You completely neglect the fact that each instruction takes a different number of cycles to execute!
I did not neglect that at all. That's why I said use an average FlOPS number obtained over some set of real calculations. At this level, it simply is a number to compare.
"Hey dude, who cares? I don't go inside the stereo anyway." is the likely response...
You are missing the whole point of Open Source. To try to stick with your AM/FM analogy, imagine you wanted to add a new IF stage to the AM receiver and SELL the new product to AM buffs.
If it's Open Source, you can.
For businesses, this customization aspect is very, very important. Well, unless they want to get into vendor lock-in, endless upgrades, etc, etc.
In the end, though, it's about choice. Your choice to PICK with AM radio you have in your car, or what OS/software I run on my computers.
Intel would clearly win the FLOPs because they have higher peak floating point execution bandwidth
Performance is measured in seconds, not flops or mhz. Pick a computable task - measure how long it takes each machine to complete it.
UH?
If Rate(Intel) > Rate(AMD) as you assert, then how in the world can Time(Intel) NOT be < Time(AMD)?
Time = Number of Operations / Rate
So, if the Number of Operations for each CPU is the really the same (what I assume you mean by "a computable task"), the comparison of FlOPS is the same as a comparison of total compute time.
I'm assuming we are using FLOPs for some specific calculation (say matrix inversion, or what-not), so that it is really an average FLOPs over several instructions in the ISA.
Of course, the real answer here is AGAIN is use the CPU that best suits your application. They each have strengths and weaknesses. Any comparison is necessarily apples/oranges.
If you don't know the needs of your application, or your application is somewhat neutral, then it does not matter so much. Enter factors like cost/FlOPS and convenience of other components (mobo, etc).
Only if you explicitly deny privileges instead of not allowing them.
Actually, I think that's what I did (sorry for the ambiguity...it's been a few years ago). In any case, Windows did what it was told = denied EVERYONE access to everything.
Killer App #1 that Linux has yet to conquer: Photoshop. From a user interface and overall quality point of view "the Gimp" is simply no replacement.
Okay, I am no graphics arts professional, but I would still like to weigh-in here. First, I HATE PHotoshop. It always takes me too long to figure out what I want to do (usually something simple) and it has some quirks in the interface that I personally just don't like. I've found The Gimp to be MUCH more productive, for me.
To be totally fair, Windows has Hardware Compatibility Lists, too. I had the devil of a time getting my modem to work properly on Windows 2000 (it was not on the Win2000 HCL). It came with a disk with a Win2000 driver, but it did not work properly much of the time (and the driver had to be reinstalled a couple of times per year).
Sorry, but you cannot blame Linux that you are using "unsupported" hardware. The correct answer (though admittedly an unpleasant one) is use hardware that is properly supported for the OS you are trying to run.
Isn't this somewhat like how web development with CMS's are done? The basic CMS tools are there (and are often open source, such as phpwebsite, and are fairly easy to use in a basic way.
However, many businesses/organizations don't want to internally labor to make that skeleton into their own web site; they might hire a developer to do so. A good web site developer would not only use the CMS, but would modify it as needed to produce the site the customer wants.
I think the model you are describing can work. The general issue, in my observation, is an incredible momentum in business favoring the cathedral model.
Medical Doctors (I am married to one) typically share their knowledge for a host of reasons: altruism, ethics, basic human interaction with their customers (patience). When I read the GP's analogy, I thought of Dr. sharing knowledge was a lot more basic than publishing.
For example: my Mom had surgery this past Monday. Last week, I happened to be doing some server work at a Surgeon's office; he took the time to answer my questions about the risks involved in her procedure (she has had a few health problems earlier this year) even though I am not his patient (nor is my Mom). He shared his knowledge and expertise freely because, generally, that's what doctors do.
Anyway, that's the way I read his point. I think the Open Source analogy is pretty good in this case.
CHEETAH, like many others, is a software package developed in government labs or by academic researchers under government contract. If I am a government contractor, I can get CHEETAH for free, no problem. Though both I as an individual AND my company pay federal taxes, I cannot get CHEETAH to do feasibility calculations to GET the contract I was after.
Consider another example. There is a protein docking package that was developed in academia. Academic researchers can get it FOR FREE, but as a private sector research, the license to me is $10,000. Ten Thousand Dollars, for something I indirectly helped finance.
I may be completely wrong about this, but I don't see (philosophically) how FOIA matters a hill of beans to this argument.
Public funds are going into making the software. So who should own the design? The public, of course!
Well, public funds helped finance the development of CHEETAH, for example. But, you cannot get a copy of it unless you are ALREADY a government contactor. You are out of luck if you want to use it to do proof-of-concept to GET a contract.
Also, our tax dollars fund all that wonderful NSF and DOE research in academia. BUT, if I want to read the results of that research, I need a subscription to a privately published journal. I can read the abstract online, but the 'buy the article,' one lousy article is about a third of the cost of an annual subscription.
(And yes, I am a proponent of open publication of scientific results. And yes, I know I can got the university library, a 40 mile trip, and probably read the articles I want).
I'd be willing to bet you could name many other examples of publicly generated intellectual property that is not freely available.
Aaah, GCC on linux and VS on windows. Unless you're a compiler/OS architect (or know a great on the subject matter), then you are comparing apples and oranges. Try compiling stuff with gcc on windows, that would be better.
Sorry, dude, but I am going to have to conclude that you don't know what you are talking about. Take a look at the assembly language output for two routines (not API calls or anything, but YOUR CODE) for the two compilers, and you are looking at the difference in the COMPILERS, not the OS.
I've done this, rather extensively, in evaluating the optimizer performance in the two compilers. Also, I've written code to cross-compile, and if sticking to ANSI C or C99, gcc has no problem with it; yes, that includes five year old, or older, code, and multiple upgrades of gcc and all associated libraries.
Therein lies part of the rub: you cannot code C99 in VS C++, even 6.0. That leaves out such things as inline function declaration. But even still, if you use ANSI C, you should be okay.
I'll agree with the gp, your problem with gcc and maintainability is the code you wrote, not the compiler.
GCC winning given that it has way better schedulers, CSE, LCM, etc optimizers than MSVC.
Not only is gcc's optimizers better, but the MS CSE optimizer in 6.0 is completely broken. Check out MSKB 216181 for an example.
Put a hand rolled pseudo random number generator inside a loop, and the cse optimizer migrates it completely out; useless. Only way to get the code to work, is to NOT use/Og at all.
I'm sure one can quote examples of gcc optimizers not being as good as VS, but in my experience, gcc smokes VS out of the water. Period.
C is inappropriate for OS work. Too much happens behind your back, and as you may have noticed, it's s l o w.
Right. Because Assembly is s l o w, also. Properly coded C, when doing down to the metal programming (like a lot of OS work), is essentially more human readable Assembly.
What is this about Linux not being ready for 'average users?'
There are 'average users' all over the world using Linux. I know of 8 year olds, elderly folks who are not guru geeks, etc who use Linux daily. Without looking back to MS.
The point, imo, should be about CHOICE - use the OS that is best for you. For me, and a whole of people, that choice is Linux. For others, it never will be.
With modern distros, the Linux problems of even 5 years ago are largely unimportant.
Yeah, 'grid' or 'distributed' computing has become a buzzword. Many folks that see this as a panacea seemingly fail to realize:
(1) many problems that can benefit from parallel crunching are not suitable to so-called grid computing; they fail to account for the granularity of the problem and communication latency.
(2) parallel implementation of a problem is not unique; how you implement the parallel mapping to one architecture is not necessarily the best mapping on another. In other words, good, high performance parallel implementation is no 'black box' solution.
(3) many problems have unique requirements for parallel implementation; providing libraries for basic calls to the network layer may be useful, but globally useful parallel routines are probably not globally useful.
Just some thoughts I have every time I see an article about 'grid computing.'
I don't have cable or satellite. I only have broadcast tv.
If you simply have *no other option* then yeah, I guess it's ok..
I have other options. I choose not to spend the money. When I did have cable, or when I visit places that do (my Mom's house, a motel, etc), I find very little to watch that I cannot watch anyway. It's a matter of value. One or two programs a month is not worth the cost to me.
if you can get any broadcasts at all under that rock...I know 1 person that watches TV and doesn't have cable. they get maybe 3 channels with the antenna (this is in the Silicon Valley, too) and they're always full of static.
I get 7 (seven) broadcast channels: ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, 2 different PBS stations and WB. Most of the time, they come in as clearly as if I had cable.
Also, we watch VHS/DVD movies or the radio is on. Or, nothing is on and we play cards, board games or read. TV is not the center of our lives, so we don't wish to pay for it when we do care to watch it.
People who get emotional when challenged or proven wrong are putting their ego before the problem.
I have to disagree. I've fixed/solved some majorly complicated problems in the past 20 years. In many cases, I've gone through periods of frustration that got vented as 'anger.' Once vented, I settled down to the task at hand.
The most exceptional people I have worked with, shrugged failure off
It seems the quiet, well educated people who are comfortable with themselves are the ones who make the biggest differences.
Perhaps. But that itself does not prove (or even suggest) that some exceptional people are not also 'passionate.'
You probably should not make such sweeping generalizations. There are many personality types among people who are very effective at very complex tasks.
when writing code that needs to display HTML (rendered) I will use the common ActiveX control
Why not use the ShellExecute Win32 API call to use the default browser? That way, the user gets the html in the browser THEY chose, rather then you rendering in IE if they prefer FF or some other.
Using ShellExecute is a single line of code (or a couple if you do some basic error checking), so it is not like it is harder to use.
Putting money into NASA benefits the US economy. Putting money into Iraq benefits other countries economy, while being a big drain on the US economy.
Good point, for the short term. If re-structuring Iraq into a friend proves to be beneficial to the US in the Long Run (tm), it might be better to think of this drain as an investment.
Slashdot Mirror
You completely neglect the fact that each instruction takes a different number of cycles to execute!
I did not neglect that at all. That's why I said use an average FlOPS number obtained over some set of real calculations. At this level, it simply is a number to compare.
"Hey dude, who cares? I don't go inside the stereo anyway." is the likely response... You are missing the whole point of Open Source. To try to stick with your AM/FM analogy, imagine you wanted to add a new IF stage to the AM receiver and SELL the new product to AM buffs.
If it's Open Source, you can.
For businesses, this customization aspect is very, very important. Well, unless they want to get into vendor lock-in, endless upgrades, etc, etc.
In the end, though, it's about choice. Your choice to PICK with AM radio you have in your car, or what OS/software I run on my computers.
flops is just as stupid
Intel would clearly win the FLOPs because they have higher peak floating point execution bandwidth
Performance is measured in seconds, not flops or mhz. Pick a computable task - measure how long it takes each machine to complete it.
UH?
If Rate(Intel) > Rate(AMD) as you assert, then how in the world can Time(Intel) NOT be < Time(AMD)?
Time = Number of Operations / Rate
So, if the Number of Operations for each CPU is the really the same (what I assume you mean by "a computable task"), the comparison of FlOPS is the same as a comparison of total compute time.
I'm assuming we are using FLOPs for some specific calculation (say matrix inversion, or what-not), so that it is really an average FLOPs over several instructions in the ISA.
Of course, the real answer here is AGAIN is use the CPU that best suits your application. They each have strengths and weaknesses. Any comparison is necessarily apples/oranges.
If you don't know the needs of your application, or your application is somewhat neutral, then it does not matter so much. Enter factors like cost/FlOPS and convenience of other components (mobo, etc).
Only if you explicitly deny privileges instead of not allowing them.
Actually, I think that's what I did (sorry for the ambiguity...it's been a few years ago). In any case, Windows did what it was told = denied EVERYONE access to everything.
Killer App #1 that Linux has yet to conquer: Photoshop. From a user interface and overall quality point of view "the Gimp" is simply no replacement.
Okay, I am no graphics arts professional, but I would still like to weigh-in here. First, I HATE PHotoshop. It always takes me too long to figure out what I want to do (usually something simple) and it has some quirks in the interface that I personally just don't like. I've found The Gimp to be MUCH more productive, for me.
To be totally fair, Windows has Hardware Compatibility Lists, too. I had the devil of a time getting my modem to work properly on Windows 2000 (it was not on the Win2000 HCL). It came with a disk with a Win2000 driver, but it did not work properly much of the time (and the driver had to be reinstalled a couple of times per year).
Sorry, but you cannot blame Linux that you are using "unsupported" hardware. The correct answer (though admittedly an unpleasant one) is use hardware that is properly supported for the OS you are trying to run.
Keep a consultant on retainer; call him when you need him. That's what I do for some of my clients, and I *ONLY* support Linux.
(depending on the size of the company, of course; if large enough, you'd want in-house staff, but you'd have that anyway).
Isn't this somewhat like how web development with CMS's are done? The basic CMS tools are there (and are often open source, such as phpwebsite, and are fairly easy to use in a basic way.
However, many businesses/organizations don't want to internally labor to make that skeleton into their own web site; they might hire a developer to do so. A good web site developer would not only use the CMS, but would modify it as needed to produce the site the customer wants.
I think the model you are describing can work. The general issue, in my observation, is an incredible momentum in business favoring the cathedral model.
Or, there's another way to look at it:
Medical Doctors (I am married to one) typically share their knowledge for a host of reasons: altruism, ethics, basic human interaction with their customers (patience). When I read the GP's analogy, I thought of Dr. sharing knowledge was a lot more basic than publishing.
For example: my Mom had surgery this past Monday. Last week, I happened to be doing some server work at a Surgeon's office; he took the time to answer my questions about the risks involved in her procedure (she has had a few health problems earlier this year) even though I am not his patient (nor is my Mom). He shared his knowledge and expertise freely because, generally, that's what doctors do.
Anyway, that's the way I read his point. I think the Open Source analogy is pretty good in this case.
CHEETAH, like many others, is a software package developed in government labs or by academic researchers under government contract. If I am a government contractor, I can get CHEETAH for free, no problem. Though both I as an individual AND my company pay federal taxes, I cannot get CHEETAH to do feasibility calculations to GET the contract I was after.
Consider another example. There is a protein docking package that was developed in academia. Academic researchers can get it FOR FREE, but as a private sector research, the license to me is $10,000. Ten Thousand Dollars, for something I indirectly helped finance.
I may be completely wrong about this, but I don't see (philosophically) how FOIA matters a hill of beans to this argument.
Public funds are going into making the software. So who should own the design? The public, of course!
Well, public funds helped finance the development of CHEETAH, for example. But, you cannot get a copy of it unless you are ALREADY a government contactor. You are out of luck if you want to use it to do proof-of-concept to GET a contract.
Also, our tax dollars fund all that wonderful NSF and DOE research in academia. BUT, if I want to read the results of that research, I need a subscription to a privately published journal. I can read the abstract online, but the 'buy the article,' one lousy article is about a third of the cost of an annual subscription.
(And yes, I am a proponent of open publication of scientific results. And yes, I know I can got the university library, a 40 mile trip, and probably read the articles I want).
I'd be willing to bet you could name many other examples of publicly generated intellectual property that is not freely available.
Aaah, GCC on linux and VS on windows. Unless you're a compiler/OS architect (or know a great on the subject matter), then you are comparing apples and oranges. Try compiling stuff with gcc on windows, that would be better.
Sorry, dude, but I am going to have to conclude that you don't know what you are talking about. Take a look at the assembly language output for two routines (not API calls or anything, but YOUR CODE) for the two compilers, and you are looking at the difference in the COMPILERS, not the OS.
I've done this, rather extensively, in evaluating the optimizer performance in the two compilers. Also, I've written code to cross-compile, and if sticking to ANSI C or C99, gcc has no problem with it; yes, that includes five year old, or older, code, and multiple upgrades of gcc and all associated libraries.
Therein lies part of the rub: you cannot code C99 in VS C++, even 6.0. That leaves out such things as inline function declaration. But even still, if you use ANSI C, you should be okay.
I'll agree with the gp, your problem with gcc and maintainability is the code you wrote, not the compiler.
Now, go ahead and tell me I am wrong, too.
GCC winning given that it has way better schedulers, CSE, LCM, etc optimizers than MSVC.
/Og at all.
Not only is gcc's optimizers better, but the MS CSE optimizer in 6.0 is completely broken. Check out MSKB 216181 for an example.
Put a hand rolled pseudo random number generator inside a loop, and the cse optimizer migrates it completely out; useless. Only way to get the code to work, is to NOT use
I'm sure one can quote examples of gcc optimizers not being as good as VS, but in my experience, gcc smokes VS out of the water. Period.
C is inappropriate for OS work. Too much happens behind your back, and as you may have noticed, it's s l o w.
Right. Because Assembly is s l o w, also. Properly coded C, when doing down to the metal programming (like a lot of OS work), is essentially more human readable Assembly.
What is this about Linux not being ready for 'average users?'
There are 'average users' all over the world using Linux. I know of 8 year olds, elderly folks who are not guru geeks, etc who use Linux daily. Without looking back to MS.
The point, imo, should be about CHOICE - use the OS that is best for you. For me, and a whole of people, that choice is Linux. For others, it never will be.
With modern distros, the Linux problems of even 5 years ago are largely unimportant.
Not really a toolkit, but if you need a more heavy weight data visualization tool, check out OpenDX.
It is very hard to fight
Yeah, 'grid' or 'distributed' computing has become a buzzword. Many folks that see this as a panacea seemingly fail to realize:
(1) many problems that can benefit from parallel crunching are not suitable to so-called grid computing; they fail to account for the granularity of the problem and communication latency.
(2) parallel implementation of a problem is not unique; how you implement the parallel mapping to one architecture is not necessarily the best mapping on another. In other words, good, high performance parallel implementation is no 'black box' solution.
(3) many problems have unique requirements for parallel implementation; providing libraries for basic calls to the network layer may be useful, but globally useful parallel routines are probably not globally useful.
Just some thoughts I have every time I see an article about 'grid computing.'
I don't have cable or satellite. I only have broadcast tv.
If you simply have *no other option* then yeah, I guess it's ok..
I have other options. I choose not to spend the money. When I did have cable, or when I visit places that do (my Mom's house, a motel, etc), I find very little to watch that I cannot watch anyway. It's a matter of value. One or two programs a month is not worth the cost to me.
if you can get any broadcasts at all under that rock...I know 1 person that watches TV and doesn't have cable. they get maybe 3 channels with the antenna (this is in the Silicon Valley, too) and they're always full of static.
I get 7 (seven) broadcast channels: ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, 2 different PBS stations and WB. Most of the time, they come in as clearly as if I had cable.
Also, we watch VHS/DVD movies or the radio is on. Or, nothing is on and we play cards, board games or read. TV is not the center of our lives, so we don't wish to pay for it when we do care to watch it.
Is that we have a
Director of Research
at the
International Federation of Phonographic Industries
People who get emotional when challenged or proven wrong are putting their ego before the problem.
I have to disagree. I've fixed/solved some majorly complicated problems in the past 20 years. In many cases, I've gone through periods of frustration that got vented as 'anger.' Once vented, I settled down to the task at hand.
The most exceptional people I have worked with, shrugged failure off
It seems the quiet, well educated people who are comfortable with themselves are the ones who make the biggest differences.
Perhaps. But that itself does not prove (or even suggest) that some exceptional people are not also 'passionate.'
You probably should not make such sweeping generalizations. There are many personality types among people who are very effective at very complex tasks.
That's not an American attitude AT ALL!
Sure it is. I'm American and I care MUCH more about principle than money. Not everyone is a greedy jerk.
Of course, I ain't rich either, but I really don't care.
when writing code that needs to display HTML (rendered) I will use the common ActiveX control
Why not use the ShellExecute Win32 API call to use the default browser? That way, the user gets the html in the browser THEY chose, rather then you rendering in IE if they prefer FF or some other.
Using ShellExecute is a single line of code (or a couple if you do some basic error checking), so it is not like it is harder to use.
Putting money into NASA benefits the US economy. Putting money into Iraq benefits other countries economy, while being a big drain on the US economy. Good point, for the short term. If re-structuring Iraq into a friend proves to be beneficial to the US in the Long Run (tm), it might be better to think of this drain as an investment.