It's of course good if the distance between cores is kept to a minimum, but if the software designers and compilers considers the limitations when generating the binaries it may not be a huge performance bottleneck in real world applications.
It's better to switch to a new core than to switch task on a core for example. Looking at what happens in a modern PC most processing is mostly unrelated to the other. Even inside a web browser you may have several plugins running in different parts of the screen, but they don't really interact with each other, so they can run on standalone processor cores.
When doing SIMD calculations then you run the same instruction in parallel on many cores with different data as input, and that is not a big deal either.
The bottleneck you may experience is on the buses to RAM, disk and I/O devices. Just realize that not every core has the same distance to the resource - so by having affinity on the executables indicating preferences to type of I/O it might be possible to assign it to the correct area of cores in the processor.
So far much of the computer design has been into trying to make the computer as general as possible. Think of it as a Swiss Army knife (Or maybe a Leatherman Multi-tool) - it can do everything, but not excel at anything. A real mechanic has a good toolbox instead with different groups of tools, screwdrivers, hammers etc. and each of those tools are highly specialized even within it's group. Screwdrivers comes in many forms; Flat, Phillips, Pozidrive, Allen, Torx, XZN, Orange Juice based etc. By using the right tool for the job you get the work done faster and often more accurate than by the generic tool.
Realize that the book Design Patterns was published in '94. At that time I had been working for 7 years, and a lot of people in the software industry more than that.
Before the publishing of that book design patterns were re-invented and modeled in a lot of esoteric ways, some bad, some good. ( Hopefully the good ones went into that book!:) ) And the design patterns did vary a lot from company to company so just because you knew one set of patterns it wasn't done that way when you came to another company.
Even today some people thinks that Gang of Four refers to a Chinese political faction.
The problem many companies faces are the will to put something fast on the market cheap, and that means that quality control will suffer. More seasoned (older) people will demand a better quality control department, which costs man-hours - which not all companies can afford, but when the product hits the market it better be good enough or you can't afford not to have a quality control department.
Add to it that many managers have problems with being able to control people older than what they are themselves. The manager may be in his 40's and it can be pretty awkward to be a manager for someone that's in his 50's with 30 years of experience in the matters at hand.
So unless we come up with a novel technology to build with a higher density we are at the end of the road for that.
Maybe it's time to instead focus on other ways to improve performance. It may of course mean that the current architectural dogmas has to be abandoned.
In addition to that the license for TrueCrypt sucks pretty badly, and that license is what may prevent a fork.
So essentially what is stated is - you can fork, but make sure that the fork is rewritten so much that it's no longer possible to trace it back to TrueCrypt.
The product is contaminated, mostly by a bad license from start, but also from suspicion that there may be other crap injected - like NSA.
X11 is long-lived, not because it's the best, but because it's good enough and that there are a huge amount of applications depending on it. Changing to something else will just cause pain.
Have you ever seen any computer system that is completely secure? There's always a hole or backdoor in it, and I'm just waiting for a major one to show up in bitlocker.
How can we trust them to say it's not secure if we can't know in what way it isn't secure?
Slashdot Mirror
Boeing 747 == take on a crapload of people for a long haul excursion.
It's of course good if the distance between cores is kept to a minimum, but if the software designers and compilers considers the limitations when generating the binaries it may not be a huge performance bottleneck in real world applications.
It's better to switch to a new core than to switch task on a core for example. Looking at what happens in a modern PC most processing is mostly unrelated to the other. Even inside a web browser you may have several plugins running in different parts of the screen, but they don't really interact with each other, so they can run on standalone processor cores.
When doing SIMD calculations then you run the same instruction in parallel on many cores with different data as input, and that is not a big deal either.
The bottleneck you may experience is on the buses to RAM, disk and I/O devices. Just realize that not every core has the same distance to the resource - so by having affinity on the executables indicating preferences to type of I/O it might be possible to assign it to the correct area of cores in the processor.
So far much of the computer design has been into trying to make the computer as general as possible. Think of it as a Swiss Army knife (Or maybe a Leatherman Multi-tool) - it can do everything, but not excel at anything. A real mechanic has a good toolbox instead with different groups of tools, screwdrivers, hammers etc. and each of those tools are highly specialized even within it's group. Screwdrivers comes in many forms; Flat, Phillips, Pozidrive, Allen, Torx, XZN, Orange Juice based etc. By using the right tool for the job you get the work done faster and often more accurate than by the generic tool.
I'm too old for this crap...
Too old is when I can't distinguish between the keyboard and the toilet.
Realize that the book Design Patterns was published in '94. At that time I had been working for 7 years, and a lot of people in the software industry more than that.
Before the publishing of that book design patterns were re-invented and modeled in a lot of esoteric ways, some bad, some good. ( Hopefully the good ones went into that book! :) ) And the design patterns did vary a lot from company to company so just because you knew one set of patterns it wasn't done that way when you came to another company.
Even today some people thinks that Gang of Four refers to a Chinese political faction.
Age is not the question of willingness to learn new stuff.
For older people the "backpack" of experience and a bunch of well-tested code-snippets is an advantage as well as a curse.
The problem many companies faces are the will to put something fast on the market cheap, and that means that quality control will suffer. More seasoned (older) people will demand a better quality control department, which costs man-hours - which not all companies can afford, but when the product hits the market it better be good enough or you can't afford not to have a quality control department.
Add to it that many managers have problems with being able to control people older than what they are themselves. The manager may be in his 40's and it can be pretty awkward to be a manager for someone that's in his 50's with 30 years of experience in the matters at hand.
It is.
So unless we come up with a novel technology to build with a higher density we are at the end of the road for that.
Maybe it's time to instead focus on other ways to improve performance. It may of course mean that the current architectural dogmas has to be abandoned.
Looking at the TrueCrypt License it sucks pretty bad, and it seems to be the major problem preventing a fork.
In addition to that the license for TrueCrypt sucks pretty badly, and that license is what may prevent a fork.
So essentially what is stated is - you can fork, but make sure that the fork is rewritten so much that it's no longer possible to trace it back to TrueCrypt.
The product is contaminated, mostly by a bad license from start, but also from suspicion that there may be other crap injected - like NSA.
X11 is long-lived, not because it's the best, but because it's good enough and that there are a huge amount of applications depending on it. Changing to something else will just cause pain.
Now - where did I put my Enigma.
I just have to figure out which wheels and start code though.
Which now caused me to get a 10-100.
Well - I thought more about an upgraded/updated version with a bit more power, not a giant leap forward! :)
I thought everyone knew that the real devil's number is 6^6^6.
But the Fi-156 is starting to be a rare bird these days!
And you think that they haven't done it by now?
I'm a bit surprised that they still use the RD-180 engine, I thought that it had a successor by now. It's after all 70s/80's technology.
JavaScript is good if you want portable web browser stuff, but otherwise it's not type safe and therefore tricky to debug.
For most cases Eclipse is sufficient.
So unless you are prepared to put up money Eclipse is not a bad choice.
Look at Ebay, in some cases you may be lucky to find what you are looking for there. Don't hesitate to look at items from Agilent or Rhode&Schwartz.
Otherwise go for the reasonably priced items at sites like Conrad.
Most organization only needs a few public IP addresses per continent, the remainder for use inside the organization can be from the private pools.
Any organization that runs addresses from the public pool behind the company firewalls should consider to start a transition.
This Amazon circus just shows us the dangers with a monopoly where one player dictates what can be purchased and sold.
All softwares have bugs, the question is just if the bugs are serious or if they are benign.
The hardest bugs to find are those that are due to bad overall design. Each part may be perfect, but they are joined in a way that is unsafe.
Have you ever seen any computer system that is completely secure? There's always a hole or backdoor in it, and I'm just waiting for a major one to show up in bitlocker.
How can we trust them to say it's not secure if we can't know in what way it isn't secure?