Before anyone goes cheering about AMD's forthcoming Hammer, remember that it's brand new, and the compilers for it haven't had the same sort of burn-in that Intel's IA-64 compilers have been getting for a year and a half. AMD may get its 64-bit solution to the mass market first, but it won't be stable when the new features are used to their fullest.
Certainly Intel's IA-64 compiler will be awesome, that's half the idea of IA-64. But what about the other compilers? What about Borland and gcc? Their support for IA-64 is not so hot. x86-64 is just 64bit extentions to x86, it's not a HUGE divergence that's going to require NEARLY as much R&D as IA-64. That's the advantage of working with what already exists.
If you think non-Intel compilers for IA-64 are going to be more mature than x86-64 compilers, you're crazy. And because there's not much to do between the x86 and x86-64 compilers (except maybe add some optimizations using new features like RIP relative addressing), they don't need to 'mature' as much as the Intel compiler does.
Running equal performance at a lower clock speed shows better design and engineering. If you're actually a student of Computer Science, that means something.
If you're the kind of guy that reads http://www.sandpile.org/ you know what I'm talking about. If you're just a consumer reading about Quake 3 framerates on Tom's Hardware, I guess it doesn't matter. (No offense)
Yes, Sanders is the bomb. He's an old school SOB who will tell you what he thinks of Intel's "fucking Pentium 4" in an interview. Would you have the balls to say that if you were in his shoes ?
This man has lead one of the greatest corporate fights in the history of this nation. AMD has had every reason to fail, as Cyrix, Transmedia, IDT (or whatever the WinChip guys were called), etc. Over the years the Intel blowhards have tried to put AMD in the same boat as those failed manufacturers. Most of them are still denying the fact that they called the K7 vaporware, and denied that it would rock the processor industry. Where are you naysayers now ? Would you have a 2 gHz Pentium 4 available if it weren't for AMD and the K7 ? Take the date of the Pentium III 450, add 50mhz for every 6 months since it came out, and tell me if you've reached 2.0 gHz yet, because that's what you would have had if the K7 wasn't there.
I'm not one of these fools who just roots for whoever is the underdog in any particular fight (Microsoft vs Linux, Intel vs AMD, etc). I find such lemming behavior offensive. Not that you shouldn't like them, but there should be a reason. We owe the past 3 years of breakneck processor development to AMD, both directly through their own products, and indirectly by forcing Intel to work for their money.
I don't even have to mention the pricing. Those of you out there who had to choose between a Pentium and a K5, you know how much Intel was overcharging.
Am I anti-Intel ? No. If Intel came out with a better product at a reasonable price, I would buy it. The Itanium is absolutely awesome from an architecural perspective. I am a consumer, I select the best product at the best price (in theory that's how consumers work, heh). AMD currently offers a product that beats Pentium 4s at equal clock speeds, and even at far higher clock speeds the P4 doesn't stand a chance. The P4 is awesome for applications specificly optimized for SSE2, but for everything else it's just empty mhz. The Athlon is faster, cheaper, and runs at a LOWER clock speed to achieve that performance. As long as that is true, AMD will have my support.
Let's let free enterprise do its job. Political pressure has no role here. The private sector must remain free and independent so that it can provide the solutions that the marketplace wants.
This is complete garbage. The government is a customer and a member of the marketplace too. Just as IBM, or DELL, or some other company who does business with Microsoft could put "pressure" on them, so can government agencies, who are customers also. The government harrassment, and Air Force's "threatening posture" are no different than two businesses exchanging fire over their differences. THIS is how free enterprise works. You are free to make a crappy product, but the Air Force is free to complain about it, demand that you fix it, slam you publicly about it, and threaten to take action, including switching to another product. You're forgetting the consumer side of "free enterprise."
Besides, national security is a priority, and they have every right to demand security in the software that's trusted for that use. What happens when NASA buys a crappy booster rocket, and it falls apart? Are they not allowed to put political pressure on the company that produced it, because that would be a bother to free enterpise? Give me a break.
Last time I checked Indian programmers want to be paid just as much as everyone else on this planet. It is just right now that Indian programmers are getting shafted and paid less than they rightfully deserve.
No, American programmers are getting shafted by the US Immigration and Naturalization's failure to make sure that immigrant professional wages don't crush citizens' professional wages, by limiting the number of foriegn professionals are allowed to enter our market. The flood of Indian programmers has hit the American programmer's paycheck, and we now have CCNA and MCSE NetAdmins making more money than programmers with a B.S. or M.S. in Comp Sci. I do agree with you though, force the employers to pay the Indians reasonable wages, so the rest of us can compete with them. If you can get an Indian Java programmer for 20,000 or less, and an American programmer is looking for something in the 50-70k range, there's no competition. If everyone was paid in the same range, then you could decide between an American with a B.S. in CompSci, or the Indian programmer. I'm not a racist, and I don't hate Indian programmers, but it's a fact that they ARE flooding our market. The same way laws work to protect American companies from 'dumping', and tariffs are applied to imports (like the steel issues recently), the INS is supposed to protect the economy from a flood skilled laborers that dilute our labor market.
Before anyone flames me about immigrants' rights, no one had a RIGHT to immigrate here. Most of these programmers aren't immigrants anyway, they just get granted work rights because they're professionals and companies will sponsor them.
"While Dirk Mueller is respected throughout the community [...] New leadership for KDE 3.1 is needed. I call for a vote of no-confidence in Senator Mueller's leadership."
A common carrier, however, does not have the right to block his traffic because they want to stop spam.
Yeah, and my phone company doesn't have a right to cut my phone line if I use it to abuse other peoples' phones right ? Common carriers apparently have no right to protect the world from their customers' abuse, nor to enforce their terms of service.
I hate when ignorant people use terms like common carrier, with little or no understanding of the law that accompanies that term, and then tries to make a statement with the implication that the legal definition of a common carrier backs up their statement.
What's clear cut is that you, and many other Slashdot posters, are talking out their asses with pseudo-legal knowledge that wouldn't stand up in an IRC arguement. I'm not saying that's anything new; nerds with pseudo-legal knowledge spouting BS is actually quite common, especially on Slashdot.
People think that this product is the hard work of the Morpheus team. Sure, it may be legal, but I don't like it. Taking another product and re-labeling it is cheap and wrong. They could have taken the time to actually make their own product (i.e. change the UI perhaps). I hope that the new "Morpehus" is a true fork - that it continues development on it's own and does not take any more code from the Gnucleus team.
How many different kinds of fool can you be ? That's what the GPL and opensource is all about. The stupid thing about the supporters of the GPL licence, and their argument against the BSD licence, is they think what they're really doing is keeping other people from making money off their source code. To these fools, making money is evil. What they don't get is with the BSD licence we expect (and hope) that someone will do something else useful with our code (even make money). The GPL community fools themselves into thinking (a) only the average open source developer is going to make use of their code, (b) that some corporation is going to want their GPLed code so badly that they are willing to open up their own source code to use it (hahahahahah), or (c) that no "evil" corporation is going to make money off someone else's hard work. Go buy yourselves a clue (or write one and GPL it so other derived clues must also be open). If you open your source code, other people ARE going to benefit from it. One of those possible benefits is MAKING MONEY. That would be the point of business. At least with the BSD licence you aren't being an ignorant fool by claiming you can change the world with the licence to your crappy program. If you don't want other people to make money off your code, don't release it. Sell it yourself. If you want to open source it, accept that the rest of the world could, in theory, make millions off it, and just live with it.
I know it's pointless to repeat this to you kiddies over and over again, hoping that someday some sense of reality (or business sense) is going to kick in, but these childish fantasies of fighting the evil corporate empire with your GPL'ed source code seem to endure.
BTW this is an honest statement, and not merely a troll or flame. Of course I'll get "troll" anyway from the first knee-jerk GPL and/or Linux zealot who gets a moderator point. I'm always tempted to post anonymous to save my karma from you people, but why should I have to ? Burn my karma if you like. I'll spend a little karma trying to help people wake up from this pseudo-war against the Evil Empire.
Those of you who are saying that FreeBSD runs only on the Intel platform, you are totally ignorant, and you should proceed to shut your mouth at this point. FreeBSD runs on Alpha, and has either single user or multi-user boots on Sparc, PPC, IA-64, etc.
The number of machine dependant lines in the 4.4BSD kernel is 39,634 out of 202,251 or about 19.5%. Once the hardware specific areas of a platform are abstracted, the rest of the system (for the most part) works properly. (*Broad generalization*)
As for the subject at hand, Darwin IS based on the Mach microkernel, with FreeBSD subsystems and libraries, and NetBSD userland. However, for those of you ignorant of the Mach microkernel, the short story is, it was partially based on 4.2BSD. So as much as ignorant Linux zealots want to try to make some kind of meaningless point that "Darwin is based on Mach not BSD.", from the perspective of the informed, that's the stupidest statement you could possibly make. No matter how you want to look at it, Darwin IS BSD. As several Apple representitives said at this year's BSDCon, there are currently FAR more deployed BSD boxes than Linux boxes. As for the FreeBSD vs NetBSD argument, you have to decide for yourself whether "based on" means "subsystems and libraries", or "userland utilities".
From apple.com:
"FreeBSD is one of the ongoing BSD development efforts and is our primary reference platform for current BSD kernel development."
"we try to keep Darwin as compatible as possible with FreeBSD (our BSD reference platform)"
"We already synchronize our code periodically with NetBSD for most of our user commands, and we will soon be doing the same with FreeBSD for our libraries."
>I'll take obscure Dune references for $500, Alex.
Alex: "And the answer is: This anonymous coward has apparently read the 5th and 6ths Dune books, yet trolls someone who draws their handle from said books in order to defend Linux."
-bleep-
Commander Taco: "Who is a hypocrite ?"
Alex: "Correct !"
Commander Taco: "I'll take worthless trolls for $200"
My friend works there, he says they bought into the WINE guys somehow. I'm not sure about the details, but it IS WINE. It may or may not be recommitted to the public.
Uh, you're a moron, so let me help you out. OpenBSD has ALSO copyrighted their CDROMs. You can't *distribute* them. FreeBSD has copyrighted their CDROMs, you can't SELL them. See the difference jackass ?
Don't mod me down for defending myself, I refuse to post this as Anonymous Coward.
You cannot resell the CDs they are releasing. Their CDROM ISO image is copyrighted. Not the software on it, but the CD image. You can however, make your own ISO image with the software, and resell it.
Slashdot Mirror
Certainly Intel's IA-64 compiler will be awesome, that's half the idea of IA-64. But what about the other compilers? What about Borland and gcc? Their support for IA-64 is not so hot. x86-64 is just 64bit extentions to x86, it's not a HUGE divergence that's going to require NEARLY as much R&D as IA-64. That's the advantage of working with what already exists.
If you think non-Intel compilers for IA-64 are going to be more mature than x86-64 compilers, you're crazy. And because there's not much to do between the x86 and x86-64 compilers (except maybe add some optimizations using new features like RIP relative addressing), they don't need to 'mature' as much as the Intel compiler does.
Running equal performance at a lower clock speed shows better design and engineering. If you're actually a student of Computer Science, that means something.
If you're the kind of guy that reads http://www.sandpile.org/ you know what I'm talking about. If you're just a consumer reading about Quake 3 framerates on Tom's Hardware, I guess it doesn't matter. (No offense)
Yes, Sanders is the bomb. He's an old school SOB who will tell you what he thinks of Intel's "fucking Pentium 4" in an interview. Would you have the balls to say that if you were in his shoes ?
This man has lead one of the greatest corporate fights in the history of this nation. AMD has had every reason to fail, as Cyrix, Transmedia, IDT (or whatever the WinChip guys were called), etc. Over the years the Intel blowhards have tried to put AMD in the same boat as those failed manufacturers. Most of them are still denying the fact that they called the K7 vaporware, and denied that it would rock the processor industry. Where are you naysayers now ? Would you have a 2 gHz Pentium 4 available if it weren't for AMD and the K7 ? Take the date of the Pentium III 450, add 50mhz for every 6 months since it came out, and tell me if you've reached 2.0 gHz yet, because that's what you would have had if the K7 wasn't there.
I'm not one of these fools who just roots for whoever is the underdog in any particular fight (Microsoft vs Linux, Intel vs AMD, etc). I find such lemming behavior offensive. Not that you shouldn't like them, but there should be a reason. We owe the past 3 years of breakneck processor development to AMD, both directly through their own products, and indirectly by forcing Intel to work for their money.
I don't even have to mention the pricing. Those of you out there who had to choose between a Pentium and a K5, you know how much Intel was overcharging.
Am I anti-Intel ? No. If Intel came out with a better product at a reasonable price, I would buy it. The Itanium is absolutely awesome from an architecural perspective. I am a consumer, I select the best product at the best price (in theory that's how consumers work, heh). AMD currently offers a product that beats Pentium 4s at equal clock speeds, and even at far higher clock speeds the P4 doesn't stand a chance. The P4 is awesome for applications specificly optimized for SSE2, but for everything else it's just empty mhz. The Athlon is faster, cheaper, and runs at a LOWER clock speed to achieve that performance. As long as that is true, AMD will have my support.
This is complete garbage. The government is a customer and a member of the marketplace too. Just as IBM, or DELL, or some other company who does business with Microsoft could put "pressure" on them, so can government agencies, who are customers also. The government harrassment, and Air Force's "threatening posture" are no different than two businesses exchanging fire over their differences. THIS is how free enterprise works. You are free to make a crappy product, but the Air Force is free to complain about it, demand that you fix it, slam you publicly about it, and threaten to take action, including switching to another product. You're forgetting the consumer side of "free enterprise."
Besides, national security is a priority, and they have every right to demand security in the software that's trusted for that use. What happens when NASA buys a crappy booster rocket, and it falls apart? Are they not allowed to put political pressure on the company that produced it, because that would be a bother to free enterpise? Give me a break.
No, American programmers are getting shafted by the US Immigration and Naturalization's failure to make sure that immigrant professional wages don't crush citizens' professional wages, by limiting the number of foriegn professionals are allowed to enter our market. The flood of Indian programmers has hit the American programmer's paycheck, and we now have CCNA and MCSE NetAdmins making more money than programmers with a B.S. or M.S. in Comp Sci. I do agree with you though, force the employers to pay the Indians reasonable wages, so the rest of us can compete with them. If you can get an Indian Java programmer for 20,000 or less, and an American programmer is looking for something in the 50-70k range, there's no competition. If everyone was paid in the same range, then you could decide between an American with a B.S. in CompSci, or the Indian programmer. I'm not a racist, and I don't hate Indian programmers, but it's a fact that they ARE flooding our market. The same way laws work to protect American companies from 'dumping', and tariffs are applied to imports (like the steel issues recently), the INS is supposed to protect the economy from a flood skilled laborers that dilute our labor market.
Before anyone flames me about immigrants' rights, no one had a RIGHT to immigrate here. Most of these programmers aren't immigrants anyway, they just get granted work rights because they're professionals and companies will sponsor them.
"While Dirk Mueller is respected throughout
the community [...] New leadership for KDE 3.1 is needed. I call for a vote of no-confidence in Senator Mueller's leadership."
Yeah, and my phone company doesn't have a right to cut my phone line if I use it to abuse other peoples' phones right ? Common carriers apparently have no right to protect the world from their customers' abuse, nor to enforce their terms of service.
I hate when ignorant people use terms like common carrier, with little or no understanding of the law that accompanies that term, and then tries to make a statement with the implication that the legal definition of a common carrier backs up their statement.
What's clear cut is that you, and many other Slashdot posters, are talking out their asses with pseudo-legal knowledge that wouldn't stand up in an IRC arguement. I'm not saying that's anything new; nerds with pseudo-legal knowledge spouting BS is actually quite common, especially on Slashdot.
How many different kinds of fool can you be ? That's what the GPL and opensource is all about. The stupid thing about the supporters of the GPL licence, and their argument against the BSD licence, is they think what they're really doing is keeping other people from making money off their source code. To these fools, making money is evil. What they don't get is with the BSD licence we expect (and hope) that someone will do something else useful with our code (even make money). The GPL community fools themselves into thinking (a) only the average open source developer is going to make use of their code, (b) that some corporation is going to want their GPLed code so badly that they are willing to open up their own source code to use it (hahahahahah), or (c) that no "evil" corporation is going to make money off someone else's hard work. Go buy yourselves a clue (or write one and GPL it so other derived clues must also be open). If you open your source code, other people ARE going to benefit from it. One of those possible benefits is MAKING MONEY. That would be the point of business. At least with the BSD licence you aren't being an ignorant fool by claiming you can change the world with the licence to your crappy program. If you don't want other people to make money off your code, don't release it. Sell it yourself. If you want to open source it, accept that the rest of the world could, in theory, make millions off it, and just live with it. I know it's pointless to repeat this to you kiddies over and over again, hoping that someday some sense of reality (or business sense) is going to kick in, but these childish fantasies of fighting the evil corporate empire with your GPL'ed source code seem to endure. BTW this is an honest statement, and not merely a troll or flame. Of course I'll get "troll" anyway from the first knee-jerk GPL and/or Linux zealot who gets a moderator point. I'm always tempted to post anonymous to save my karma from you people, but why should I have to ? Burn my karma if you like. I'll spend a little karma trying to help people wake up from this pseudo-war against the Evil Empire.
Hmm, we seem to have Slashdotted this site. I've setup a mirror here
Those of you who are saying that FreeBSD runs only on the Intel platform, you are totally ignorant, and you should proceed to shut your mouth at this point. FreeBSD runs on Alpha, and has either single user or multi-user boots on Sparc, PPC, IA-64, etc.
The number of machine dependant lines in the 4.4BSD kernel is 39,634 out of 202,251 or about 19.5%. Once the hardware specific areas of a platform are abstracted, the rest of the system (for the most part) works properly. (*Broad generalization*)
As for the subject at hand, Darwin IS based on the Mach microkernel, with FreeBSD subsystems and libraries, and NetBSD userland. However, for those of you ignorant of the Mach microkernel, the short story is, it was partially based on 4.2BSD. So as much as ignorant Linux zealots want to try to make some kind of meaningless point that "Darwin is based on Mach not BSD.", from the perspective of the informed, that's the stupidest statement you could possibly make. No matter how you want to look at it, Darwin IS BSD. As several Apple representitives said at this year's BSDCon, there are currently FAR more deployed BSD boxes than Linux boxes. As for the FreeBSD vs NetBSD argument, you have to decide for yourself whether "based on" means "subsystems and libraries", or "userland utilities".
From apple.com:
"FreeBSD is one of the ongoing BSD development efforts and is our primary reference platform for current BSD kernel development."
"we try to keep Darwin as compatible as possible with FreeBSD (our BSD reference platform)"
"We already synchronize our code periodically with NetBSD for most of our user commands, and we will soon be doing the same with FreeBSD for our libraries."
> 2.4.xx Current stable release series. (Well, almost current.)
(Well, almost stable.)
Can't argue with the term -series- though.
This guy is fat. I know him. Fat.
>Thank God Linus doesn't scale
>Imagine the terror of a 50 foot tall Finnish programmer wandering the streets.
Programmers scale on the waistline, not in height.
>I'll take obscure Dune references for $500, Alex.
Alex: "And the answer is: This anonymous coward has apparently read the 5th and 6ths Dune books, yet trolls someone who draws their handle from said books in order to defend Linux."
-bleep-
Commander Taco: "Who is a hypocrite ?"
Alex: "Correct !"
Commander Taco: "I'll take worthless trolls for $200"
Alex: "A video Daily Double: http://goatse.cx"
> Now I'm no kernel hacker
I stopped reading at that point.
> So you wouldn't be able to call it Linux?
LEWNIX
LOONIX
LIENUX
LENNOX
But NOT LUNIX. Nice try.
WAREZ MY BROWN PANTS LOONIX ?!
(a) That's speculation.
(b) That's POOR speculation. Are current SSE2 enabled programs "incompatible" with Athlons ?
I wish we could cut down on the paranoid ignorant posts which ignore both current facts and past examples.
>AMD's 64-bit system will suddenly be incompatible with Intel's 64-bit system
Did you READ the article ?
"They began developing their own 64-bit extensions to the Pentium line, making sure the code was compatible with AMD's design."
Pull your head out.
> Linux already takes 0.5 sec to boot
HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA. I think you're thinking of *BSD.
[ OK ]
for(;;)
for(int lat=0;lat360;lat++)
for(int long=0;long360;long++)
GPS_printf(lat,long, "ALL YOUR COORDINATES ARE BELONG TO US!!!\n");
/*
Before you flame, I am posting this from a 4.1 stable, Ok.
*/
4.1-STABLE ? Geez, you need to cvsup.
while () {
steal_this_code;
}
Don't you mean:
while () {
Linux.steal_this_code();
}
My friend works there, he says they bought into the WINE guys somehow. I'm not sure about the details, but it IS WINE. It may or may not be recommitted to the public.
Uh, you're a moron, so let me help you out. OpenBSD has ALSO copyrighted their CDROMs. You can't *distribute* them. FreeBSD has copyrighted their CDROMs, you can't SELL them. See the difference jackass ?
Don't mod me down for defending myself, I refuse to post this as Anonymous Coward.
You cannot resell the CDs they are releasing. Their CDROM ISO image is copyrighted. Not the software on it, but the CD image. You can however, make your own ISO image with the software, and resell it.