I like the idea of comiling everything for my machine, but why can't they just compile it for my proc? I mean is there really a larger difference between my 1400+XP Athlon and your 1200+ XP Athlon? Will GCC generate code that is better for my machine if I run it on mine as opposed to someone else doing it for me? I don't really think so. If another distro started to release builds for Athlons, P4s, P3s, etc. I think that would be a much better use of time and enegry (and I would actually run it). As opposed to having to install the SRPM (or tar.gz) and compile for your arch and system. Though that is what makes linux fun sometimes.:)
then you actually would be able to write an application for Windows, Linux and Solaris all at the same time. And have people use it. People do it ( I'm one of them), but it's not for the general public consumption yet.
IMO, java is the way it is because Sun wants you to entice you with switching to their HW. They saw that many many people were writing windows applications and that windows applications would never be easily ported to their hardware. So in order to increase the sales of their HW, they wanted to reduce the cost of entry to their platform. Creating java and making it popular increased the chance that their HW would be bought. Since Java is 'fastest' on their new SunFire servers (the top end model has like 106 procs), they get you to code/develop your app on your PC, then when you want more power, you go to their servers. How well this plan has worked is debatable, but that's my opinion that the author has missed when talking about Sun.
why every thinks that Office is the best suite. I mean why? Why is that true, I think we are all brainwashed to think that. I really don't think that it's the best, just that there is no alternitive people are willing to use. Mostly because of the file format thing.
you would need to be able to "hop" thru about 1.5-2mi worth of handsets... that's about 8-20 handsets... all of which are moving targets and potential pitfalls (batteries dying, people turning the phone off, dropping them in toilets, etc)...
sounds like the internet to me.:) But seriously, we can sit here all day talking about the technical requirement of this system, but in reality the problem is that people don't want to share. Not how many hops your call would have to make. It's not service is perfect all the time as it is right now.
Let's face it, we can't share. Nobody here was taught how to share their toys, or play with others. The comments suggest that, and I believe that most people just really can't share. We're all too focused on ourselves to care about others...
This would reduce average power consumption of phones!!!! You would actually have MORE talking time then less. With more antennas, the power required to talk on the network would go down because you wouldn't have to waste all that power trying to talk to a cell tower miles away, as the closest 'tower' (cell phone) would be like 300 feet away. Do you realize that power required goes up as the cube of the distance? If you want to transmit twice as far, you need eight times the power, that's what it means. So instead of requiring watts of power when you are talking, your phone would require milliwatts all the time (a hundred times less then today). Shut off backlighting and you don't have to worry about it. This will never take off for the same reason that gnutella will die if we are forced to pay for bandwidth.
Before MS Office 98 or so, MS had all the same problems that you are describing and you know what, people still used it. The only reason to use ms office is because everyone else uses it.
Even if the file formats were 100% compatable, people would still use MS office because it is what ever one else is doing.
of bandwidth that the average graphics card has then it would. Also don't forget that a GPU has more transistors then the average cpu these days. The VGA -> CPU interface was SLOWWWWW. In fact it's still slow, that's why AGP (X8) was invented and that's even slow. The graphics cards have larger buses, and are designed to push data to the DAC. All you need is more bandwith for the CPU and you're set.
Cg does because that's the next feature they are planning on adding to the hardware.
Basically, after they do that programming a PC game will be similar to programming for the PS2. You'll have to write multiple programs that are all executing concurrently to use all the power you've got at your disposal.
There's directX and there's directX 8.1 oh and DirectX 8.1a. Remember when the Radeon first came out? Well they had to release a special directX just to support it's pixel shaders as opposed to just nvidias. So as a game developer you'll probably have to compile your Cg code with the Nvidia one and the ATI one just to make it work (better). This tool will really help those XBox developers. Same thing with OpenGL, since the spec isn't nailed down yet and with Nvidia 'leading the pack' of development. It wouldn't surprise me if they decided to not support any other cards with the OpenGL compiler (which they haven't even released yet). So hopefully this will NOT turn into a Glide type issue. Since this is actually a level above glide. Glide was very low level, all the Glide functions mostly mapped directly onto the 3dfx hardware, while this is a little bit more abstract.
According to the web site, they are working to implement this on top of both OpenGL and DirectX. On linux and Mac as well. Basically this is a wrapper for the assembly that you would have to write if you were going to write a shader program. It compiles a C-like (as in look a like ) language into either the DirectX shader program or the OpenGL shader program. So you'll need a compiler for each and every API that you want to support. Which means that you'll need a different compiler for OpenGL/Nvidia and OpenGL/ATI until they standardize it.
On a more technical note, the lack of branching in vertex/pixel shaders really needs to be fixed, it's really the only feature that they need to add to them. Which is why the Cg code looks so strange, it's C, but there's no loops.
Blizzard isn't all that rich, in fact they don't even own themselves. They are owned by a larger company, a french company I believe. Blizzard does make a few of the most popular games, but that doesn't mean they are the most successful. Id is sucessful because of the work of one man, Carmack. Without him there would be no Doom and thus no Id. (Don't want to knock the artists, but they needed his engine) Quake was the first game where he didn't do all the work on the engine. So there is a large personal investment in the projects that Id does, while Blizzard is run by managers and lawyers. I'm sure that the programmers that worked at Blizzard would love to see bnetd succeed. Unlike at Id, the programmers can't speak their minds. While Id is one of the few successful gaming companies to realease the code to their old engines, Blizzard is still selling Diablo 1 in stores. Without an engine available for mass use. Blizzard is more hard core about protecting their property. BTW, a few thousand geeks boy-cotting this game won't do anything to the sales, they are expecting the mothers of the world to pick this up for their little johnny or jane to play. Blizzard games sell millions of copies.
Any random piece of software built today is not very useful without someone who knows how it works. You need insurance on it basically, insurance to update it if there are bugs found, updates to it when the hardware changes, etc. Now, PD software may be free, but you are not getting any insurance from whomever whote it for free. That's why you should be paying for software, for the insurance that someone will update the software for the next generation of technology.
Of course, that falls apart if you don't ever update your technology. Then you don't need new software.
then soon, 64-bit will rule on linux as well. Then you'll have as many addressing bits as you can handle, is there really any reason to goto a 128-bit addressing mode? Well, maybe when they need to design chips that have 2^128 or more transistors.;)
Which is true, of course, if they have UNIX expertise in-house. MCSEs are a dime a dozen, but good UNIX admins are quite expensive. If you go the consulting route, you get screwed with huge fees. If you train your personell, you get screwed with long courses and a decent change they simply won't get it.
Why is it that this gets modded up? Good MS admins are just as expensive as good unix admins, there's just more MS admins because of the way that MS built their software. When the only way to recover a computer is by reinstalling all the software, then yeah, you are going to NEED a bunch of disk monkeys to run around with CDs and hard drive images. But a good unix admin can do everything from remote, usually even if the user has hosed their system. (Thanks to a security model that is actually implemented!)
Don't you think that the software, regardless of the license, would be tested the same amount internally, by the developer before being released.
Besides, how are a white hat or cracker going to get access to the source code? There is no rule saying that they have to put the source code on the FAA website, or whatever. You only have to give the code to the people who are recieveing the software, in this case, the control towers.
And since all this software is custom anyway, don't you think that as it is right now, if the control towers DON'T like the software they can just goto the people who wrote it and say CHANGE THIS?
The GPL doesn't kill custom software, this is why all these comparisions fall flat on their face. GPL is great for custom software! What gpl is bad for is commodized software, aka , PC oses, Word processors, browsers, media players. Tools that everyone needs, not custom tools that only 1 out of a million people ever see.
the graph of the number of source code lines in the nasa shuttle flight control, linux kernel, solaris and of course, winXP. WinXP blows them all away by a factor of ten.
What does this show? That Microsoft can write a ton of code? You can show graphs like this all day long and they mean nothing.
is look at the X-Box... it's got what, a 733mhz CPU? The graphics on the X-Box are easily as good or better then any pc game. Maybe next year when D3 comes out and if they can't get it tooo look as goon on the X-box then you'll be able to say it sucks, but until then...
On top of it all, the xbox uses celeron model (modified). So basically, they are saying that we need 3 times the mhz to play games that the x-box would have no problem with?
Im just comparing pc games to the x-box because they really have the same architechure.
Slashdot Mirror
I like the idea of comiling everything for my machine, but why can't they just compile it for my proc? I mean is there really a larger difference between my 1400+XP Athlon and your 1200+ XP Athlon? Will GCC generate code that is better for my machine if I run it on mine as opposed to someone else doing it for me? I don't really think so. If another distro started to release builds for Athlons, P4s, P3s, etc. I think that would be a much better use of time and enegry (and I would actually run it). As opposed to having to install the SRPM (or tar.gz) and compile for your arch and system. :)
Though that is what makes linux fun sometimes.
then you actually would be able to write an application for Windows, Linux and Solaris all at the same time. And have people use it. People do it ( I'm one of them), but it's not for the general public consumption yet.
IMO, java is the way it is because Sun wants you to entice you with switching to their HW. They saw that many many people were writing windows applications and that windows applications would never be easily ported to their hardware. So in order to increase the sales of their HW, they wanted to reduce the cost of entry to their platform. Creating java and making it popular increased the chance that their HW would be bought.
Since Java is 'fastest' on their new SunFire servers (the top end model has like 106 procs), they get you to code/develop your app on your PC, then when you want more power, you go to their servers.
How well this plan has worked is debatable, but that's my opinion that the author has missed when talking about Sun.
why every thinks that Office is the best suite.
I mean why? Why is that true, I think we are all brainwashed to think that. I really don't think that it's the best, just that there is no alternitive people are willing to use. Mostly because of the file format thing.
you would need to be able to "hop" thru about 1.5-2mi worth of handsets... that's about 8-20 handsets... all of which are moving targets and potential pitfalls (batteries dying, people turning the phone off, dropping them in toilets, etc)... sounds like the internet to me. :) But seriously, we can sit here all day talking about the technical requirement of this system, but in reality the problem is that people don't want to share. Not how many hops your call would have to make. It's not service is perfect all the time as it is right now.
for most people.
Let's face it, we can't share. Nobody here was taught how to share their toys, or play with others. The comments suggest that, and I believe that most people just really can't share. We're all too focused on ourselves to care about others...
This would reduce average power consumption of phones!!!! You would actually have MORE talking time then less. With more antennas, the power required to talk on the network would go down because you wouldn't have to waste all that power trying to talk to a cell tower miles away, as the closest 'tower' (cell phone) would be like 300 feet away.
Do you realize that power required goes up as the cube of the distance? If you want to transmit twice as far, you need eight times the power, that's what it means. So instead of requiring watts of power when you are talking, your phone would require milliwatts all the time (a hundred times less then today). Shut off backlighting and you don't have to worry about it.
This will never take off for the same reason that gnutella will die if we are forced to pay for bandwidth.
Before MS Office 98 or so, MS had all the same problems that you are describing and you know what, people still used it. The only reason to use ms office is because everyone else uses it.
Even if the file formats were 100% compatable, people would still use MS office because it is what ever one else is doing.
a computer then don't use it!
Or don't hook it up to a network and never insert new disks into it. Setup and never touch.
1. Post first!
2. Read story, and maybe links.
3. Profit!!!!!
Thanks to guys like him, they've already got Q2 working on the PS2 Linux kit. Slowly, but it works.
of bandwidth that the average graphics card has then it would.
Also don't forget that a GPU has more transistors then the average cpu these days.
The VGA -> CPU interface was SLOWWWWW. In fact it's still slow, that's why AGP (X8) was invented and that's even slow. The graphics cards have larger buses, and are designed to push data to the DAC.
All you need is more bandwith for the CPU and you're set.
Cg does because that's the next feature they are planning on adding to the hardware.
Basically, after they do that programming a PC game will be similar to programming for the PS2. You'll have to write multiple programs that are all executing concurrently to use all the power you've got at your disposal.
There's directX and there's directX 8.1 oh and DirectX 8.1a.
Remember when the Radeon first came out? Well they had to release a special directX just to support it's pixel shaders as opposed to just nvidias.
So as a game developer you'll probably have to compile your Cg code with the Nvidia one and the ATI one just to make it work (better).
This tool will really help those XBox developers.
Same thing with OpenGL, since the spec isn't nailed down yet and with Nvidia 'leading the pack' of development. It wouldn't surprise me if they decided to not support any other cards with the OpenGL compiler (which they haven't even released yet).
So hopefully this will NOT turn into a Glide type issue. Since this is actually a level above glide. Glide was very low level, all the Glide functions mostly mapped directly onto the 3dfx hardware, while this is a little bit more abstract.
According to the web site, they are working to implement this on top of both OpenGL and DirectX. On linux and Mac as well.
Basically this is a wrapper for the assembly that you would have to write if you were going to write a shader program. It compiles a C-like (as in look a like ) language into either the DirectX shader program or the OpenGL shader program. So you'll need a compiler for each and every API that you want to support. Which means that you'll need a different compiler for OpenGL/Nvidia and OpenGL/ATI until they standardize it.
On a more technical note, the lack of branching in vertex/pixel shaders really needs to be fixed, it's really the only feature that they need to add to them. Which is why the Cg code looks so strange, it's C, but there's no loops.
Blizzard isn't all that rich, in fact they don't even own themselves.
They are owned by a larger company, a french company I believe. Blizzard does make a few of the most popular games, but that doesn't mean they are the most successful.
Id is sucessful because of the work of one man, Carmack. Without him there would be no Doom and thus no Id. (Don't want to knock the artists, but they needed his engine) Quake was the first game where he didn't do all the work on the engine. So there is a large personal investment in the projects that Id does, while Blizzard is run by managers and lawyers. I'm sure that the programmers that worked at Blizzard would love to see bnetd succeed. Unlike at Id, the programmers can't speak their minds.
While Id is one of the few successful gaming companies to realease the code to their old engines, Blizzard is still selling Diablo 1 in stores. Without an engine available for mass use.
Blizzard is more hard core about protecting their property.
BTW, a few thousand geeks boy-cotting this game won't do anything to the sales, they are expecting the mothers of the world to pick this up for their little johnny or jane to play. Blizzard games sell millions of copies.
j/k ! :P
When the U.S. is graduating kids who don't even know how to read, cheating with a calculator should be the lowest item on the priority list.
I used a calc in class, we were required to for AP calculus, but we were also required to memorize everything.
Any random piece of software built today is not very useful without someone who knows how it works. You need insurance on it basically, insurance to update it if there are bugs found, updates to it when the hardware changes, etc. Now, PD software may be free, but you are not getting any insurance from whomever whote it for free. That's why you should be paying for software, for the insurance that someone will update the software for the next generation of technology.
Of course, that falls apart if you don't ever update your technology. Then you don't need new software.
more off the hook as in extreme, not as in good.
In context, it was ment to be extremely bad.
That comment was a little off the hook. I need to get some prozac or something.
then soon, 64-bit will rule on linux as well. Then you'll have as many addressing bits as you can handle, is there really any reason to goto a 128-bit addressing mode? Well, maybe when they need to design chips that have 2^128 or more transistors. ;)
Why is it that this gets modded up? Good MS admins are just as expensive as good unix admins, there's just more MS admins because of the way that MS built their software. When the only way to recover a computer is by reinstalling all the software, then yeah, you are going to NEED a bunch of disk monkeys to run around with CDs and hard drive images. But a good unix admin can do everything from remote, usually even if the user has hosed their system. (Thanks to a security model that is actually implemented!)
makes it also not tested?????
Don't you think that the software, regardless of the license, would be tested the same amount internally, by the developer before being released.
Besides, how are a white hat or cracker going to get access to the source code? There is no rule saying that they have to put the source code on the FAA website, or whatever. You only have to give the code to the people who are recieveing the software, in this case, the control towers.
And since all this software is custom anyway, don't you think that as it is right now, if the control towers DON'T like the software they can just goto the people who wrote it and say CHANGE THIS?
The GPL doesn't kill custom software, this is why all these comparisions fall flat on their face. GPL is great for custom software! What gpl is bad for is commodized software, aka , PC oses, Word processors, browsers, media players. Tools that everyone needs, not custom tools that only 1 out of a million people ever see.
the graph of the number of source code lines in the nasa shuttle flight control, linux kernel, solaris and of course, winXP. WinXP blows them all away by a factor of ten.
What does this show? That Microsoft can write a ton of code? You can show graphs like this all day long and they mean nothing.
is look at the X-Box... it's got what, a 733mhz CPU?
The graphics on the X-Box are easily as good or better then any pc game. Maybe next year when D3 comes out and if they can't get it tooo look as goon on the X-box then you'll be able to say it sucks, but until then...
On top of it all, the xbox uses celeron model (modified). So basically, they are saying that we need 3 times the mhz to play games that the x-box would have no problem with?
Im just comparing pc games to the x-box because they really have the same architechure.