Yes, they do, but they test the GPUs themselves for acceptable clock rate, defective parts, usable pipelines etc. Then they take a look at the chip stock they have, the demand for certain chips and go in and mark some down to meet demand (if necessary). Then they send them off to the manufacturers to get put on whatever cards with whatever memory they need them for. This is pretty standard procedure in the CPU and GPU sector.
The fact is, the manufacturer is doing the consumer a favor by simply disabling parts of the premium product and selling it for a lower price. If the guys shelling out the bucks for the full product weren't subsidizing the lower end models, the manufacturer would be charging more for a different design that still didn't have the features.
In the case of GPUs on video cards, hardware is usually disabled due to defects and marked down.
He would've probably found some way to bash it no matter what. I doubt that Goodger wants a bastardized derivative of his holy works to gain any market share at all.
Until people can never ever be infected while using a completely up to date operating system, extending such a reconnect fee system to viruses and trojans wouldn't fly with customers.
Which tells me they're *trying* to find a solution and a fine would be inappropriate but they want to do it in a fashion that won't result in the theft of their IP by OSS zealots.
I would make a modest bet that they'll either slowly hire people until they get as big or bigger than they were before or hire tons more people in a foreign country for a wage of a bowl of rice a week.
They will give them a case to get you and/or your company into court to until you and your new employer wither and die and nobody ever grows the balls to challenge the mighty non-compete again.
You can actually give away a lot in a contract. Once you sign a contract that isn't completely ridiculous (and giving up your rights to your free time isn't), it will simply be an issue of whether someone has broken the contract in court.
>My point is that writing a new operating system that is closely tied to any
>particular piece of hardware, especially a weird one like the Intel line,
>is basically wrong.
-- Andy Tanenbaum 30 Jan 92 13:44:34 GMT
If the OSS community thinks people should have freedom to do anything with their software, shouldn't that freedom extend to a choice of licenses? If it's open source, it's open source. It will still satisfy the goals of the end-user having control and access to the source. Whining about licenses usually comes from people who want to lift code and put it in othe projects and never contribute back to the original source. For proof, look at any announcement about an OS going open source and see people yell and scream for it to be GPL so they can lift code for Linux (not to contribute back ofc!).
You can take the code and use it in your own project and even write replacements for the proprietary code and make your own DVR boxes. It would be unwise to try to use the GPL to usurp control of the hardware and their support policies. They probably don't want people running modified binaries on their boxes, damaging them, and then just writing the original disk contents back and taking the box in to get a brand new one.
Before IE became dominant, it was always Netscape in the news with the latest security holes. It seems that remaining in obscurity results in security flaws piling up until popularity when it becomes a race against exploiters.
So if I use SoftwareX v1.3.8 and then someone implements a feature that violates my patent in v1.3.9 and I enforce my patent, will the FSF try to revoke my license to 1.3.8? What kind of wacky shit are they going to try?
Re:Sound like KHTML team doesn't want to play eith
on
Safari vs. KHTML
·
· Score: 1
Shipping it within their product is clearly not releasing it!
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously not, if a third party change to the registry can break IE, IE has some major problems...
It does make sense if they can't sell them as the high end part but NEED the parts for the mid-range market.
Yes, they do, but they test the GPUs themselves for acceptable clock rate, defective parts, usable pipelines etc. Then they take a look at the chip stock they have, the demand for certain chips and go in and mark some down to meet demand (if necessary). Then they send them off to the manufacturers to get put on whatever cards with whatever memory they need them for. This is pretty standard procedure in the CPU and GPU sector.
The fact is, the manufacturer is doing the consumer a favor by simply disabling parts of the premium product and selling it for a lower price. If the guys shelling out the bucks for the full product weren't subsidizing the lower end models, the manufacturer would be charging more for a different design that still didn't have the features.
In the case of GPUs on video cards, hardware is usually disabled due to defects and marked down.
They may also mark down fully functional parts to lower model numbers to meet demand for "low end" parts.
Configuring anything for serving 32 million user on a cluster isn't going to be pretty ;)
He would've probably found some way to bash it no matter what. I doubt that Goodger wants a bastardized derivative of his holy works to gain any market share at all.
Until people can never ever be infected while using a completely up to date operating system, extending such a reconnect fee system to viruses and trojans wouldn't fly with customers.
How about 5 years of experience with Windows *95* in 1997?
Which tells me they're *trying* to find a solution and a fine would be inappropriate but they want to do it in a fashion that won't result in the theft of their IP by OSS zealots.
and when it becomes an issue of fleecing EU citizens, do you think member countries are going to sit and take it?
I would make a modest bet that they'll either slowly hire people until they get as big or bigger than they were before or hire tons more people in a foreign country for a wage of a bowl of rice a week.
They will give them a case to get you and/or your company into court to until you and your new employer wither and die and nobody ever grows the balls to challenge the mighty non-compete again.
State enforced attempted genocide occurred more recently in Europe.
You can actually give away a lot in a contract. Once you sign a contract that isn't completely ridiculous (and giving up your rights to your free time isn't), it will simply be an issue of whether someone has broken the contract in court.
>My point is that writing a new operating system that is closely tied to any >particular piece of hardware, especially a weird one like the Intel line, >is basically wrong. -- Andy Tanenbaum 30 Jan 92 13:44:34 GMT
Unless your workaround is determined to be a violation of the patent.
And just like the last language I heard of having such a beast, nearly nobody will use it thus making the effort implementing it a waste.
If the OSS community thinks people should have freedom to do anything with their software, shouldn't that freedom extend to a choice of licenses? If it's open source, it's open source. It will still satisfy the goals of the end-user having control and access to the source. Whining about licenses usually comes from people who want to lift code and put it in othe projects and never contribute back to the original source. For proof, look at any announcement about an OS going open source and see people yell and scream for it to be GPL so they can lift code for Linux (not to contribute back ofc!).
How about something that will run on Mac and Windows?
You can take the code and use it in your own project and even write replacements for the proprietary code and make your own DVR boxes. It would be unwise to try to use the GPL to usurp control of the hardware and their support policies. They probably don't want people running modified binaries on their boxes, damaging them, and then just writing the original disk contents back and taking the box in to get a brand new one.
They could use proprietary modular drivers to get around the GPL.
Before IE became dominant, it was always Netscape in the news with the latest security holes. It seems that remaining in obscurity results in security flaws piling up until popularity when it becomes a race against exploiters.
So if I use SoftwareX v1.3.8 and then someone implements a feature that violates my patent in v1.3.9 and I enforce my patent, will the FSF try to revoke my license to 1.3.8? What kind of wacky shit are they going to try?
Shipping it within their product is clearly not releasing it!