as soon as they hear "free" they get this funny glaze over their eyes
Then avoid using the word 'free' until after they're familiar with the product. Talk about 'open source', 'reduced risks/costs', 'avoiding lock-in', etc.
* Proximity of multiple CPU cores on the same die have the advantage that the cache coherency circuitry can operate at a much higher clock rate than is possible if the signals have to travel off-chip, so combining equivalent CPUs on a single die significantly improves the performance of cache snoop operations.
* Assuming that the die can fit into the package, physically, the multi-core CPU designs require much less Printed Circuit Board (PCB) space than multi-chip SMP designs.
* A dual-core processor uses slightly less power than two coupled single-core processors, principally because of the increased power required to drive signals external to the chip and because the smaller silicon process geometry allows the cores to operate at lower voltages.
* In terms of competing technologies for the available silicon die area, multi-core design can make use of proven CPU core library designs and produce a product with lower risk of design error than devising a new wider core design. Also, adding more cache suffers from diminishing returns.
Disadvantages
* Multi-core processors require operating system (OS) support to make optimal use of the second computing resource.[1] Also, making optimal use of multiprocessing in a desktop context requires application software support.
* The higher integration of the multi-core chip drives the production yields down and are more difficult to manage thermally than lower density single-chip designs.
* From an architectural point of view, ultimately, single CPU designs may make better use of the silicon surface area than multiprocessing cores, so a development commitment to this architecture may carry the risk of obsolescence.
* Scaling efficiency is largely dependent on the application or problem set. For example, applications that require processing large amounts of data with low computer-overhead algorithms may find this architecture has an I/O bottleneck, underutilizing the device.
What's remarkable is that the IP lobbyists have managed to generate such a level of paranoia that people are frightened to use their God-given gifts to advance technology and the interests of the community.
If reverse-engineering is outlawed, then technological progress is at risk.
no way there's a direct connection with outsourcing and bad service
Have you ever dealt with a customer service centre which has been outsourced to India?
Even if you argue that popular opinion is 'wrong' on this issue, you must accept that when it comes to customer service, it is the perception that counts.
"We most of all need ways to reduce our consumption."
I've often heard that stated.
Unfortunately, since energy resources bestow both military and economic advantages to nation states, it is hard to see how consumption cn be reduced in a competitive global environment.
What's interesting about this is MS's increasingly aggressive stance towards the Commission. There seems to be some tension between the stance taken by the Commission on software patents (where McCreavy in particular is seen to be strongly influenced by MS) and these anti-monopolistic actions.
One wonders if an antagonistic relationship will be beneficial to our favourite monopolist in the long run... Is this a sign of desperation or of arrogance?
For UK and Irish readers, it's probably worth pointing out that RMS will be discussing the GPLv3 (among other things) at the Foss Means Business conference in Belfast on 16th March.
Bruce Perens will be there too. It should be an interesting day, I think.
Re:I think I've snapped from all the loonie news
on
Yahoo Reverses Allah Ban
·
· Score: 1, Troll
We are engaged in a huge debate, not over the fact that the control of our nation's ports has been turned over to foreign governments in the first place
Slashdot Mirror
It makes me feel all dirty - like I'm in some kind of cult.
Perhaps that is the purpose of the article?
One almost wonders what the author's motivations are...
he doesn't want alienate large segements of the Linux community by selecting a favorite Linux distro to standardize on
So he chooses not to support Linux at all in order to avoid 'alienating the community'?
Frankly, that is simply not credible.
An industry powerhouse like Michael Dell tells the Linux community what he wants
So what? The community is not at the beck and call of 'industry powerhouses'.
It's called listening, folks.
Just because you listen to someone does not mean that you believe everything they say.
as soon as they hear "free" they get this funny glaze over their eyes
Then avoid using the word 'free' until after they're familiar with the product. Talk about 'open source', 'reduced risks/costs', 'avoiding lock-in', etc.
Save the philosophy till later.
Advantages
* Proximity of multiple CPU cores on the same die have the advantage that the cache coherency circuitry can operate at a much higher clock rate than is possible if the signals have to travel off-chip, so combining equivalent CPUs on a single die significantly improves the performance of cache snoop operations.
* Assuming that the die can fit into the package, physically, the multi-core CPU designs require much less Printed Circuit Board (PCB) space than multi-chip SMP designs.
* A dual-core processor uses slightly less power than two coupled single-core processors, principally because of the increased power required to drive signals external to the chip and because the smaller silicon process geometry allows the cores to operate at lower voltages.
* In terms of competing technologies for the available silicon die area, multi-core design can make use of proven CPU core library designs and produce a product with lower risk of design error than devising a new wider core design. Also, adding more cache suffers from diminishing returns.
Disadvantages
* Multi-core processors require operating system (OS) support to make optimal use of the second computing resource.[1] Also, making optimal use of multiprocessing in a desktop context requires application software support.
* The higher integration of the multi-core chip drives the production yields down and are more difficult to manage thermally than lower density single-chip designs.
* From an architectural point of view, ultimately, single CPU designs may make better use of the silicon surface area than multiprocessing cores, so a development commitment to this architecture may carry the risk of obsolescence.
* Scaling efficiency is largely dependent on the application or problem set. For example, applications that require processing large amounts of data with low computer-overhead algorithms may find this architecture has an I/O bottleneck, underutilizing the device.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-core
Of course, I'm sacrificing karma to take the unpopular view.
You crazy sonuvagun.
What's remarkable is that the IP lobbyists have managed to generate such a level of paranoia that people are frightened to use their God-given gifts to advance technology and the interests of the community.
If reverse-engineering is outlawed, then technological progress is at risk.
no way there's a direct connection with outsourcing and bad service
Have you ever dealt with a customer service centre which has been outsourced to India?
Even if you argue that popular opinion is 'wrong' on this issue, you must accept that when it comes to customer service, it is the perception that counts.
Clearly it is possible to slow the development of (some) free software projects by spending significant sums of money.
However, given that it is almost impossible to kill a free software project, the long-term economic viability of such a strategy is dubious.
Also, it is worth pointing out that such activity might raise anti-competetitive issues.
At least with OSS... oh wait... I still have to take a developer's word for it.
Are you trolling?
Obviously, if you had the necessary skills you could audit the code yourself.
Alternatively you could pay someone to audit it for you; or just wait for someone else to blow the whistle.
The point is that it is much harder to hide malicious code when the source is available.
Clearly, the more efficient its use of the fuel, the longer it can continue to operate without needing more supplies.
Or the faster it can travel, or the more equipment it can carry.
The point is that the drive for military and economic superiority will tend to maximise the consumption of available resources.
'Over my dead body,' he wrote
The problem with closed software is that we have to take his word for it.
once you've bagged a few it'll just start to come naturally, and then you'll be bowling them over like ninepins.
I don't think that's what they meant by "connecting".
"We most of all need ways to reduce our consumption."
I've often heard that stated.
Unfortunately, since energy resources bestow both military and economic advantages to nation states, it is hard to see how consumption cn be reduced in a competitive global environment.
What is the worst the EU can do beyond making noise and sending threatening letters ?
Support open document formats?
Promote free software procurement policies?
Permanently block software patents?
Implement more stringent anti-monopoly measures?
That's just off the top of my head.
I'm sure there's other stuff they could do.
Sony's biggest problem is not Apple.
Sony's biggest problem is the contempt it has shown it's customers.
What's interesting about this is MS's increasingly aggressive stance towards the Commission. There seems to be some tension between the stance taken by the Commission on software patents (where McCreavy in particular is seen to be strongly influenced by MS) and these anti-monopolistic actions.
One wonders if an antagonistic relationship will be beneficial to our favourite monopolist in the long run... Is this a sign of desperation or of arrogance?
This is also amusing: "The biggest thing is it takes more physical labor to implement open source because it isn't pre-packaged"
I wonder what kind of physical labor he is thinking of?
Perhaps this is this some new kind of FUD...
"Don't use open source kids - you might damage your back!"
The frequency of vaporous announcement from MS seems to have increased dramatically recently:
2 7200/ 13/1925229/ 24/1734257
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/20/02
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02
For UK and Irish readers, it's probably worth pointing out that RMS will be discussing the GPLv3 (among other things) at the Foss Means Business conference in Belfast on 16th March.
Bruce Perens will be there too. It should be an interesting day, I think.
http://www.foss-means-business.org/
We are engaged in a huge debate, not over the fact that the control of our nation's ports has been turned over to foreign governments in the first place
You're right. It's a real disgrace.
Especially now that we know that all 9/11 airports were serviced by one Israeli-owned company.
I'm pretty sure that Apartheid was actually instituted by 'westerners'.
If I rob $100 and give $20 to charity, am I any less a thief?
[RMS says] anyone using closed-source software (even in niches where no free equivalent exists) is guilty of immorality
That's simply not true, and amounts to a gross misrepresentation of RMS' position.
What he says is: "If you value freedom, you will resist the temptation to use a program that takes away your freedom, whatever technical advantages it may have."
Which is a different thing altogether.
Sony will never say that they're responsible for it. After all, they merely licensed the copy protection scheme from First 4 Internet.
Actually, Sony were responsible for distributing the software.
That's why they're in trouble.
The Japanese have no problem at all with people who deny monstrous war crimes.
t ml
An interesting analysis of how the Western media covers war crimes:
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/zamparini151105.h