depends on libfoobar, etc) AND all distros would use the work provided by the programmers instead of redoing everything, renaming the package etc. The format (deb, rpm) would be irrelevant
Dude, Linux is about choice. You may like it or not, desktop users may adopt it or not, but Linux is not going to "consolide". This is not a "failure" in linux. It's a "design decision", it can be its biggest strength and its biggest failure, but it's not going to change. Really.
And WRT to "desktop users", they just don't care if there's one, two, or two thousands of windows versions. They just want something that works regardless of what it is.
I never said it was good or bad. I said it'd hurt Microsoft. Anyway, Staroffice is based in openoffice which is opensource. It's a good thing that opensource is going "mainstream" - IMO
I don't see how this is going to take off when native versions of StarOffice that run on several platforms have not.
Maybe because nobody in the internet (except some geeks) know what open/staroffice is and everybody knows and uses google?
This is just another stab by Sun at their "thin-client" future where they lock us in harder than Microsoft ever
Yeah. Sun is locking us with their opensource-based office suite and their open and patent-free document format.
we'll need a fat client to run the browser that will be rendering this DHTML UI.
"Fat client"? You need a "fat" client to run a browser? Please...
They are allowing you to use staroffice through your browser, so I'd expect that it does the same staroffice does
What I'm wondering is how they're doing it. Perhaps they export the interface to a "ajax" thing, and they run staroffice in their servers? Upload your docs like you upload files, download them clicking a link, save them in your gmail account space?
Dunno. But I know who is going to HATE this. Office is one of the main Microsoft's revenue streams. This is going to HURT them a LOT.
It doesn't directly control ICANN, but it does retain a veto--a right which it has infrequently exercised.
Somehow I find that Internet would be much better by the "intergovernmental body" the EU is proposing than by a PRIVATE entity. We all saw what happened with verizon, when they set the IP addresses of all the unregistered.org and.org domain names to their own search engine page. Yeah, I'm happy that governments aren't able to defend people's rights when such things happen...
Slashdot Mirror
since they were detected, I assume all of them?
That's what the "active sites" means I think - and that would make 23 millions of real apache servers
v e
http://survey.netcraft.com/index-200007.html#acti
If it was him, he'd probably know that we love Alphas, and he was one of the main designers behind DEC's Alpha, and lots of their engineers are ex-DEC engineers
and then provided all the support and positive encouragement that would obviously be needed to successfully complete such an undertaking. He knew from the outset that Linux was going to be a massive hit
No, he didn't. He told linus he'd have gave him a F in OS design, told him that "microkernels have won" and believed that all the future operative systems would be microkernels. I can't see how he "knew that linux was going to be a massive hit" and how he "encouraged" linus...
The Firefox guys should really get a MSI build ready for easy deployment _and_ update. Firefox is just not 100% enterprise ready like IE is with it's managabilty by group policies
.exe installer", which lead to companies to create (crappy) installer products (!!), which leads to thousands of different installers not being able to update your system as they should, which leads to the DLL hell and other hells. Just because Microsoft hasn't been able to fix their OS and make software developers easier to have decent installers for a long time doesn't mean everybody has to support it right now.
Stop blaming software makers for that. Microsoft pushed for a _long_ time the _crazy_ idea that "programs must have their own
There're thousands of non-MSI installers out there not just Firefox, there're _tons_ of installers that have dialogs that need to be clicked to be installed (they don't have command line options), there're tons of installers that won't even _start_ unless you've administrator rights. There're thousand of programs that can't be "upgraded", you need to uninstall (if you're lucky, you can't automate it either) and then install the new version. It's the Windows plataform who is not "easy-management-compliant" not software, and it's Microsoft who must be blamed for not adopting package-like technologies when windows 98 was out, not software makers.
slashdot is a largue website and it's not representative
"It's noticably slower than Word 2003. However, that probably has something to do with my aging Duron 1200+."
Well - is not that a new processor is going to make openoffice faster than word...
no this is not a standard x86 chipset
? FeatureID=1204
http://www.techworld.com/opsys/features/index.cfm
"We managed the cache to increase performance by introducing what we call XL4 server accelerator cache -- the L4 cache in our 445. Now we've removed the need for it because the chipset helps the processor to run faster. It actually reduces latency -- the L3 cache gets in the way of four-way processing.
At design time, there was a maniacal focus on latency reduction. When you can cut the time it takes it gets from one point to the next you can increase performance, so chipset latency has been cut by two and half times -- down from 265 nanoseconds to 108 nanoseconds.
The way we do that is through snoop bus filtering. It looks across to the other bus -- because the system uses two buses, two per CPU -- and the snoop filter does intelligent caching. It can see what's in the other cache without having to send traffic across the FSB to find out. Other chipsets cannot do that and need the L3. And if you don't need L3 cache you shouldn't have to pay the premium to buy it.
We've done nothing different than others could do, we've just been smarter. It's a technique that's been in other IBM server products for a long time -- its taking mainframe-inspired technology and bringing it down to an industry standard server."
Shhhhhh!
Itanic is for servers; I can't see how Intel could make desktops CPUs from Itanic, I wasn't talking about itanic
I didn't brought up IA64. Good or bad, Itanium is targetted for servers, no matter what POV you take. 128 GPRs? Huge amounts of cache? It's possible to sell a desktop CPUs based in itanium? I don't think so....but releasing another 64-bit architecture for desktops? Doesn't have sense either. God knows
I don't know what intel was preparing before AMD's opteron was released, but it's clear to me that prescotts weren't in their roadmap - they KNEW presscots weren't suitable for that. There was something, and Intel had to stop it because the x86-64 acceptance ruined it.
Not to mention that other people (serverworks - serverworks announced a chipset for amd but it's still smoke, IBM )
That's the reason that Intel still dominates at High-end: serious people doesn't puts a nvidia chipset in a 24h/7d server. The ONE decent chipset for opterons is AMD's one, and not everybody uses it. Amd needs to be backed by "serious" motherboard makers. Microstar did it recently. It'll take a while to have competitive offerings for AMD
For example, you can buy a IBM Xeon server with this Hurricane chipsets, which features weird features like "bus sniffing" which apparentl no other x86 (amd or intel) chipset has and can make Xeons look good against Opterons.
After that Intel has seemingly been focusing on making the 'fastest processor' and not improving on the design much.
Yeah, Intel is stupid. Their engineers didn't realize that their obviously-old netburst architecture couldn't compete against amd. How idiots they were.
They probably should have hired you - It's clear that there's nobody in that multi-million company knew what you know!
I wonder: if Intel would have been designing a complete revamp of their architecture supporting dual core and 64-bit instructions, and suddenly amd would have figured out a very crappy way of extending the 20-years-old x86 instruction set (you call that "improved design"?) to 64 bits (which had been previosly extended to support 32 bits) and AMD would have released it sooner than Intel, and the whole computer world would have supported AMD and operative system makers would have ported their OS to AMD's architecture, and the success of AMD's architecture would mean that the industry wouldn't accept future Intel's 64-bit designs because they're not compatible with AMD's architecture; would have Intel delayed their "architecture revamp" and would have Intel continue speeding up their old netburst architecture as a extreme measure meanwhile they redesign their roadmap?
They have so much in the way of resources to throw at this too.... why?
They probably did, but x86-64 got there sooner. IMO, it's clear that Intel _did_ have something. Hell, do people really think that intel didn't planned nothing after pentium4 and that they were going to keep releasing faster & hotter pentium4's forever? Intel _did_ have to have something, but x86-64 instruction set would have made it obsolete. Perhaps a alternative 64-bit CPU for desktops? God knows. As torvalds said once, even for Intel or AMD making a CPU from papers to the fabs can take even 2 years or even more. AMD did beat intel with x86-64 success, now Intel has to change all their roadmap. I think it'll take a while for intel to compete & beat amd again, presscot and those dual xeons are just a emergency measure they're taking meanwhile they redesign their roadmap
(I hate talking like I could predict the future, but it has to be true dammit, Intel is not stupid)
Wrong, Office new document format is OPEN. OPEN . Microsoft CAN'T "lock-in" nobody with their new document. They've opened it, anyone can write a office suite supporting them cleanly
So, if Office supports a open document format (new office format) why on earth wouldn't they add support to ANOTHER open format like opendocument? Why wouldn't they, in fact, add support for PDF (as they've say they will do)? They're all open, microsoft is trying to "lock-in" customer with other things, the time for closed formats has gone.
After building the package and before it gets packed into a deb, a dependency checker is run through it and it will automatically figure out the runtime dependencies for you. On FreeBSD Ports and Gentoo Portage, you have to figure out and specify runtime dependencies yourself
I like APT more than portage and BSD ports, but this is not a "problem" with portage and/or ports, the fact that they have "dynamic runtime dependencies" is one of their "design decisions" - it's something they like to have, not a problem they need to fix
And they're coming to Linux in 2.6.14, the port of the 9P protocol has been included. FUSE (a alternative filesystem-in-userspace approach) has also been included
which the same thing millions of non-english speakers have to do everyday when they use internet or use some program :(
:P
It won't hurt you to suffer it one time - hah!
Come on - this is not rocket science!
And how will you solve that by dropping RPM and using deb?
The ONE showstopper which makes impossible to make software installable between different distros is the per-distro "package namespace". In redhat X.org is called "xorg-foo", in debian it's called "xserver-xorg". No matter how good your packing system and how good your "dependency solver" is, if every distro names every package differently THINGS ARE NOT GOING TO WORK.
There's no point in redhat adopting deb. Fedora X.org package would not work in debian because fedora's x.org package "provides" xorg not xserver-xorg. Now apply this same logic to all the 15000 libraries in debian.
The one way to solve that compatibility problem is to make programmers to package things instead of distros. If every project would package things and tell distros how the package is named and set the dependencies (builds with libc x.y.z, optional feature depends on libfoobar, etc) AND all distros would use the work provided by the programmers instead of redoing everything, renaming the package etc. The format (deb, rpm) would be irrelevant
Dude, Linux is about choice. You may like it or not, desktop users may adopt it or not, but Linux is not going to "consolide". This is not a "failure" in linux. It's a "design decision", it can be its biggest strength and its biggest failure, but it's not going to change. Really.
And WRT to "desktop users", they just don't care if there's one, two, or two thousands of windows versions. They just want something that works regardless of what it is.
I don't know about PPC but suse has certainly released suse 9 for power5 IBM platforms..http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/o ffers/lp/demos/summary/l-pow-installsles.html
So it's going to be good because it's non-MS?
I never said it was good or bad. I said it'd hurt Microsoft. Anyway, Staroffice is based in openoffice which is opensource. It's a good thing that opensource is going "mainstream" - IMO
I don't see how this is going to take off when native versions of StarOffice that run on several platforms have not.
Maybe because nobody in the internet (except some geeks) know what open/staroffice is and everybody knows and uses google?
This is just another stab by Sun at their "thin-client" future where they lock us in harder than Microsoft ever
Yeah. Sun is locking us with their opensource-based office suite and their open and patent-free document format.
we'll need a fat client to run the browser that will be rendering this DHTML UI.
"Fat client"? You need a "fat" client to run a browser? Please...
They are allowing you to use staroffice through your browser, so I'd expect that it does the same staroffice does
What I'm wondering is how they're doing it. Perhaps they export the interface to a "ajax" thing, and they run staroffice in their servers? Upload your docs like you upload files, download them clicking a link, save them in your gmail account space?
Dunno. But I know who is going to HATE this. Office is one of the main Microsoft's revenue streams. This is going to HURT them a LOT.
It doesn't directly control ICANN, but it does retain a veto--a right which it has infrequently exercised.
.org and .org domain names to their own search engine page. Yeah, I'm happy that governments aren't able to defend people's rights when such things happen...
Somehow I find that Internet would be much better by the "intergovernmental body" the EU is proposing than by a PRIVATE entity. We all saw what happened with verizon, when they set the IP addresses of all the unregistered