Or so that the machines become completely impossible to use reasonably when running anything other than Mac OSX. I find it hard to work when the decebel level is quite that high...
I see your point. But consider, the following are the usual reasons that people choose Linux on their PC:
- Open Source. Darwin is already open source. Using XFree rather than Aqua also means more open source.
- Stable. Darwin is already stable.
- Secure. OSX seems fairly secure and its toolchain is obviously as secure as FreeBSD's.
- Compatible. I don't know about this one, but it seems a lot of software can easily be ported from Linux & BSD to Darwin. How different are the kernel headers and so on?
Linux is the 'natural' choice for me when using a PC, but I'm not sure I could say the same if I owned a Macintosh. I'd probably just leave OSX running.
Yeah, I like Gentoo too, and I use it on my two main PCs (fully optimised for their architectures, I might add!). It is true that over time the base system will gradually be recompiled even if you install from stage 3. GCC and the baselayout will get updated every so often, so when you sync and update, voila, you have a faster system.
There are reasons for using Linux on a PC, which is because Windows can suck at times (well, a lot of the time!).
But what about Macintoshes? Your systems already come with a highly optimised BSD, why would anyone ever want to install Linux? Sure Aqua is proprietary, but can't you just compile && install vanilla XFree and run it on top of the Darwin/Mach/BSD core?
What is the reason for using the Linux kernel explictly, when you already have a GNU compatible toolchain and base system available out of the box?
I'm not trying to troll or anything, I'm seriously asking this question of Macintosh users, mainly since I have my eye (and my chequebook) on a PowerBook...
There is more of an impotus to optimise for G5 though, to exploit its 64-bit-ness. People quite happily run Pentium-optimised Linuxes and indeed Windows programs on their Pentium 4 systems, never exploiting the extra instructions available on these platforms. If the G5 were just a faster version of the G4 with one or two extra instructions, I expect the same would be true. But since it isn't, people will be much more interested in distributions that are (a) compiled from scratch or (b) available in binary G5-optimised form.
This is actually a rather clever move. You see, Average Joe is going to put the CD in his computer and copy off the prepackaged music files, cos it's easy.
They're going to work fine on his computer, and he runs Kazaa so they are made available over Kazaa too. Problem is, others won't be able to play them after they download them from him. However, I wonder if Joe cares. The only thing Joe will be upset about is not being able to play music he downloads from others who are simply copying DRM files from similarly packaged music. But I somehow doubt Joe will make the connection between the files copied off the CD in this manner and the problem he's getting when he downloads random track X from Y.
You've just got to look at the backlash when it was reported Mandrake had an adware installer and screensaver to see that this is unlikely to work in open source software communities. Personally I won't even install software with adverts or software that shows adverts if you don't buy it (Opera). I think it's the most annoying business model possible.
The article is very interesting, but I'd hardly call an earthquake resistant stinky oil pipe America's greatest engineering marvel...
Anyone remember Apollo? Or the space shuttle? Or do these count as technology? I'm sure plenty of "engineers" worked on the space shuttle and plenty of "scientists" worked on fault-resistant oil pipelines.
It's possible, I guess, but it's not as though the subway station is a particularly massive level or that important to the game. Besides, there was also a subway station in Max Payne, and people claim that was influenced by the Matrix too, despite it being written before the Matrix was publically released.
People also claim the film Underworld was influenced by the Matrix because it has a subway scene. I mean damn, if every movie and game from now on that contains a subway station is ripping the Matrix, then I guess I'd better not watch any movies with subway stations in them!
Anyone notice the name of this character, and the fact the original company running the Nostromo in Alien was called Weyland-Yutani? Add to the fact that he's played by the same guy who played the Bishop android in the second and third films, I'd say that's at least one or two nods to the alien universe, even though it's set in the current day.
The point is though, that if I spend $500 on a (ficticious) 2GHz processor and $100 on cooling so I can run it at 2.1GHz, does it really make sense to do this when the 2.1GHz processor is available with a crappy (but adequate) fan for $550?
The biggest thing I've always found with overclocking (both Intel & AMD) is that 'YMMV' (your mileage may vary). I've talked to people who say they run their systems at 20% more speed than they should be doing, yet one of my systems constantly locks up even if midly overclocked. Increasingly I wonder, given the current prices for this kind of technology, whether overclocking is a bit pointless. Do I spend $100 extra or do I spend 12 hours mucking with my BIOS? You decide!
Overclocking also seems so 1990s now, most people I speak to who rate themselves equal to my own geekdom are in to case modding and quiet PCs... concepts which I find much more interesting than getting 5% extra FPS in Quake.
In fact to elaborate on that point a little...
Nightmare scenario:
1. Can't get music of CDs because they have DRM-enforced copyright protection.
2. Can't record music off the radio because it has DRM-enforced copyright protection (thank you, FCC).
3. Can't e-mail or send media files over to someone else because they have DRM-enforced 'licenses' that integrate with your e-mail client and your DRM-enabled networking stack.
4. Can't get media off the p2p networks because of the RIAA. Even when you do, they might be malware from the RIAA in the form of watermarked tracks that will be deleted by the DRM-enabled operating system after sending a courteous request for 911.
I don't personally live in America and I don't use Windows, but it's quite possible this Nightmare Scenario or at least elements of it could be in place by 2006-2007, just in time for Longhorn's debut. I for one will be sticking with Linux.
Sounds like Windows CE all over again. Sure, it won't be any good until 2008, but after that, better throw those damned IPods away!
I also find it slightly unbelievable that it plays MP3, a DRM-less media. I thought Microsoft assumed all customers wanted DRM (which is why it's going to feature so much in Longhorn!). Don't tell me they've actually come to their senses and realised that no-one is going to buy a device that only plays licensed music!
OK, so I was only partially hallucinating. Searching Google reveals that most Linux filesystems don't usually need to be defragmented simply because they're better designed. I don't quite understand the reasons, however. Anyone have information?
I also wonder how well Ars OpenForum will hold up to a Slashdotting. They run Infopop Opentopic which is Java backed by Oracle on clusters, so I'd imagine pretty darned well. Then again, it's still dynamic content with a bigass XSL (XML to HTML) transform on the top before it reaches the browser...
Obviously doing this process slows down file access a little. I wonder whether any safeguards are in place, such as turning the system off after a certain I/O load is reached? If not, this may not be such a good idea.
Also, I wonder whether if you were to calculate the extra time (perhaps 500ms) to defragment each fragmented 20MB file against doing a manual defrag every month, and whether it's actually worth it...
Don't some Linux filesystems already do this to some extent? I could be hallucinating again, but I'm sure I read this somewhere.
I must admit I don't fully understand how what they talk about in the article works myself, I'm just trying to strike down these idi^H^H^Huninformed people who claim sound can't travel through anything other than air.
Standing outside the universe is not really something you can do. If indeed the universe is bounded, it's most likely not in our traditional three dimensions. Latest research indeed indicates that it just goes on and on looping around on itself (in all three directions, the bending is in higher order dimensions), so if I lift off the Earth in my rocket ship and travel in a straight line in any direction, I will eventually end up back at Earth on the opposite side (or at least where Earth happened to be when I left for my trip).
Although we have no theories about what might be "outside" the universe, it's pretty impossible to form any theories because we can't see it, we have zero evidence that anything outside the universe exists, and if we did go there, perhaps our physical laws (unique to our universe) may well have no meaning.
If there is nothingness outside the universe, it does not mean a big black void. Nothingness is not something you can stand around in. Nothingness means NOTHINGNESS, no time, no length, no height, no breadth, no nothing. It doesn't exist. Not existing is not the same as being empty, unfortunately true nothingness is not a concept our human minds can deal with because our monkey ancestors never encountered it in their day-to-day lives.
Slashdot Mirror
Or so that the machines become completely impossible to use reasonably when running anything other than Mac OSX. I find it hard to work when the decebel level is quite that high...
For a short minute I thought Slashdot had been hacked again. LMAO.
I see your point. But consider, the following are the usual reasons that people choose Linux on their PC:
- Open Source. Darwin is already open source. Using XFree rather than Aqua also means more open source.
- Stable. Darwin is already stable.
- Secure. OSX seems fairly secure and its toolchain is obviously as secure as FreeBSD's.
- Compatible. I don't know about this one, but it seems a lot of software can easily be ported from Linux & BSD to Darwin. How different are the kernel headers and so on?
Linux is the 'natural' choice for me when using a PC, but I'm not sure I could say the same if I owned a Macintosh. I'd probably just leave OSX running.
Yeah, I like Gentoo too, and I use it on my two main PCs (fully optimised for their architectures, I might add!). It is true that over time the base system will gradually be recompiled even if you install from stage 3. GCC and the baselayout will get updated every so often, so when you sync and update, voila, you have a faster system.
There are reasons for using Linux on a PC, which is because Windows can suck at times (well, a lot of the time!).
But what about Macintoshes? Your systems already come with a highly optimised BSD, why would anyone ever want to install Linux? Sure Aqua is proprietary, but can't you just compile && install vanilla XFree and run it on top of the Darwin/Mach/BSD core?
What is the reason for using the Linux kernel explictly, when you already have a GNU compatible toolchain and base system available out of the box?
I'm not trying to troll or anything, I'm seriously asking this question of Macintosh users, mainly since I have my eye (and my chequebook) on a PowerBook...
There is more of an impotus to optimise for G5 though, to exploit its 64-bit-ness. People quite happily run Pentium-optimised Linuxes and indeed Windows programs on their Pentium 4 systems, never exploiting the extra instructions available on these platforms.
If the G5 were just a faster version of the G4 with one or two extra instructions, I expect the same would be true. But since it isn't, people will be much more interested in distributions that are (a) compiled from scratch or (b) available in binary G5-optimised form.
This is actually a rather clever move. You see, Average Joe is going to put the CD in his computer and copy off the prepackaged music files, cos it's easy.
They're going to work fine on his computer, and he runs Kazaa so they are made available over Kazaa too. Problem is, others won't be able to play them after they download them from him. However, I wonder if Joe cares. The only thing Joe will be upset about is not being able to play music he downloads from others who are simply copying DRM files from similarly packaged music. But I somehow doubt Joe will make the connection between the files copied off the CD in this manner and the problem he's getting when he downloads random track X from Y.
There I am trying to quietly read the review when the site slows to a crawl... Thanks Slashdot!
You've just got to look at the backlash when it was reported Mandrake had an adware installer and screensaver to see that this is unlikely to work in open source software communities. Personally I won't even install software with adverts or software that shows adverts if you don't buy it (Opera). I think it's the most annoying business model possible.
The article is very interesting, but I'd hardly call an earthquake resistant stinky oil pipe America's greatest engineering marvel...
Anyone remember Apollo? Or the space shuttle? Or do these count as technology? I'm sure plenty of "engineers" worked on the space shuttle and plenty of "scientists" worked on fault-resistant oil pipelines.
Why not use something like ccache? Then you only need to recompile changed files. I think. I don't personally use it...
It's possible, I guess, but it's not as though the subway station is a particularly massive level or that important to the game. Besides, there was also a subway station in Max Payne, and people claim that was influenced by the Matrix too, despite it being written before the Matrix was publically released.
People also claim the film Underworld was influenced by the Matrix because it has a subway scene. I mean damn, if every movie and game from now on that contains a subway station is ripping the Matrix, then I guess I'd better not watch any movies with subway stations in them!
Anyone notice the name of this character, and the fact the original company running the Nostromo in Alien was called Weyland-Yutani? Add to the fact that he's played by the same guy who played the Bishop android in the second and third films, I'd say that's at least one or two nods to the alien universe, even though it's set in the current day.
The point is though, that if I spend $500 on a (ficticious) 2GHz processor and $100 on cooling so I can run it at 2.1GHz, does it really make sense to do this when the 2.1GHz processor is available with a crappy (but adequate) fan for $550?
The biggest thing I've always found with overclocking (both Intel & AMD) is that 'YMMV' (your mileage may vary). I've talked to people who say they run their systems at 20% more speed than they should be doing, yet one of my systems constantly locks up even if midly overclocked. Increasingly I wonder, given the current prices for this kind of technology, whether overclocking is a bit pointless. Do I spend $100 extra or do I spend 12 hours mucking with my BIOS? You decide!
Overclocking also seems so 1990s now, most people I speak to who rate themselves equal to my own geekdom are in to case modding and quiet PCs... concepts which I find much more interesting than getting 5% extra FPS in Quake.
In fact to elaborate on that point a little...
Nightmare scenario:
1. Can't get music of CDs because they have DRM-enforced copyright protection.
2. Can't record music off the radio because it has DRM-enforced copyright protection (thank you, FCC).
3. Can't e-mail or send media files over to someone else because they have DRM-enforced 'licenses' that integrate with your e-mail client and your DRM-enabled networking stack.
4. Can't get media off the p2p networks because of the RIAA. Even when you do, they might be malware from the RIAA in the form of watermarked tracks that will be deleted by the DRM-enabled operating system after sending a courteous request for 911.
I don't personally live in America and I don't use Windows, but it's quite possible this Nightmare Scenario or at least elements of it could be in place by 2006-2007, just in time for Longhorn's debut. I for one will be sticking with Linux.
Not if you have nothing to play with it, you won't.
Sounds like Windows CE all over again. Sure, it won't be any good until 2008, but after that, better throw those damned IPods away!
I also find it slightly unbelievable that it plays MP3, a DRM-less media. I thought Microsoft assumed all customers wanted DRM (which is why it's going to feature so much in Longhorn!). Don't tell me they've actually come to their senses and realised that no-one is going to buy a device that only plays licensed music!
OK, so I was only partially hallucinating. Searching Google reveals that most Linux filesystems don't usually need to be defragmented simply because they're better designed. I don't quite understand the reasons, however. Anyone have information?
I also wonder how well Ars OpenForum will hold up to a Slashdotting. They run Infopop Opentopic which is Java backed by Oracle on clusters, so I'd imagine pretty darned well. Then again, it's still dynamic content with a bigass XSL (XML to HTML) transform on the top before it reaches the browser...
Obviously doing this process slows down file access a little. I wonder whether any safeguards are in place, such as turning the system off after a certain I/O load is reached? If not, this may not be such a good idea.
Also, I wonder whether if you were to calculate the extra time (perhaps 500ms) to defragment each fragmented 20MB file against doing a manual defrag every month, and whether it's actually worth it...
Don't some Linux filesystems already do this to some extent? I could be hallucinating again, but I'm sure I read this somewhere.
I agree. Hmmmm... downloading ice cream... *drools*
I must admit I don't fully understand how what they talk about in the article works myself, I'm just trying to strike down these idi^H^H^Huninformed people who claim sound can't travel through anything other than air.
The rest was not a vacuum, the rest did not exist. Big difference. See my post here.
Standing outside the universe is not really something you can do. If indeed the universe is bounded, it's most likely not in our traditional three dimensions. Latest research indeed indicates that it just goes on and on looping around on itself (in all three directions, the bending is in higher order dimensions), so if I lift off the Earth in my rocket ship and travel in a straight line in any direction, I will eventually end up back at Earth on the opposite side (or at least where Earth happened to be when I left for my trip).
Although we have no theories about what might be "outside" the universe, it's pretty impossible to form any theories because we can't see it, we have zero evidence that anything outside the universe exists, and if we did go there, perhaps our physical laws (unique to our universe) may well have no meaning.
If there is nothingness outside the universe, it does not mean a big black void. Nothingness is not something you can stand around in. Nothingness means NOTHINGNESS, no time, no length, no height, no breadth, no nothing. It doesn't exist. Not existing is not the same as being empty, unfortunately true nothingness is not a concept our human minds can deal with because our monkey ancestors never encountered it in their day-to-day lives.