Rather, say thanks to all the developers that said 'no' to having to recode for the Palladium API. Making MS look a fool for trying to force its way.
So yes, bye-bye Palladium is good news. It sill come back, in some form or another, anyway (look ar the recent IBM announcements about their trusted computing research)
It's a male left hand holding the mirror for a woman. As pointed before, another hand would hold the camera (male right hand). Also note the camera angle - almost vertical (judging from the position of the shoes in the background) and still from the left of the woman in the mirror. How many left hands would have been needed for only one actor?
Weird effect anyway - they should have thought this through more.
Not sure about the 'double in speed' law anymore, seeing as Intel seems to have its hands full and its processors' speed is at a standstill for quite a while now. I do hope the Next Big Thing will be big enough and cheap enough to make it into my computer in some 3-4 years, because the silicon is getting fairly close to its limits (too expensive to research alone already, look at all the semiconductor research pooling for below 90nm tech).
2008 might do it for the hardware, but even if Longhorn launches in 2007 (that is, another year past today's deadline of 2006) shipping only on the upper range of computers is not what MS had in mind to get users to migate.
Seriously, the point is more like: what does this new OS offer me that has this spec as a must, a.k.a. I can't get it with a different OS for a significantly lower spec? Software has been stagnating lately - and it's not even using the full power of the current average hardware. It's not like you're currently constrained to fit everything in 64k of memory and use CP/M off a floppy. The horsepower is there, only mostly idle.
Besides, with current technology this spec is hilarious - water cooling systems will have a hard time keeping the whole thing radiating below the visible spectrum, unless it's idle. And summers would be very hot this way in 100+ offices. I'm not saying a future computer exceeding those specs is impossible - far from it. But it will require a qualitative change in technology and that isn't likely to happen before Longhorn.
According to some AMD quote the current memory controller actually *is designed* for 2 cores - currently only core0 uses it as there's no core1.
Also, AGP is going out - PCI express will be the name of the game... well, as soon as hw manufacturers lose patience with Windows' lack of support and go ahead with it anyway.
good point! What on earth could MS use as distribution media to fill up even 100GB of basic OS install? (nevermind the question about content). I guess high-capacity dvd-like media only - you will at least have to replace the cd/dvd unit of the old PC to install the new OS.
Next, think about bugs - LOTS of them (as in LOTS of code) - so... LOTS of patches. Maybe that's the reason for the fast net link ^_^ Seriously, if Longhorn is 'only' 50G, add Office to it and you'll have a lot of code to download patches for. MS would better set up automated patching to occur during the night!
By that time you'll be using blu-ray+ dvds to store your library. It's the typical case of read-only info that sits better off the main hard drive (say in some external storage rack)
what are you smoking? if that's the spec for the average rig, a high-end one for graphics/engineering/etc. will need at least 4-8 CPU cores (in whatever configuration), 16G RAM, multicore graphic chipsets... ok, this is becoming surreal too fast.
maybe it's just a crackpot spec. Or maybe the test build was a debug one ^_^
dual core eats a lot of silicon real estate. Eats lots of power, too - especially at 4-6GHz. Not really likely to happen with the current tech - not before ~65-45nm anyway. And the way the nm-scale research is going, this looks like a big hurdle for silicon. Maybe switching to something else will help, but the technology is nowhere near primetime yet.
How is this insightful? this is for the freakin' OS, not for gaming or anything!!! Remember, the average consumer does little more than web+mail+maybe movies/music. 3x faster video cards indeed!
yes, hardware will improve, there will be faster CPUs, GPUs, faster and cheaper memory... but these requirements for the OS are ridiculous. Besides, this is not going to be the average system very soon, as the 'average system' is still sold to businesses - and good luck trying to convince those they have to shell out so much money for useless hardware (3d? loads of ram for the secretary's freecell?) just to upgrade the OS! Heck, good luch trying to get a system to this spec from Dell for less than $1000! And if Dell won't sell it...
Also, if this spec turns out true, there will be a lot of noise from all the people who bought the last MS license plan - and it won't be cheering, either!
The only good news is MS will lose a lot of corporate/gov customers with this spec. Maybe Longhorn is not such a threat to opensource as previously thought?
ok, the "1% according to google" crap[*] is a troll sign[**], but what the heck...
Sure ATI are writing Windows drivers. In fact, DX ones, at that. Common knowledge - for DX go ATI, for OGL do NVidia. In fact, it might not be too far off to assume that the PS3 support of GeForce is actually a by-product of OGL fragment support (since the tough spec here is the OGL one rather than the DX).
And to tie it up - the significant NV4x Linux users will probably be render farms. Running Quadros, at that. ATI is the underdog for professional OGL and it does not look like they want to change that - judging from their driver support, the ATI mantra seems to be "Windows is where it's at - all else is gravy'
[*] for the less-technical, there's such a thing as the user-agent setting (my konq would show up as IE6 on WinXP in google's stats); most non-Win users are familiar with it due to stupid IE-only sites [**] unless the PP would deign to explain how is Google usage significant to 3D gfx on Linux in any meaningful way. weee! 3D accelerated access to Google!!!!
well, this works as long as you can "render to God what's God's" (case to the point: the Temple scene). From here on it's open to speculation about what is/should be considered as God's;-)
A theory could come in the form that for a Christian everything comes from God, so he/she, as one of the God's children, is free to use it. Subsequent anarchy would be interesting to watch.
'coherent' and 'increases the learning curve' are relative to Photoshop. In your own words - Neither has anything to do with Photoshop--other than that Photoshop does things the better way, which is to say 'has everything to do with Photoshop'. You don't just strip a Photoshop user's background off before trying GIMP. Thus you have a context - and in that context PS 'does it better'. But, at the same time, nothing will do it better than the original - at most, you can get a perfect UI clone. So this kind of criticism is wrong. Fair would be to compare learning curves for complete newbies, some starting with PS, some with GIMP.
There are valid points about GIMP's interface to be made, but placing them out of the proper context just defeats the purpose.
gtk1.x has limitations - that makes the 'look' of GIMP 1.x awful. GIMP2 is better, but still not 'eye-pleasing' enough. note that this has nothing to do with 'coherence' or 'being littered with icons' - only aesthetics. It's ironic that the GIMP devs didn't dig this point: aesthetics of the tool is important too, not only the end result's Well, it will come to them in time.
there are limits, feature-wise. It's slowly getting there, but there's still behind PS in some important domains (how far behind depends on whom you're asking)
the OSX packaging sucked. That was pointed out before several times, but you still seem to be missing it. In particular, the AA output for text and lines works fine on Linux (no win box to test around here now). So this is a separate issue with the OSX port, not with GIMP itself.
the name sucks. Oh well.
So yes, there are valid criticisms that can be brought to GIMP. Same for most any program - gee, nothing is perfect (PS has its share too). Unfortunately, you didn't make them.
void main is deprecated. Any standards-compliant compiler will flag it at least as a warning. On the other hand, you can skip the return statement and the compiler will stick in a return 0;.
the printf issue is not as important - look at the optimized code's asm - you'll see it replaced with a puts() call in any decent compiler if the argument is a constant string. It can be convenient to use (f)prinf in the source just to have a greppable function if you need to search for output code and let the compiler figure out the printf -> puts substitution.
this one is, actually. Finite energy (their assumption) only gives one access to a finite number of states in a finite volume (i.e. discrete energy levels) physical system. That gives an upper bound.
(note of caution - let's see whether this gets accepted, looks more like a Science article than a Phys. Rev. Lett. one to me)
so... duh. This is more or less a geometrical analysis (finite causal volume) + basic information theory. No questions asked about physics of inflation and how would that affect the result. So you end up with a trivial result, too - a finite volume can only hold a finite amount of information. If a lot of other assumptions hold - such as whether the available energy in this volume is really finite (how does one sustain an infinitely accelerating model this way?)
"Sun" and "high performance" don't sit very well in the same phrase, unless you glue them with a "not". It's reliable, alright (heck, compared to stuff MS ships it's mostly a no-brainer). But high-performance it's not. The good ol' reliable turtle.
The 'high quality' issue is more tricky, as there's more to it than just reliability - but a 's/high/good' on this one would look ok. And drop the 'cool', will you?
Slashdot Mirror
Rather, say thanks to all the developers that said 'no' to having to recode for the Palladium API. Making MS look a fool for trying to force its way.
So yes, bye-bye Palladium is good news. It sill come back, in some form or another, anyway (look ar the recent IBM announcements about their trusted computing research)
So here you have it - customers and partners didn't like it.
It's a male left hand holding the mirror for a woman. As pointed before, another hand would hold the camera (male right hand). Also note the camera angle - almost vertical (judging from the position of the shoes in the background) and still from the left of the woman in the mirror. How many left hands would have been needed for only one actor?
Weird effect anyway - they should have thought this through more.
Not sure about the 'double in speed' law anymore, seeing as Intel seems to have its hands full and its processors' speed is at a standstill for quite a while now. I do hope the Next Big Thing will be big enough and cheap enough to make it into my computer in some 3-4 years, because the silicon is getting fairly close to its limits (too expensive to research alone already, look at all the semiconductor research pooling for below 90nm tech).
2008 might do it for the hardware, but even if Longhorn launches in 2007 (that is, another year past today's deadline of 2006) shipping only on the upper range of computers is not what MS had in mind to get users to migate.
it does, but only if you apply the algorithm to /. and notice everyone else is busy posting to the last Longhorn article ^_^
well, no - I was too young to care in '80 :-)
Seriously, the point is more like: what does this new OS offer me that has this spec as a must, a.k.a. I can't get it with a different OS for a significantly lower spec? Software has been stagnating lately - and it's not even using the full power of the current average hardware. It's not like you're currently constrained to fit everything in 64k of memory and use CP/M off a floppy. The horsepower is there, only mostly idle.
Besides, with current technology this spec is hilarious - water cooling systems will have a hard time keeping the whole thing radiating below the visible spectrum, unless it's idle. And summers would be very hot this way in 100+ offices. I'm not saying a future computer exceeding those specs is impossible - far from it. But it will require a qualitative change in technology and that isn't likely to happen before Longhorn.
According to some AMD quote the current memory controller actually *is designed* for 2 cores - currently only core0 uses it as there's no core1.
... well, as soon as hw manufacturers lose patience with Windows' lack of support and go ahead with it anyway.
Also, AGP is going out - PCI express will be the name of the game
good point! What on earth could MS use as distribution media to fill up even 100GB of basic OS install? (nevermind the question about content). I guess high-capacity dvd-like media only - you will at least have to replace the cd/dvd unit of the old PC to install the new OS.
... LOTS of patches. Maybe that's the reason for the fast net link ^_^ Seriously, if Longhorn is 'only' 50G, add Office to it and you'll have a lot of code to download patches for. MS would better set up automated patching to occur during the night!
Next, think about bugs - LOTS of them (as in LOTS of code) - so
By that time you'll be using blu-ray+ dvds to store your library. It's the typical case of read-only info that sits better off the main hard drive (say in some external storage rack)
what are you smoking? if that's the spec for the average rig, a high-end one for graphics/engineering/etc. will need at least 4-8 CPU cores (in whatever configuration), 16G RAM, multicore graphic chipsets ... ok, this is becoming surreal too fast.
maybe it's just a crackpot spec. Or maybe the test build was a debug one ^_^
dual core eats a lot of silicon real estate. Eats lots of power, too - especially at 4-6GHz. Not really likely to happen with the current tech - not before ~65-45nm anyway. And the way the nm-scale research is going, this looks like a big hurdle for silicon. Maybe switching to something else will help, but the technology is nowhere near primetime yet.
How is this insightful? this is for the freakin' OS, not for gaming or anything!!! Remember, the average consumer does little more than web+mail+maybe movies/music. 3x faster video cards indeed!
... but these requirements for the OS are ridiculous. Besides, this is not going to be the average system very soon, as the 'average system' is still sold to businesses - and good luck trying to convince those they have to shell out so much money for useless hardware (3d? loads of ram for the secretary's freecell?) just to upgrade the OS! Heck, good luch trying to get a system to this spec from Dell for less than $1000! And if Dell won't sell it ...
yes, hardware will improve, there will be faster CPUs, GPUs, faster and cheaper memory
Also, if this spec turns out true, there will be a lot of noise from all the people who bought the last MS license plan - and it won't be cheering, either!
The only good news is MS will lose a lot of corporate/gov customers with this spec. Maybe Longhorn is not such a threat to opensource as previously thought?
ok, gotta stop laughing ... anytime now ... *looks again* you have a shell for man? merciful god! what universe is that in?
ok, the "1% according to google" crap[*] is a troll sign[**], but what the heck ...
Sure ATI are writing Windows drivers. In fact, DX ones, at that. Common knowledge - for DX go ATI, for OGL do NVidia. In fact, it might not be too far off to assume that the PS3 support of GeForce is actually a by-product of OGL fragment support (since the tough spec here is the OGL one rather than the DX).
And to tie it up - the significant NV4x Linux users will probably be render farms. Running Quadros, at that. ATI is the underdog for professional OGL and it does not look like they want to change that - judging from their driver support, the ATI mantra seems to be "Windows is where it's at - all else is gravy'
[*] for the less-technical, there's such a thing as the user-agent setting (my konq would show up as IE6 on WinXP in google's stats); most non-Win users are familiar with it due to stupid IE-only sites
[**] unless the PP would deign to explain how is Google usage significant to 3D gfx on Linux in any meaningful way. weee! 3D accelerated access to Google!!!!
well, this works as long as you can "render to God what's God's" (case to the point: the Temple scene). From here on it's open to speculation about what is/should be considered as God's ;-)
A theory could come in the form that for a Christian everything comes from God, so he/she, as one of the God's children, is free to use it. Subsequent anarchy would be interesting to watch.
'coherent' and 'increases the learning curve' are relative to Photoshop. In your own words - Neither has anything to do with Photoshop--other than that Photoshop does things the better way, which is to say 'has everything to do with Photoshop'. You don't just strip a Photoshop user's background off before trying GIMP. Thus you have a context - and in that context PS 'does it better'. But, at the same time, nothing will do it better than the original - at most, you can get a perfect UI clone. So this kind of criticism is wrong. Fair would be to compare learning curves for complete newbies, some starting with PS, some with GIMP.
There are valid points about GIMP's interface to be made, but placing them out of the proper context just defeats the purpose.
So yes, there are valid criticisms that can be brought to GIMP. Same for most any program - gee, nothing is perfect (PS has its share too). Unfortunately, you didn't make them.
void main is deprecated. Any standards-compliant compiler will flag it at least as a warning. On the other hand, you can skip the return statement and the compiler will stick in a return 0;.
the printf issue is not as important - look at the optimized code's asm - you'll see it replaced with a puts() call in any decent compiler if the argument is a constant string. It can be convenient to use (f)prinf in the source just to have a greppable function if you need to search for output code and let the compiler figure out the printf -> puts substitution.
Actually, you don't. It's not a 'must fill' field, they'll probably ask for one when you buy the first song.
For the promotion, all I needed was an email address.
this one is, actually. Finite energy (their assumption) only gives one access to a finite number of states in a finite volume (i.e. discrete energy levels) physical system. That gives an upper bound.
... assuming you have emerge sync as a cron job ^_^
There's no physics in the article, only geometry. Everything is gobbled up in 2 assumptions: the mass = energy = information + this is the mass.
There is a lot of unknown in physics that could make this article a joke.
(note of caution - let's see whether this gets accepted, looks more like a Science article than a Phys. Rev. Lett. one to me)
... duh. This is more or less a geometrical analysis (finite causal volume) + basic information theory. No questions asked about physics of inflation and how would that affect the result. So you end up with a trivial result, too - a finite volume can only hold a finite amount of information. If a lot of other assumptions hold - such as whether the available energy in this volume is really finite (how does one sustain an infinitely accelerating model this way?)
so
"Sun" and "high performance" don't sit very well in the same phrase, unless you glue them with a "not". It's reliable, alright (heck, compared to stuff MS ships it's mostly a no-brainer). But high-performance it's not. The good ol' reliable turtle.
The 'high quality' issue is more tricky, as there's more to it than just reliability - but a 's/high/good' on this one would look ok. And drop the 'cool', will you?
firewall and AV then go online for updates then Mozilla.
unless you want to have some rpc worm deflower your virgen windows install before you even get a chance to update it. (and no, AVs don't catch that)
2. would't perl qualify as belonging to the base install?
;-) or the question has to be rephrased as '10 most needed apps'
3. same about tcsh - aren't both bash and tchs in the defaults (just to please most cli fans)?
if you want to plead a purist base install then where's X in the list (on for desktop, off for server)? or openssh?
I guess my point is 10 is too small a number