the reason there are only a few hundred of people connected to IRC at a time is because IRC sucks. It is a very bad protocol, it is a great example of how badly a protocol can be designed, and how hard it is to deviate and create a new protocol once the old one is an accepted, widely used standard (the primary example is, of course, SMTP)
ICQ does not have 'lag' as you put it, because messages are sent via peer to peer TCP connections. Same as DCC chat on irc.
As far as spoofing messages.. do you even _use_ irc? its called/nick . ever have nick wars on irc? channel wars? people stealing channels via server splits (because AFAIK no IRC server in existance can support more than about 1500 clients, because the processing and bandwitch utilization goes up exponentially)?
I want to talk to people, I don't want 14 year old script kiddies portscanning my IP, ping flooding me, etc.
The blackdown code is sent directly back to Sun, so this is definately allowable. Indeed, changes the Blackdown team made (bugfixes) have been merged into the java code already, at least for Solaris.
The problem comes just in that Blackdown has been around for four years, and Sun releases a new jdk one day (without cluing anyone in beforehand), and don't give Blackdown any credit.
Technically, they don't have to give credit. But Blackdown has done a _hell_ of a lot more than Sun or Imprise have in getting java working on Linux.
Note that although Sun would be to blame for not having Blackdown listed in the press releases, Imprise would be to blame for using code, scripts, and readme's from Blackdown. Imprise did the port to help get JBuilder out for UNIX platforms, Sun is just taking over the source tree.
yes, but there was going to be a product that officially ran on windows and linux. That is what people are mostly ticked off about. They WANT to buy linux software. I know I have been WAITING to get Unreal Tournament, and nearly preordered it (I'm glad I didn't now). Why, two reasons. One, it is very fun. Two, linux support. OFFICIAL linux support. It was to be the first ever released game on storeshelves and displays in the center of the aisle that shipped with Linux support, that said 'runs on linux' on the box.
I feel (and I'm sure a LOT of people feel) horribly cheated that this late in the game they announce that the fully functional linux version, which was actually on the CD image, has been removed due to PHB decision-making.
I have said it before, I'll say it again - I will buy TWO retail box versions that have linux support. I will not support a distributor that cheats such a large portion of their customers (Based on the large number of networked FPS fans I know, 20%). If they change their mind and start including the linux version later, I'll buy it later (I don't hold grudges).
The people that really are cheated by this are Epic, because they put a lot of work in a good product that got shafted for no good reason. I wish there was a way I could still reward Epic for their hard work on UT without giving a dime to GT.
hmm, I would place an order right now on my visa card, $50, for the retail linux version of Unreal Tournament.
Shoot, I will buy two copies so I can make a dedicated server on my box (on a T1).
I refuse to buy windows software though. The last piece of windows software I bought was Quake2.. and guess how I played it?
If GT is so DUMB that they actually REMOVED linux support, when a large portion of users have been WAITING for it, I don't want to support them. Luckily because they funded Epic, not buying the game doesn't hurt Epic that much- it just hurts GT.
The GeForce 'chip' does 480 MegaPixels/sec, true, but without textures. The ram on the GeForce boards is not fast enough to serve textures at that speed. When the dual cycle ram boards come out , it will actually go at 480, but in the meanwhile this is a meaningless number - you are limited by the speed of texture and pixel data through memory before you get close to 480 MPix/sec.
I would say they are the same speed (Before GeForce gets new ram), but that is disappointing considering that the 3dfx also cannot do geometry.
Apple didn't have to put any system calls in for photoshop - Photoshop on mac is an OS in itself:)
Besides, if adobe really wanted a new kernel on the Mac all they have to do is overwrite the old one, it isn't like it is in protected memory or there is a protected area of the disk or anything.
That said, if you look at the benchmarks for the new iMac, they compare the iMac with a Rage128 with (i believe) a lower-clocked celeron with a PCI Rage Pro. hmm.. wow, the iMac came ahead - no surprise.
That said, yes, I think the TCO of *nix is generally lower once you are talking about large installations and Enterprises. For smaller organisations I'm not at all sure that is true. A 20 person company with a need for a file and print server is perfectly suited to an NT box.
I work in a small company. I set up the network there among our four machines (I got duped into having the file server on my machine, too). When it comes down to it, I don't have time to set up any security or strategy, because it isn't my job - I'm a programmer. I can't talk them into letting me devote a day or so to set things up 'right'. So my boss (who is great but not that intelligent about computers) runs executable files attached to e-mails send from friends all day. I know it isn't going to be long until he wipes out my computer and all the other ones on the network, but my hands are tied.
In the situation where you have a limited number of computers, are running NT anyways, and/or cannot get someone to commit to actually implementing a strategy for security, NT is going to win, because it is designed so that morons (like myself) can point and click repeatedly until you have a server set up on the network. But the company across the street from me (now up to four employees!) has a linux box as their server, because it is just plain better and faster, more stable and more secure. You just got to evaluate the need-vs-time-investment-vs-hardware-investment graph, and choose.
It is probably much more around the idea that netscape 4.x is not modular, and they could not integrate the browser into the 'AOL' application. Mozilla is modular (and someone even made a compatibility ActiveX control with the WebBrowser interface, so you can swap it out with IE in your application code), but it isn't finished yet.
AOL also gets the benefit of being on the Windows 98 CD as long as they use IE, as part of M$'s wheeling and dealing to kill netscape.
I imagine the reason is quality control. Their job supporting their hardware on the windows platform would be made a lot harder if they had to support 'Joe Bob's L33T SBLive drivers" with hacked vqf playback support as well as their own drivers. I am actually surprised, beyond the thread of reverse engineering their other concern has to be product support - bad support looks horrible on them, and they have no way to support drivers that other people are making. I imagine they just got convinced that the new drivers couldn't possibly be worse than the existing ones, and that they could weasel their way out of supporting people not using windows;-)
I have heard of a machine that took six DAYS to boot. Running a netscape server (I think a news server product?). Lots of files (millions?) on a very big, very slow drive. took six days to finish running chkdsk when it restarted.
The nice thing about Linux and even EROS with respect to OS/2 is that while they don't have the lion's share of developer support, at least the individuals who CREATED it like it, support it, and are planning to improve it in the future.
Get IBM to OpenSource OS/2:) They obviously are currently trying to kill it internally.
Marc, project leader of PGCC, is also on the steering committee for EGCS (now GCC). As far as I know, all of the stable changes (Which are all of the big improvements and some of the smaller ones) have been merged into PGCC. Nowadays, PGCC is more of an experimental compiler for ideas Marc comes up with - which is why I got slightly upset when I found out Mandrake was using it. It offers no constant speed improvement (speed reduction in many cases), and is completely unstable.
So PGCC has been merged except for experiments being carried on by Marc.
It doesn't matter code-wise, the code is still out there. Either the survived developers decide on someone to take over leadership of the project, they fork off many different projects, or they all simltaneously decide to give up coding and take up professional soccer.
Re:can anyone explain the coppermine jump in gamin
on
Coppermine vs. Athlon
·
· Score: 1
quake2 was _not_ optimized for SSE or 3DNow, however many video card vendors have optimized their drivers for these instruction sets. The only thing that could have benefitted in quake2 from 3DNow or SSE was the sound code (other than odd hacks an optimizing compiler would cause). It is the only thing that really takes computation in quake2 that can benefit from these. The enemy AI doesn't really associate with these special purpose functions, nor does the BSP code. And all the video code is in the vendor OGL drivers.
Depends on how shitty the video card is to whether or not you would need faster AGP. Voodoo 3's still don't support AGP texturing at all - if you have a G400 MAX or a GeForce you are well set to just have all the textures for every level of quake2 load into the card on startup.
The memory speed really doesn't play into it that much for the game benchmarks - the code is almost always hand-assembled so that it all fits into L2 (usually with the entire rendering engine fitting in L1). But ram speed would have 'an effect' on windows benchmarks, for sure.
1. Name it something besides the servlet API. Create a new, simplified API. Existing compiled servlets would need to be edited slightly and recompiled to work, but other than that it should be no problem.
2. Reverse engineer it. Get your version of the API, and start from scratch implementing it. If you don't use their code, they have no say.
Slashdot Mirror
the reason there are only a few hundred of people connected to IRC at a time is because IRC sucks. It is a very bad protocol, it is a great example of how badly a protocol can be designed, and how hard it is to deviate and create a new protocol once the old one is an accepted, widely used standard (the primary example is, of course, SMTP)
/nick . ever have nick wars on irc? channel wars? people stealing channels via server splits (because AFAIK no IRC server in existance can support more than about 1500 clients, because the processing and bandwitch utilization goes up exponentially)?
ICQ does not have 'lag' as you put it, because messages are sent via peer to peer TCP connections. Same as DCC chat on irc.
As far as spoofing messages.. do you even _use_ irc? its called
I want to talk to people, I don't want 14 year old script kiddies portscanning my IP, ping flooding me, etc.
The blackdown code is sent directly back to Sun, so this is definately allowable. Indeed, changes the Blackdown team made (bugfixes) have been merged into the java code already, at least for Solaris.
The problem comes just in that Blackdown has been around for four years, and Sun releases a new jdk one day (without cluing anyone in beforehand), and don't give Blackdown any credit.
Technically, they don't have to give credit. But Blackdown has done a _hell_ of a lot more than Sun or Imprise have in getting java working on Linux.
Note that although Sun would be to blame for not having Blackdown listed in the press releases, Imprise would be to blame for using code, scripts, and readme's from Blackdown. Imprise did the port to help get JBuilder out for UNIX platforms, Sun is just taking over the source tree.
why? its already obsolete, it doesn't even support the GeForce.
(I am not promoting piracy, but)
yes, but there was going to be a product that officially ran on windows and linux. That is what people are mostly ticked off about. They WANT to buy linux software. I know I have been WAITING to get Unreal Tournament, and nearly preordered it (I'm glad I didn't now). Why, two reasons. One, it is very fun. Two, linux support. OFFICIAL linux support. It was to be the first ever released game on storeshelves and displays in the center of the aisle that shipped with Linux support, that said 'runs on linux' on the box.
I feel (and I'm sure a LOT of people feel) horribly cheated that this late in the game they announce that the fully functional linux version, which was actually on the CD image, has been removed due to PHB decision-making.
I have said it before, I'll say it again - I will buy TWO retail box versions that have linux support. I will not support a distributor that cheats such a large portion of their customers (Based on the large number of networked FPS fans I know, 20%). If they change their mind and start including the linux version later, I'll buy it later (I don't hold grudges).
The people that really are cheated by this are Epic, because they put a lot of work in a good product that got shafted for no good reason. I wish there was a way I could still reward Epic for their hard work on UT without giving a dime to GT.
hmm, I would place an order right now on my visa card, $50, for the retail linux version of Unreal Tournament.
Shoot, I will buy two copies so I can make a dedicated server on my box (on a T1).
I refuse to buy windows software though. The last piece of windows software I bought was Quake2.. and guess how I played it?
If GT is so DUMB that they actually REMOVED linux support, when a large portion of users have been WAITING for it, I don't want to support them. Luckily because they funded Epic, not buying the game doesn't hurt Epic that much- it just hurts GT.
ever realize that less than 10% of the computing market will play Unreal Tournament? Try to justify the trouble of writing it for 1 person in 10.
The GeForce 'chip' does 480 MegaPixels/sec, true, but without textures. The ram on the GeForce boards is not fast enough to serve textures at that speed. When the dual cycle ram boards come out , it will actually go at 480, but in the meanwhile this is a meaningless number - you are limited by the speed of texture and pixel data through memory before you get close to 480 MPix/sec.
I would say they are the same speed (Before GeForce gets new ram), but that is disappointing considering that the 3dfx also cannot do geometry.
Apple didn't have to put any system calls in for photoshop - Photoshop on mac is an OS in itself :)
Besides, if adobe really wanted a new kernel on the Mac all they have to do is overwrite the old one, it isn't like it is in protected memory or there is a protected area of the disk or anything.
That said, if you look at the benchmarks for the new iMac, they compare the iMac with a Rage128 with (i believe) a lower-clocked celeron with a PCI Rage Pro. hmm.. wow, the iMac came ahead - no surprise.
That said, yes, I think the TCO of *nix is generally lower once you are talking about large installations and Enterprises. For smaller organisations I'm not at all sure that is true. A 20 person company with a need for a file and print server is perfectly suited to an NT box.
I work in a small company. I set up the network there among our four machines (I got duped into having the file server on my machine, too). When it comes down to it, I don't have time to set up any security or strategy, because it isn't my job - I'm a programmer. I can't talk them into letting me devote a day or so to set things up 'right'. So my boss (who is great but not that intelligent about computers) runs executable files attached to e-mails send from friends all day. I know it isn't going to be long until he wipes out my computer and all the other ones on the network, but my hands are tied.
In the situation where you have a limited number of computers, are running NT anyways, and/or cannot get someone to commit to actually implementing a strategy for security, NT is going to win, because it is designed so that morons (like myself) can point and click repeatedly until you have a server set up on the network. But the company across the street from me (now up to four employees!) has a linux box as their server, because it is just plain better and faster, more stable and more secure. You just got to evaluate the need-vs-time-investment-vs-hardware-investment graph, and choose.
I'm still using 5.2, it sucks
(wishes he could upgrade the box, but it is three hours away from his location)
You can infer a lot by the output of a program to how badly it is written. Same goes for operating systems.
It is probably much more around the idea that netscape 4.x is not modular, and they could not integrate the browser into the 'AOL' application. Mozilla is modular (and someone even made a compatibility ActiveX control with the WebBrowser interface, so you can swap it out with IE in your application code), but it isn't finished yet.
AOL also gets the benefit of being on the Windows 98 CD as long as they use IE, as part of M$'s wheeling and dealing to kill netscape.
actually, I have not downloaded or paid for linux in three years. One friend orders the CD for $5, then we all share.
try doing that (legally) with any other OS besides *BSD
I imagine the reason is quality control. Their job supporting their hardware on the windows platform would be made a lot harder if they had to support 'Joe Bob's L33T SBLive drivers" with hacked vqf playback support as well as their own drivers. ;-)
I am actually surprised, beyond the thread of reverse engineering their other concern has to be product support - bad support looks horrible on them, and they have no way to support drivers that other people are making.
I imagine they just got convinced that the new drivers couldn't possibly be worse than the existing ones, and that they could weasel their way out of supporting people not using windows
The helpdesk phone number is QUAZAR3
;-)
I have heard of a machine that took six DAYS to boot. Running a netscape server (I think a news server product?). Lots of files (millions?) on a very big, very slow drive. took six days to finish running chkdsk when it restarted.
The nice thing about Linux and even EROS with respect to OS/2 is that while they don't have the lion's share of developer support, at least the individuals who CREATED it like it, support it, and are planning to improve it in the future.
:) They obviously are currently trying to kill it internally.
Get IBM to OpenSource OS/2
Oh, apparently you have never used Beowolf VI :)
Marc, project leader of PGCC, is also on the steering committee for EGCS (now GCC). As far as I know, all of the stable changes (Which are all of the big improvements and some of the smaller ones) have been merged into PGCC. Nowadays, PGCC is more of an experimental compiler for ideas Marc comes up with - which is why I got slightly upset when I found out Mandrake was using it. It offers no constant speed improvement (speed reduction in many cases), and is completely unstable.
So PGCC has been merged except for experiments being carried on by Marc.
It doesn't matter code-wise, the code is still out there. Either the survived developers decide on someone to take over leadership of the project, they fork off many different projects, or they all simltaneously decide to give up coding and take up professional soccer.
quake2 was _not_ optimized for SSE or 3DNow, however many video card vendors have optimized their drivers for these instruction sets. The only thing that could have benefitted in quake2 from 3DNow or SSE was the sound code (other than odd hacks an optimizing compiler would cause). It is the only thing that really takes computation in quake2 that can benefit from these. The enemy AI doesn't really associate with these special purpose functions, nor does the BSP code. And all the video code is in the vendor OGL drivers.
Depends on how shitty the video card is to whether or not you would need faster AGP. Voodoo 3's still don't support AGP texturing at all - if you have a G400 MAX or a GeForce you are well set to just have all the textures for every level of quake2 load into the card on startup.
The memory speed really doesn't play into it that much for the game benchmarks - the code is almost always hand-assembled so that it all fits into L2 (usually with the entire rendering engine fitting in L1). But ram speed would have 'an effect' on windows benchmarks, for sure.
=)
Powells does kick butt. It is one-of-a-kind. I found all sorts of things there.
Two ways to do this:
1. Name it something besides the servlet API. Create a new, simplified API. Existing compiled servlets would need to be edited slightly and recompiled to work, but other than that it should be no problem.
2. Reverse engineer it. Get your version of the API, and start from scratch implementing it. If you don't use their code, they have no say.
I think he was talking about business models, not software models.