...on top of everything accumulated since.NET 1.0, making it even more bloated. It'll be fun watching them spin that as a feature. That's what I like about projects like Python 3000 - learn from the previous generations, don't absorb them.
This is going to scare you, but BSD stands for "Berkeley Software Distribution", so BSD is automatically a distro. How can there be no such thing as a BSD distro? Maybe the definition of the word has changed since then. BSDs are each like a single Linux distribution with a selection of tools from the open source world, as well as a lot of project-specific code and legacy code from BSD heritage.
CFS is a thread scheduler, CFQ is a disk IO scheduler. They are independent but can coexist (and in many modern distro releases, do so by default). Both seem to be focused on desktop user experience, although they're not exactly "bad" for servers either.
Kopete is often overlooked because it's tightly integrated into KDE, but much less so than Windows Live Messenger is tied to Windows, so it deserves mention as a very complete MSN/WinLive client.
Re:Of Course IE will fail, ACID test is biased...
on
Acid3 Test Released
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Yes, biased towards conforming with open international published standards, rather than to any specific vendor's implementation. It just happens the best of the best web browsers try to conform to the same standards, scoring much higher than Microsoft's offering which is deliberately designed to break from the standard to ensure lockin.
Reducing a 90% player to 50% will greatly improve competition and innovation in the market, which is what we all want. Microsoft have been "getting by" based on corruption for years now, with minimal value added to their operating system, browser, office suite... while other systems have had to waste seemingly infinite man-hours supporting Microsoft's deliberately difficult proprietary file formats, file systems and network protocols, all while making time to innovate and advance.
With the waste of time down, and mindshare up, Linux and similar systems in its space will rise to great heights and Microsoft will have to actually make good products to remain relevant. That means we get multiple great operating systems rather than the prolonged battle between highly compromising systems we have now.
Are you sure it's optimized for anything? Maybe one fast processor would make it bearable, but on that same processor, WinXP or Linux will seem much more "optimized". With Vista, new is the new old.
Just for clarity (since that article is wrong on this point), third degree burns are far from the worst. Supposedly, the worst is sixth degree, where all that's left is charred bone (bone being largely inorganic and therefore difficult to burn). I imagine anything higher would be the bone resolving into component molecules, with the energy overcoming the bonds keeping bone intact. Physics is interesting that way.
By that logic, Linux systems will take over, not MacOSX. MacOSX is not exactly an "elite's" operating system, although maybe an "elitist's". The technical elite who know they can learn, configure and use any operating system they want, often pick something like Linux or BSD based on their needs. If their needs expand to include Windows or MacOSX, they'll fire up any of the many free and commercial virtualization platforms.
I think MacOSX is still more likely to take over by appealing to the average person. Even if only 30% of desktop users end up on MacOSX, it creates just enough heterogeny to require greater interoperability and market freedom - which benefits Linux and BSD and others greatly as well, giving them more room to grow and finally form a diverse market with low barriers to entry. But like Microsoft, Apple will not hold a dominant position for long, and unlike Microsoft, Apple probably will never get a dominant position in the desktop market to begin with.
Linux has the drivers as part of its base system, meaning the distribution can do it for you and you won't even know it's happening. I've heard RedHat does that but I don't have proof, just hearsay.
Yes they are. Modern CPUs have microcode (think firmware) which can even be replaced at runtime to patch bugs (e.g. race conditions that fudge memory protection). Intel and AMD both release microcode updates for their CPUs, and in Linux in particular, you can replace the microcode at runtime with zero risk because it's reset again when the CPU powers off.
A processor "driver" would support non-standard features like non-ACPI advanced power management, runtime tuning, the aforementioned microcode update, and so on. For instance, AMD's driver interfaces with their "Cool'N'Quiet" power scaling system (Linux has a driver built into the kernel so you generally don't need to care, but in Windows you have to install it manually).
It's not a typo, it's completely the wrong word. "Your" and "You're" are too different to consider one a typo of another.
Maybe I'm making a weak connection here, but challenging a person's interpretation of a document is an insult to their interpretation ability, which is a language skill. You can't prove it's a matter of arrogance (which may be the case, but you can't consider as a fact), so all that's left is a matter of skill or simply lack of effort to apply skill. I'd take either as an insult, personally.
It's up to you whether you agree that this is an insult to language skills, but I believe I've made my view clear, so there's no need to argue over it. Either way, it doesn't change that you're being pretty harsh on somebody you don't know, while leaving yourself open to mockery for errors.
Just a tip here: "you're" English isn't good enough to use for the purpose of insulting the language skills of others. I'm not a native English speaker either, but some basic professionalism in communication isn't too much to ask.
As an anecdote, the single application most important to my work (and hobby) is Eclipse. For the amount of machine assistance it can provide towards productive work, you pay heavily in RAM and CPU power. For a particularly prolonged session on a large project, I can have my entire operating system occupying 100MB of RAM, and Eclipse occupying as much as 800MB, leaving very little room even on a 1GB stick.
It's not that Eclipse has always been this heavy, rather, innovations in machine assistance expand the software to fill the hardware. It's like that in web browsers, document editors, media players, etc.
So as long as we keep expanding the hardware, the software will expand proportionally. For applications that truly require extreme amounts of data processing, they're almost universally so parallel that they can be run on a cluster anyway.
Fortunately the open source space has a broad spectrum from very efficient software all the way up to software which does a lot of clever things for you at the cost of system resources. The commercial space is a bit top-heavy because feature-rich software sells well and sells for a lot, since "one program to do everything" looks great in marketing.
The claim against Linux is purely on patents, not on copyright. The SCO case was on copyright and that was very easy to disprove once some specific code claims were made. Microsoft can't accuse Linux developers of code theft based on patent violations. "Intellectual property" theft is a stretch even then, as patents can be infringed independently.
A similar thing happened with FreeBSD 4->5. FreeBSD 4 was at some point the fastest, most stable and most administratively sane operating system for the x86. Linux 2.4 was already ahead in SMP scalability, but since this did not affect many users back then, not many people cared.
Then FreeBSD 5 was planned to include a major architecture shift to modern parallel programming, which required changing almost all of the kernel code sooner or later. FreeBSD 5 was downright unusuable until the 5.3 "stable" release, which was tolerable but still performed a lot *worse* than FreeBSD 4 for many workloads because it was half way between the very well optimized uniprocessor code and the very raw and experimental multiprocessor code.
FreeBSD 5 was looking so bad even early on, that Matthew Dillon predicted (incorrectly) that it would become unmaintainable and fail to modernize to new usages. He forked FreeBSD 4.8 into DragonFly BSD, and developed it with more clever, innovative and forward-thinking designs.
However, FreeBSD 6 and finally FreeBSD 7 polished things up to the point that a slightly reconfigured FreeBSD 7.0-rc1 will compete with and often outperform Linux 2.6.22 for database throughput, with comparable responsiveness to CFS in 2.6.24. FreeBSD 7 is stable and fast, and still includes as many features as the old FreeBSDs did, including running well on old hardware. FreeBSD 7 humiliates the current DragonFly (and in fact, all of the BSDs) in throughput and scalability alike. Here, have some numbers: http://www.slideshare.net/sim303/7020-preview/
An exceptionally bad 5.x branch did not kill FreeBSD. So I don't suppose KDE 4.0 will kill KDE either, or even significantly reduce its mindshare. Especially if 4.1 comes out by the end of the year and improves significantly, KDE might gain even more adoption than it has now in 3.5.
Now imagine that somewhere in Microsoft Research, somebody is working out how to make sure you can't even speak the document's contents out loud, let alone transcribe it into another document for non-DRM stoarge.
Why not use Eclipse with Java and SWT for new projects? It'll perform a lot better than Visual Studio with the massive bonus of producing applications that run on Linux, MacOSX, Solaris, etc. on servers and desktops. Almost everything VS does that Eclipse doesn't is available in expensive versions, and even then, most of those features can be added for free to Eclipse via plugins. It's a pretty sweet deal.
Slashdot Mirror
...on top of everything accumulated since .NET 1.0, making it even more bloated. It'll be fun watching them spin that as a feature. That's what I like about projects like Python 3000 - learn from the previous generations, don't absorb them.
Python and Ruby are so *not* limited to Unix people, that Microsoft pays developers supporting Python and Ruby on the CLR/DLR.
I for one welcome our new open source overlords :)
This is going to scare you, but BSD stands for "Berkeley Software Distribution", so BSD is automatically a distro. How can there be no such thing as a BSD distro? Maybe the definition of the word has changed since then. BSDs are each like a single Linux distribution with a selection of tools from the open source world, as well as a lot of project-specific code and legacy code from BSD heritage.
Once again, CFS is a thread scheduler, CFQ is a disk IO scheduler. They're completely different things. Uust how will did you research it?!
CFS is a thread scheduler, CFQ is a disk IO scheduler. They are independent but can coexist (and in many modern distro releases, do so by default). Both seem to be focused on desktop user experience, although they're not exactly "bad" for servers either.
Kopete is often overlooked because it's tightly integrated into KDE, but much less so than Windows Live Messenger is tied to Windows, so it deserves mention as a very complete MSN/WinLive client.
Yes, biased towards conforming with open international published standards, rather than to any specific vendor's implementation. It just happens the best of the best web browsers try to conform to the same standards, scoring much higher than Microsoft's offering which is deliberately designed to break from the standard to ensure lockin.
My concept of 5 9s is much easier: 9.9999%. Or for Vista servers, .99999%.
Reducing a 90% player to 50% will greatly improve competition and innovation in the market, which is what we all want. Microsoft have been "getting by" based on corruption for years now, with minimal value added to their operating system, browser, office suite... while other systems have had to waste seemingly infinite man-hours supporting Microsoft's deliberately difficult proprietary file formats, file systems and network protocols, all while making time to innovate and advance.
With the waste of time down, and mindshare up, Linux and similar systems in its space will rise to great heights and Microsoft will have to actually make good products to remain relevant. That means we get multiple great operating systems rather than the prolonged battle between highly compromising systems we have now.
Are you sure it's optimized for anything? Maybe one fast processor would make it bearable, but on that same processor, WinXP or Linux will seem much more "optimized". With Vista, new is the new old.
Your company may have access to some sweet technology, but I doubt a time machine is one of them. Perhaps you're really running 7.0RC2, not 7.2RC2.
If you *do* have a time machine, do CPU topology detection and EFI+GPT work in 7.2? Does 8.0 have a new installer yet? Inquiring minds want to know.
Just for clarity (since that article is wrong on this point), third degree burns are far from the worst. Supposedly, the worst is sixth degree, where all that's left is charred bone (bone being largely inorganic and therefore difficult to burn). I imagine anything higher would be the bone resolving into component molecules, with the energy overcoming the bonds keeping bone intact. Physics is interesting that way.
By that logic, Linux systems will take over, not MacOSX. MacOSX is not exactly an "elite's" operating system, although maybe an "elitist's". The technical elite who know they can learn, configure and use any operating system they want, often pick something like Linux or BSD based on their needs. If their needs expand to include Windows or MacOSX, they'll fire up any of the many free and commercial virtualization platforms.
I think MacOSX is still more likely to take over by appealing to the average person. Even if only 30% of desktop users end up on MacOSX, it creates just enough heterogeny to require greater interoperability and market freedom - which benefits Linux and BSD and others greatly as well, giving them more room to grow and finally form a diverse market with low barriers to entry. But like Microsoft, Apple will not hold a dominant position for long, and unlike Microsoft, Apple probably will never get a dominant position in the desktop market to begin with.
Linux has the drivers as part of its base system, meaning the distribution can do it for you and you won't even know it's happening. I've heard RedHat does that but I don't have proof, just hearsay.
Yes they are. Modern CPUs have microcode (think firmware) which can even be replaced at runtime to patch bugs (e.g. race conditions that fudge memory protection). Intel and AMD both release microcode updates for their CPUs, and in Linux in particular, you can replace the microcode at runtime with zero risk because it's reset again when the CPU powers off.
A processor "driver" would support non-standard features like non-ACPI advanced power management, runtime tuning, the aforementioned microcode update, and so on. For instance, AMD's driver interfaces with their "Cool'N'Quiet" power scaling system (Linux has a driver built into the kernel so you generally don't need to care, but in Windows you have to install it manually).
It's not a typo, it's completely the wrong word. "Your" and "You're" are too different to consider one a typo of another.
Maybe I'm making a weak connection here, but challenging a person's interpretation of a document is an insult to their interpretation ability, which is a language skill. You can't prove it's a matter of arrogance (which may be the case, but you can't consider as a fact), so all that's left is a matter of skill or simply lack of effort to apply skill. I'd take either as an insult, personally.
It's up to you whether you agree that this is an insult to language skills, but I believe I've made my view clear, so there's no need to argue over it. Either way, it doesn't change that you're being pretty harsh on somebody you don't know, while leaving yourself open to mockery for errors.
http://www.openvpn.net/
Just a tip here: "you're" English isn't good enough to use for the purpose of insulting the language skills of others. I'm not a native English speaker either, but some basic professionalism in communication isn't too much to ask.
As an anecdote, the single application most important to my work (and hobby) is Eclipse. For the amount of machine assistance it can provide towards productive work, you pay heavily in RAM and CPU power. For a particularly prolonged session on a large project, I can have my entire operating system occupying 100MB of RAM, and Eclipse occupying as much as 800MB, leaving very little room even on a 1GB stick.
It's not that Eclipse has always been this heavy, rather, innovations in machine assistance expand the software to fill the hardware. It's like that in web browsers, document editors, media players, etc.
So as long as we keep expanding the hardware, the software will expand proportionally. For applications that truly require extreme amounts of data processing, they're almost universally so parallel that they can be run on a cluster anyway.
Fortunately the open source space has a broad spectrum from very efficient software all the way up to software which does a lot of clever things for you at the cost of system resources. The commercial space is a bit top-heavy because feature-rich software sells well and sells for a lot, since "one program to do everything" looks great in marketing.
It's an initialism, not an acronym.
The claim against Linux is purely on patents, not on copyright. The SCO case was on copyright and that was very easy to disprove once some specific code claims were made. Microsoft can't accuse Linux developers of code theft based on patent violations. "Intellectual property" theft is a stretch even then, as patents can be infringed independently.
A similar thing happened with FreeBSD 4->5. FreeBSD 4 was at some point the fastest, most stable and most administratively sane operating system for the x86. Linux 2.4 was already ahead in SMP scalability, but since this did not affect many users back then, not many people cared.
Then FreeBSD 5 was planned to include a major architecture shift to modern parallel programming, which required changing almost all of the kernel code sooner or later. FreeBSD 5 was downright unusuable until the 5.3 "stable" release, which was tolerable but still performed a lot *worse* than FreeBSD 4 for many workloads because it was half way between the very well optimized uniprocessor code and the very raw and experimental multiprocessor code.
FreeBSD 5 was looking so bad even early on, that Matthew Dillon predicted (incorrectly) that it would become unmaintainable and fail to modernize to new usages. He forked FreeBSD 4.8 into DragonFly BSD, and developed it with more clever, innovative and forward-thinking designs.
However, FreeBSD 6 and finally FreeBSD 7 polished things up to the point that a slightly reconfigured FreeBSD 7.0-rc1 will compete with and often outperform Linux 2.6.22 for database throughput, with comparable responsiveness to CFS in 2.6.24. FreeBSD 7 is stable and fast, and still includes as many features as the old FreeBSDs did, including running well on old hardware. FreeBSD 7 humiliates the current DragonFly (and in fact, all of the BSDs) in throughput and scalability alike. Here, have some numbers: http://www.slideshare.net/sim303/7020-preview/
An exceptionally bad 5.x branch did not kill FreeBSD. So I don't suppose KDE 4.0 will kill KDE either, or even significantly reduce its mindshare. Especially if 4.1 comes out by the end of the year and improves significantly, KDE might gain even more adoption than it has now in 3.5.
Now imagine that somewhere in Microsoft Research, somebody is working out how to make sure you can't even speak the document's contents out loud, let alone transcribe it into another document for non-DRM stoarge.
Why not use Eclipse with Java and SWT for new projects? It'll perform a lot better than Visual Studio with the massive bonus of producing applications that run on Linux, MacOSX, Solaris, etc. on servers and desktops. Almost everything VS does that Eclipse doesn't is available in expensive versions, and even then, most of those features can be added for free to Eclipse via plugins. It's a pretty sweet deal.