Well, I'm guessing they're suing bitorrent users because they're violating Title 17 Chapter 5 Section 501 of the United States Code by duplicating their copyrighted works.
You do realise that most if not all graphics card/chipset manufacturers provide their own implementations of OpenGL with their drivers, don't you? That this is only going to apply to the system default drivers that no-one who cares in the least about performance is going to be using?
This entire story is anti-Microsoft FUD. Microsoft is not bothering to maintain their "generic" OpenGL support as anything more than a wrapper to their preferred API. However, the only thing anyone is likely to be running the stock generic OpenGL driver on Windows for is the OpenGL screensavers on workstations not using a nice video card or downloaded drivers. Every Nvidia and ATI driver comes with its own OpenGL implementation.
This entire story is anti-Microsoft FUD about a complete non-issue.
Where exactly did most of the fighting in the world wars take place? What continent did the major players in the war come from?
gradual unification
Is that how you refer to the failure of the EU Constitution when you're trying to talk up Europe?
"Gradually" you're figuring out how not to be such ethnocentric assholes. Nevermind that America is a complete melting pot of hundreds of cultures and you can't even accept your own fucking neighbors' culture that you've had next door for a couple thousand years.
Democratic rights
You have democratic rights by following our example for the past 200 years and thanks to the fact that we've contributed to the downfall of monarchies or their conversion to constitutional monarchies, and the totalitarian regimes we've destroyed there.
The hypocrisy of Europe when it comes to peace, multi-culturalism, and human rights makes me sick. You were all fighting terrible wars over land, money, and power not more than 60 fucking years ago. Your record of human rights abuses, warmongering, and hate for your neighbors stretches back for thousands of years. Now you have less than a century of semi-calm and we have the kettle calling the pot black. Get off your high horse and look at your fucking history you fucking hypocrites.
The nations of Europe have proven themselves to be the worst fairweather friends America has ever had.
I have to agree, I think the great-great grandparent (whichever) post is ridiculous. On one hand he's accusing anyone who claims to do multi-threaded programming of only doing it for their CompSci project, and then he goes on to explain how writing multi-threaded code is too hard.
Look, I write multi-threaded code every single work day, and when I work on weekends. Not for some "simple" project, and certainly not for CompSci classes. It's really not that hard. Using the basic primitives of Win32 or POSIX threading is not that hard. Dealing with functions which are "aware" of shared resources is not that hard. And you're not going to get out of this.
I've talked to several C/C++ developers who want a new language that handles everything like magic, but in the end you're either going to have data objects which protect themselves against shared access in inefficient ways (by locking a mutex during each access) and even that doesn't protect you against logical dependancies, things which normally require critical sections. Not every part of synchronization is protecting a single data object.
Magic solutions aren't the answer. Learning how to write multi-threaded code and polishing and standardizing the APIs is the answer.
I hate to troll, but this is just a huge dick in the mouthes of Apple/PPC Zealots everywhere.
Their "superior" performance has disappeared over the years until finally where we get to the point that okay, maybe a couple benchmarks show better performance on G5, while others show better on Athlon64, while others show better on P4.
Their huge performance advantage is gone, so it's stupid to stick to what is basically RISC grown into CISC, when you can have the advantages of compatibility with x86 architecture.
I give Apple props for their dual binary support for XCode, allowing binaries to be created for both PPC and x86. That will put the smack down on all of these transition woes people are crying about.
Can we please move away from this partisan hackery, and have the old slashdot back? please? anybody?
While I can't help but agree that this is ridiculous FUD that implies a lack of security updates for Win2k...
I'm a little confused about what you mean by "the old slashdot." This IS slashdot. As someone who balances his interests (and systems) between Windows, Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD, I come to slashdot expecting to view the nerd-news through an anti-Microsoft filter.
They may have gotten a little more out of hand with their anti-Microsoft FUD recently, but this kind of slant on news is nothing new.
If you make OS-X panic just right, it'll barf kernel panic text that looks just like BSD or Linux, right on top of your graphical desktop. Not exactly designed by an artist.
I don't know, how long did it take them to implement SMP?
Switching away from the giant lock model will require the same process of FreeBSD 4 -> 5, where the giant lock is replaced by fine grained locking for each data structure being protected. If they make that change, they'll be in the same boat as FreeBSD 5, only they're about two years behind.
NetBSD's speed advantage over FreeBSD 5 on single CPU systems is mostly DUE to the fact that they use the giant lock model. If they move away from that, they're no better off than FreeBSD 5.
Which I might point out, is why it's completely stupid to benchmark NetBSD's giant locked kernel against FreeBSD 5's fine grained locking kernel. Apples to oranges. If you want to benchmark NetBSD to show how the new release has great performance for a giant locked kernel, benchmark it against FreeBSD 4 or OpenBSD.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can either have fine grained locking, and take a performance hit on single CPU systems, or you can have a giant lock, and take a performance hit on multi-CPU systems. Either design decision is fine today, but when all the chips being produced are dual core, fine grained locking will matter a whole lot more. How long will we have to wait for fine grained NetBSD? I have a lot of respect for NetBSD and OpenBSD, their accomplishments are golden in my eyes, but it seems they're quite a bit late to the SMP party, when the era of dual core is damn near upon us.
I'm aware of kqueue, but although it provides an I/O completion type mechanism, I believe the difference is, under the NT kernel and a couple other IOCP implementations, threads which are attached to an IOCP are put into a special scheduler which only activates N cpu threads at once, letting a thread run until it blocks again on I/O. Because threads attached to IOCPs are typically I/O bound, this leads to an excellent reduction of useless context switching, allowing longer bursts of execution between I/O events. Any type of blocking, be it sleep, waiting for events/handles, synchronous I/O operations, etc, will dequeue another thread from the runnable queue. The goal being to keep exactly N cpu threads from the IOCP program in the running state at all times (eliminating thread contention between threads in the same IOCP program). This also provides more optimal locking paths, because only N cpu threads are running at once, it is more likely that locks (critical sections) will be immediately available, and that the locks will be released before the context switch. This allows for maximum multi-threaded performance for I/O based systems, especially on SMP systems.
There's a little more to it than just queueing I/O requests.
Microkernel-like because they're going to a messaging / IPC based system instead of traditional syscall implementation maybe?
I support both DragonFly and FreeBSD. As an admin, I need FreeBSD to step up to the plate and offer scalable SMP support because I run 100% SMP boxes. I am willing to wait for FreeBSD 5.x to clean up and show the performance benefits.
However, I am highly interested in Matt's work on DragonFly because in my opinion, most of the popular "*nix" variants today stick too closely to the vanilla unix design which is why our socket code still uses select() and most I/O is done synchronously. I hope Matt expands his work to include super-scalable I/O systems like I/O Completion Ports. I heard there are Linux developers working on IOCP right now, so I'm hoping eventually this spawns a similar BSD effort.
DragonFly will probably work very nicely with multi-core systems down the road. I believe in the long run NetBSD will continue to destroy FreeBSD 5.x in single CPU benchmarks.
But there's the catch...
How many multi-core processors have to roll off the production line for everyone to realize that all of this anti-FreeBSD naysaying is going to turn into a huge crow eating contest because when everything is dual or quad core down the road and FreeBSD scales nicely to match, nobody will give a god damn that NetBSD is faster on a single CPU system.
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
There is no rebellion, there is no invasion. They are arresting people in foreign nations such as Iraq and Afghanistan, so obviously they're not invading. A very very small minority of the people are Americans, so this hardly qualifies as a rebellion. There is no other circumstances described which allow the public safety to override the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
You see, it's very easy to make arguments such that "well, it says there are some circumstances in which is can be suspended, and this should be one of those circumstances." Shoulda, woulda, coulda. The document is very easy to read, and if people stopped trying to bend the constitution, and started lobbying to modify it to include these things that they hold to be "common sense" meanings, I would respect that. I might lobby against the changes you propose, but I would respect that you obeyed the procedure for changing the constitution. The problem I have is that people aren't willing to try to change it, instead they try to pretend like they can't read plain English, and instead try to infer meanings and words where there are none. The line does NOT say:
"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion or when the public safety may require it."
You can't just throw words "implied" in there and try to make it mean something else that suits your purpose. That's a mockery of the constitution, and an insult to peoples' intelligence.
Please explain how the 14th amendment limits the 5th amendment to citizens only. I am unable to find the linkage between the two. Lets see:
5th Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Okay, so the 5th says "no person."
What about the 14th?
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Well, we know what that one does. It makes all people born here citizens, and says that those citizens shall have equal rights under the law. The "context" you're trying to create here is actually about slavery and making all slaves born in the US citizens. The 14th amendment was not created to limit the 5th amendment to citizens, nor does it create such a limit.
Second, a world government is bad because it is SO distant from the common man. In the United States, according to the Constitution, I have the right to elect those who rule me, on a state and federal level (lets leave the electoral college out of this one for simplicity's sake). However, my life is impacted by globalization organizations like the WTO, which passes laws or rules or resolutions or judgements which by treaty force my elected federal government to change our laws or enact new laws to stay in compliance and avoid punitive action. What say do I have in the WTO, and how exactly did I agree to be ruled by them. I understand how we got here and I understand how some people see a need for such, but I believe that supernational governments like the WTO or the EU or even the UN, disenfranchises citizens like me who are members of a democracy, who have established the federal laws and system by which we agreed to be ruled, and suddenly have found a new layer of government on top of us which is far far out of our reach. All the anti-globalization protesters who show up at WTO meetings and shout outside may have the right to protest if they live in a nation like the US, but they don't have the right to actually vote against actions on that organization.
Supernational organizations with binding authority disenfranchise the common voter in any nation that allows voting, in my opinion. That's one of the reasons I pity my European cousins now living under the EU. I'm just waiting for the American Union to be created so that my national represented officials will have to share an equal vote with not only Canadian and Mexican officials, but officials from the Dominican Republic can also make decisions and vote to affect my life. Thanks but no thanks.
You offered a challenge even though you know the chance that the test will actually take place is unlikely in the extreme, implied that the Microsoft box would fail the challenge, and then restated your original unsupported and vague opinion.
Oh noes! In that case, the next slashdot story will be about me getting sued because I am going to disclose right now that I have inside information that IBM is about to release an AMD64 based computer, running at 10ghz, with 64TB of DDR on die, for a mere $99! Now according to your logic, the next time IBM releases a system, IBM's stock is going to go down in flames because it doesn't stack up compared to my rumor!!!
Slashdot Mirror
Why are they suing bitorrent users then?
Well, I'm guessing they're suing bitorrent users because they're violating Title 17 Chapter 5 Section 501 of the United States Code by duplicating their copyrighted works.
Just a guess.
This entire story is anti-Microsoft FUD. Microsoft is not bothering to maintain their "generic" OpenGL support as anything more than a wrapper to their preferred API. However, the only thing anyone is likely to be running the stock generic OpenGL driver on Windows for is the OpenGL screensavers on workstations not using a nice video card or downloaded drivers. Every Nvidia and ATI driver comes with its own OpenGL implementation.
Yes, clearly making compilers work hard and have complex optimization code to generate high performance output is asking too much of them.
You must be a fan of gcc.
Here's a mirror of the video:
http://basharteg.com/hotcoffee.wmv
Here's a mirror to the video:
http://basharteg.com/hotcoffee.wmv
Peace
Where exactly did most of the fighting in the world wars take place? What continent did the major players in the war come from?
gradual unification
Is that how you refer to the failure of the EU Constitution when you're trying to talk up Europe?
"Gradually" you're figuring out how not to be such ethnocentric assholes. Nevermind that America is a complete melting pot of hundreds of cultures and you can't even accept your own fucking neighbors' culture that you've had next door for a couple thousand years.
Democratic rights
You have democratic rights by following our example for the past 200 years and thanks to the fact that we've contributed to the downfall of monarchies or their conversion to constitutional monarchies, and the totalitarian regimes we've destroyed there.
The hypocrisy of Europe when it comes to peace, multi-culturalism, and human rights makes me sick. You were all fighting terrible wars over land, money, and power not more than 60 fucking years ago. Your record of human rights abuses, warmongering, and hate for your neighbors stretches back for thousands of years. Now you have less than a century of semi-calm and we have the kettle calling the pot black. Get off your high horse and look at your fucking history you fucking hypocrites.
The nations of Europe have proven themselves to be the worst fairweather friends America has ever had.
I have to agree, I think the great-great grandparent (whichever) post is ridiculous. On one hand he's accusing anyone who claims to do multi-threaded programming of only doing it for their CompSci project, and then he goes on to explain how writing multi-threaded code is too hard.
Look, I write multi-threaded code every single work day, and when I work on weekends. Not for some "simple" project, and certainly not for CompSci classes. It's really not that hard. Using the basic primitives of Win32 or POSIX threading is not that hard. Dealing with functions which are "aware" of shared resources is not that hard. And you're not going to get out of this.
I've talked to several C/C++ developers who want a new language that handles everything like magic, but in the end you're either going to have data objects which protect themselves against shared access in inefficient ways (by locking a mutex during each access) and even that doesn't protect you against logical dependancies, things which normally require critical sections. Not every part of synchronization is protecting a single data object.
Magic solutions aren't the answer. Learning how to write multi-threaded code and polishing and standardizing the APIs is the answer.
I hate to troll, but this is just a huge dick in the mouthes of Apple/PPC Zealots everywhere.
Their "superior" performance has disappeared over the years until finally where we get to the point that okay, maybe a couple benchmarks show better performance on G5, while others show better on Athlon64, while others show better on P4.
Their huge performance advantage is gone, so it's stupid to stick to what is basically RISC grown into CISC, when you can have the advantages of compatibility with x86 architecture.
I give Apple props for their dual binary support for XCode, allowing binaries to be created for both PPC and x86. That will put the smack down on all of these transition woes people are crying about.
Can we please move away from this partisan hackery, and have the old slashdot back? please? anybody?
While I can't help but agree that this is ridiculous FUD that implies a lack of security updates for Win2k...
I'm a little confused about what you mean by "the old slashdot." This IS slashdot. As someone who balances his interests (and systems) between Windows, Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD, I come to slashdot expecting to view the nerd-news through an anti-Microsoft filter.
They may have gotten a little more out of hand with their anti-Microsoft FUD recently, but this kind of slant on news is nothing new.
because the first few episodes of American Idol aren't "demeaning contests"...
If you make OS-X panic just right, it'll barf kernel panic text that looks just like BSD or Linux, right on top of your graphical desktop. Not exactly designed by an artist.
Obligatory FUD debunk, or just helping a troll.
You have been trolled.
And way to blame the fact that YHBT on Bill Gates. That makes a lot of sense.
I don't know, how long did it take them to implement SMP?
Switching away from the giant lock model will require the same process of FreeBSD 4 -> 5, where the giant lock is replaced by fine grained locking for each data structure being protected. If they make that change, they'll be in the same boat as FreeBSD 5, only they're about two years behind.
NetBSD's speed advantage over FreeBSD 5 on single CPU systems is mostly DUE to the fact that they use the giant lock model. If they move away from that, they're no better off than FreeBSD 5.
Which I might point out, is why it's completely stupid to benchmark NetBSD's giant locked kernel against FreeBSD 5's fine grained locking kernel. Apples to oranges. If you want to benchmark NetBSD to show how the new release has great performance for a giant locked kernel, benchmark it against FreeBSD 4 or OpenBSD.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can either have fine grained locking, and take a performance hit on single CPU systems, or you can have a giant lock, and take a performance hit on multi-CPU systems. Either design decision is fine today, but when all the chips being produced are dual core, fine grained locking will matter a whole lot more. How long will we have to wait for fine grained NetBSD? I have a lot of respect for NetBSD and OpenBSD, their accomplishments are golden in my eyes, but it seems they're quite a bit late to the SMP party, when the era of dual core is damn near upon us.
I'm aware of kqueue, but although it provides an I/O completion type mechanism, I believe the difference is, under the NT kernel and a couple other IOCP implementations, threads which are attached to an IOCP are put into a special scheduler which only activates N cpu threads at once, letting a thread run until it blocks again on I/O. Because threads attached to IOCPs are typically I/O bound, this leads to an excellent reduction of useless context switching, allowing longer bursts of execution between I/O events. Any type of blocking, be it sleep, waiting for events/handles, synchronous I/O operations, etc, will dequeue another thread from the runnable queue. The goal being to keep exactly N cpu threads from the IOCP program in the running state at all times (eliminating thread contention between threads in the same IOCP program). This also provides more optimal locking paths, because only N cpu threads are running at once, it is more likely that locks (critical sections) will be immediately available, and that the locks will be released before the context switch. This allows for maximum multi-threaded performance for I/O based systems, especially on SMP systems.
There's a little more to it than just queueing I/O requests.
Microkernel-like because they're going to a messaging / IPC based system instead of traditional syscall implementation maybe?
I support both DragonFly and FreeBSD. As an admin, I need FreeBSD to step up to the plate and offer scalable SMP support because I run 100% SMP boxes. I am willing to wait for FreeBSD 5.x to clean up and show the performance benefits.
However, I am highly interested in Matt's work on DragonFly because in my opinion, most of the popular "*nix" variants today stick too closely to the vanilla unix design which is why our socket code still uses select() and most I/O is done synchronously. I hope Matt expands his work to include super-scalable I/O systems like I/O Completion Ports. I heard there are Linux developers working on IOCP right now, so I'm hoping eventually this spawns a similar BSD effort.
DragonFly will probably work very nicely with multi-core systems down the road. I believe in the long run NetBSD will continue to destroy FreeBSD 5.x in single CPU benchmarks.
But there's the catch...
How many multi-core processors have to roll off the production line for everyone to realize that all of this anti-FreeBSD naysaying is going to turn into a huge crow eating contest because when everything is dual or quad core down the road and FreeBSD scales nicely to match, nobody will give a god damn that NetBSD is faster on a single CPU system.
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
There is no rebellion, there is no invasion. They are arresting people in foreign nations such as Iraq and Afghanistan, so obviously they're not invading. A very very small minority of the people are Americans, so this hardly qualifies as a rebellion. There is no other circumstances described which allow the public safety to override the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
You see, it's very easy to make arguments such that "well, it says there are some circumstances in which is can be suspended, and this should be one of those circumstances." Shoulda, woulda, coulda. The document is very easy to read, and if people stopped trying to bend the constitution, and started lobbying to modify it to include these things that they hold to be "common sense" meanings, I would respect that. I might lobby against the changes you propose, but I would respect that you obeyed the procedure for changing the constitution. The problem I have is that people aren't willing to try to change it, instead they try to pretend like they can't read plain English, and instead try to infer meanings and words where there are none. The line does NOT say:
"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion or when the public safety may require it."
You can't just throw words "implied" in there and try to make it mean something else that suits your purpose. That's a mockery of the constitution, and an insult to peoples' intelligence.
Please explain how the 14th amendment limits the 5th amendment to citizens only. I am unable to find the linkage between the two. Lets see:
5th Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Okay, so the 5th says "no person."
What about the 14th?
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Well, we know what that one does. It makes all people born here citizens, and says that those citizens shall have equal rights under the law. The "context" you're trying to create here is actually about slavery and making all slaves born in the US citizens. The 14th amendment was not created to limit the 5th amendment to citizens, nor does it create such a limit.
Thank you drive through.
First, you have been trolled by the parent post.
Second, a world government is bad because it is SO distant from the common man. In the United States, according to the Constitution, I have the right to elect those who rule me, on a state and federal level (lets leave the electoral college out of this one for simplicity's sake). However, my life is impacted by globalization organizations like the WTO, which passes laws or rules or resolutions or judgements which by treaty force my elected federal government to change our laws or enact new laws to stay in compliance and avoid punitive action. What say do I have in the WTO, and how exactly did I agree to be ruled by them. I understand how we got here and I understand how some people see a need for such, but I believe that supernational governments like the WTO or the EU or even the UN, disenfranchises citizens like me who are members of a democracy, who have established the federal laws and system by which we agreed to be ruled, and suddenly have found a new layer of government on top of us which is far far out of our reach. All the anti-globalization protesters who show up at WTO meetings and shout outside may have the right to protest if they live in a nation like the US, but they don't have the right to actually vote against actions on that organization.
Supernational organizations with binding authority disenfranchise the common voter in any nation that allows voting, in my opinion. That's one of the reasons I pity my European cousins now living under the EU. I'm just waiting for the American Union to be created so that my national represented officials will have to share an equal vote with not only Canadian and Mexican officials, but officials from the Dominican Republic can also make decisions and vote to affect my life. Thanks but no thanks.
Couldn't agree more.
Especially if my woman is your sister...
I would rather eat my own shit than watch Babylon 5.
Well that sure settled the point.
You offered a challenge even though you know the chance that the test will actually take place is unlikely in the extreme, implied that the Microsoft box would fail the challenge, and then restated your original unsupported and vague opinion.
Well done!
I'm a fairly introverted guy
You're posting on slashdot. No need to state the obvious.
OOOH SNAP!
Oh noes! In that case, the next slashdot story will be about me getting sued because I am going to disclose right now that I have inside information that IBM is about to release an AMD64 based computer, running at 10ghz, with 64TB of DDR on die, for a mere $99! Now according to your logic, the next time IBM releases a system, IBM's stock is going to go down in flames because it doesn't stack up compared to my rumor!!!
Wait, shit, I should have used SCO in my example.