... I agree. Also, the claim is preposterous. It is my humble opinion that the competition is certainly not stifled by MS (Vista vs 10.5 anyone), and that the competition is doing good. However, even if there WEREN'T competition in the market (...but there is! on the desktop and server), then that would not necessarily mean MS was at fault for that.
On the server, as far as "Intel-based" is concerned, we have - 1) OS X Server 2) *BSD 3) *LINUX 4) Solaris 5) OpenVMS
On the desktop we have - 1) OS X 2) Linux desktops and laptops. ON SALE NOW if you want to buy. 3) Solaris 4) BSDs.
No. You do not want to be tied down to any particular market niche. Because at some point your schoon will become a sinking barge. Diversification is the only way for a company to reliably grow. Doing the opposite of diversification (*cough* Motorola *cough* by exiting as many markets you were even slightly competitive in *cough* damn I seem to have gotten a bad cough, or something) is a surefire way to die....which is why Microsoft is a booming business. Which is why Google is not sitting in the search closet but trying to expand. And which is why Motorola is slowly flushing down the toilet bowl.
Look at Asia. You have massive corporations that make everything from toilet paper to gasoline, guitars and cars. By spreading across multiple markets, you minimize the chance of impact on your business by changing conditions (or new competitors) in any of your markets.
The $60 you can spend buying this overstock holdover from 2004 can get your a better motherboard + CPU. Thus I don't see why on earth this is a "good deal". It's just a slow-ass VIA-based Mini-ITX motherboad. The fact that Walmart is selling something based on it should already be a warning sign.
Apparently the only thing you need to peddle low-performing VIA-based crap these days is just to call it a "Dev Board". Hardware hack? What hardware hack? This is a basic run-off-the-mill PC motherboard. With a sloooowwww C7. If you're not hardware-modding your existing motherboards (via SMBus devices, or something else...) you are NOT MODIFYING THIS ONE EITHER.
"This is not a "low-cost board running Linux"... this is "a run-of-the-mill PC that can run Linux". And you're kidding yourself if you think that you cannot buy the same motherboard cheaper by going around these wily marketeers. What joke... and a slashvertisement. Buy Everex! Google in Everyone's Home!
Let's see what it DOESN'T have... This is like, seriously, 2004 tech here... 1) No gigabit. 2) Questionable AGP chipset 3) See 2 - No PCIe, given this is AGP. 4) VGA? At least not CGA... 5) Lots of legacy I/O ports no one cares about.
If you think you cannot by a BETTER motherboard for $60 is... well... I want some of whatever it is that you're smoking.
95/98/ME was just a natural progression and continuation of Win 1.0, Win 2.0, Win 3.1, Win 3.11... NT on the other hand, _WAS_ new technology and is a real fully preemptive multi-cpu operating system. DirectX hasn't been supported on NT because there was no business reason to. NT wasn't targetted for the home market, while workstations and servers don't really need 3D.
You just said it yourself. on Unix and Unix-Like machines, SSH _IS_ invaluable. On Windows, this is not how remote administration is done period. You either use remote management tools locally to talk to the server remotely, or you use RDP. And its perfectly fine.
You really can't compare RDP to anything in Linux these days. It is a lot more responsive than X over the majority of network conditions, and MILES more usable than VNC.
That doesn't mean SSH would not be a nice thing to have. But it does mean that this is not a deal-breaker. And it isn't as if you have no choice - use copSSH or something similar. Or use WinRS.
How do you do virtualization with legacy I/O? You just do. You use drivers that use "synthetic" (In Viridian-speak) devices ("paravirtualized" in Xen-speak). You really don't want to use the emulated legacy I/O, because it is slow.... always.... slow. Imagine doing a block read from a disk. Even if you use DMA, it takes something like 10 I/O port write commands to set the transaction up. Everytime you write to an I/O port, the VM you run in is going to be descheduled by the Hypervisor and paused, while the request gets forwarded to the relevant processing facilities within the root/Dom0 partition. These extra context switches and hyperentries and hyperexits are unnecessary overhead. Never mind that your software layer providing the legacy I/O emu has to be *perfect* and not intoduce any exploitable bugs (like the DHCP bugs within VMWare, reading the mailing list...).
You might ask how this is different from a purely paravirtualized approach. It is different because you dont need to port the OS to the slightly-different pseudo-CPU and IC combo exposed by the hypervisor. All you might want to do, in order to improve performance, is to use virtual devices, instead of emulated legacy I/O ones.
You keep talking about a "guest -> host" escalation. Barring bugs in device virtualization (intra-VM communication, really), hypercall processing - that cannot happen. At worst, you might be able to exploit the VM that runs the actual device emu/support code.
Theo's side keeps asserting that "x86 virtualization isn't secure", but they seem to be perfectly comfortable at keeping the discussion at the level of a "I'm right, NO I'M RIGHT", without any corroborating statements (Hint: Theo's "I am familiar with x86 and its 'nastiness'" isn't one). What's not secure about SVM? What's not secure about VT-x? Why does Theo think that virtualizatio somehow has to imply legacy PC I/O emulation?
Oh God...
I can't believe this actually made news. In. Such. A. Horribly. Skewed. Fashion.
But this is/.
You can watch the presentation HERE - http://www.acm.uiuc.edu/conference/2007/videos
It was ONE of MANY presentations given as part of the ANNUAL UIUC ACM-hosted conference.
Please actually watch the presentation and STFU. Please. All it shows is that Microsoft is working on fixing what it considers to be mistakes in the design of its NT system. That is it. It's work as part of Win7. It is _not_ Win7. Listen to the questions that students asked Eric about MinWin. Listen to the answers.
If they just built a box with say, four NV G80 based computational engines (128 stream processors per card with thousands of threads per procesor) and used CUDA, even that would have been more impressive.
Yeah. Because the standard of quality to judge others buy is being able to become a 30-year slave to your bank paying for a frame-and-drywall house that you can quite literally punch through. And if honestly think the majority of US residents can afford a "couple of cool cars" (I hope you don't mean Chevy, Ford, Honda, Toyota, Saturn or anything beyond $25k), then I want some of whatever it is that you smoke or imbibe.
I mean the loss of the use of cases and the gravitation to prepositional phrases, for example. Basically, you lose a simple way to convey a complex idea, instead relying on entire phrase constructions. You lose flexibility, and word position variation introduces ambiguity or separate meaning.
At least for Indo-European languages, the pattern seems to have been deevolution rather than evolution. Compare any of the "ancient" languages to their derivates (examining Romance, Germanic, Slavic languages, Greek, etc..) and you know what I am talking about.
I've played 4 hour AoK games...not so with AoM. Also AoM introduced rigidity into game play with TC positions. AoE III makes it even worse, being able to only build one castle... while the game play has de-evolved greately from an economic management stand point (which is was AoE/AoK always has been about). You could Ensemble has tried to make the game more approachable for people who can't devote time to master a more complex system, or to play 4 hour games... but it's just made it boring for me. Sure, the graphics are nice. If they just released AoC with better graphics... taht would be awesome.
Slashdot Mirror
+1
right verbing
... I agree. Also, the claim is preposterous. It is my humble opinion that the competition is certainly not stifled by MS (Vista vs 10.5 anyone), and that the competition is doing good. However, even if there WEREN'T competition in the market (...but there is! on the desktop and server), then that would not necessarily mean MS was at fault for that.
On the server, as far as "Intel-based" is concerned, we have -
1) OS X Server
2) *BSD
3) *LINUX
4) Solaris
5) OpenVMS
On the desktop we have -
1) OS X
2) Linux desktops and laptops. ON SALE NOW if you want to buy.
3) Solaris
4) BSDs.
...uh that and... sample example code on forums in 99.99999999999 (enough nines?) percent cases constitutes answers to the mundane, common or obvious.
Yes. Seriously - tempest in a teacup. Public forum = public domain.
No. You do not want to be tied down to any particular market niche. Because at some point your schoon will become a sinking barge. Diversification is the only way for a company to reliably grow. Doing the opposite of diversification (*cough* Motorola *cough* by exiting as many markets you were even slightly competitive in *cough* damn I seem to have gotten a bad cough, or something) is a surefire way to die. ...which is why Microsoft is a booming business. Which is why Google is not sitting in the search closet but trying to expand. And which is why Motorola is slowly flushing down the toilet bowl.
Look at Asia. You have massive corporations that make everything from toilet paper to gasoline, guitars and cars. By spreading across multiple markets, you minimize the chance of impact on your business by changing conditions (or new competitors) in any of your markets.
The $60 you can spend buying this overstock holdover from 2004 can get your a better motherboard + CPU. Thus I don't see why on earth this is a "good deal". It's just a slow-ass VIA-based Mini-ITX motherboad. The fact that Walmart is selling something based on it should already be a warning sign.
Apparently the only thing you need to peddle low-performing VIA-based crap these days is just to call it a "Dev Board". Hardware hack? What hardware hack? This is a basic run-off-the-mill PC motherboard. With a sloooowwww C7. If you're not hardware-modding your existing motherboards (via SMBus devices, or something else...) you are NOT MODIFYING THIS ONE EITHER.
"This is not a "low-cost board running Linux"... this is "a run-of-the-mill PC that can run Linux". And you're kidding yourself if you think that you cannot buy the same motherboard cheaper by going around these wily marketeers. What joke... and a slashvertisement. Buy Everex! Google in Everyone's Home!
Let's see what it DOESN'T have... This is like, seriously, 2004 tech here...
1) No gigabit.
2) Questionable AGP chipset
3) See 2 - No PCIe, given this is AGP.
4) VGA? At least not CGA...
5) Lots of legacy I/O ports no one cares about.
If you think you cannot by a BETTER motherboard for $60 is... well... I want some of whatever it is that you're smoking.
Finder, and any GUI parts of OS X in general, are not part of Darwin.
95/98/ME was just a natural progression and continuation of Win 1.0, Win 2.0, Win 3.1, Win 3.11... NT on the other hand, _WAS_ new technology and is a real fully preemptive multi-cpu operating system. DirectX hasn't been supported on NT because there was no business reason to. NT wasn't targetted for the home market, while workstations and servers don't really need 3D.
You just said it yourself. on Unix and Unix-Like machines, SSH _IS_ invaluable. On Windows, this is not how remote administration is done period. You either use remote management tools locally to talk to the server remotely, or you use RDP. And its perfectly fine.
You really can't compare RDP to anything in Linux these days. It is a lot more responsive than X over the majority of network conditions, and MILES more usable than VNC.
That doesn't mean SSH would not be a nice thing to have. But it does mean that this is not a deal-breaker. And it isn't as if you have no choice - use copSSH or something similar. Or use WinRS.
I did follow the rest.
How do you do virtualization with legacy I/O? You just do. You use drivers that use "synthetic" (In Viridian-speak) devices ("paravirtualized" in Xen-speak). You really don't want to use the emulated legacy I/O, because it is slow.... always.... slow. Imagine doing a block read from a disk. Even if you use DMA, it takes something like 10 I/O port write commands to set the transaction up. Everytime you write to an I/O port, the VM you run in is going to be descheduled by the Hypervisor and paused, while the request gets forwarded to the relevant processing facilities within the root/Dom0 partition. These extra context switches and hyperentries and hyperexits are unnecessary overhead. Never mind that your software layer providing the legacy I/O emu has to be *perfect* and not intoduce any exploitable bugs (like the DHCP bugs within VMWare, reading the mailing list...).
You might ask how this is different from a purely paravirtualized approach. It is different because you dont need to port the OS to the slightly-different pseudo-CPU and IC combo exposed by the hypervisor. All you might want to do, in order to improve performance, is to use virtual devices, instead of emulated legacy I/O ones.
You keep talking about a "guest -> host" escalation. Barring bugs in device virtualization (intra-VM communication, really), hypercall processing - that cannot happen. At worst, you might be able to exploit the VM that runs the actual device emu/support code.
Fair enough, but $35K for a 10 year old rust bucket?
Theo's side keeps asserting that "x86 virtualization isn't secure", but they seem to be perfectly comfortable at keeping the discussion at the level of a "I'm right, NO I'M RIGHT", without any corroborating statements (Hint: Theo's "I am familiar with x86 and its 'nastiness'" isn't one). What's not secure about SVM? What's not secure about VT-x? Why does Theo think that virtualizatio somehow has to imply legacy PC I/O emulation?
Ugh.
Hint: Even a '97 BMW M3 will cost you a lot less, and I wouldn't put a Land Rover above an M3.
I ran XP fine on a 200Mhz PPro. Ran better than 2k on same box. So, FUD.
In fact, the Mac has gone through a lot more than TWO kernels... Geez.
Oh God... I can't believe this actually made news. In. Such. A. Horribly. Skewed. Fashion. But this is /.
You can watch the presentation HERE - http://www.acm.uiuc.edu/conference/2007/videos
It was ONE of MANY presentations given as part of the ANNUAL UIUC ACM-hosted conference.
Please actually watch the presentation and STFU. Please. All it shows is that Microsoft is working on fixing what it considers to be mistakes in the design of its NT system. That is it. It's work as part of Win7. It is _not_ Win7. Listen to the questions that students asked Eric about MinWin. Listen to the answers.
If they just built a box with say, four NV G80 based computational engines (128 stream processors per card with thousands of threads per procesor) and used CUDA, even that would have been more impressive.
ugh... not > $25k, I meant $25k
Yeah. Because the standard of quality to judge others buy is being able to become a 30-year slave to your bank paying for a frame-and-drywall house that you can quite literally punch through. And if honestly think the majority of US residents can afford a "couple of cool cars" (I hope you don't mean Chevy, Ford, Honda, Toyota, Saturn or anything beyond $25k), then I want some of whatever it is that you smoke or imbibe.
I mean the loss of the use of cases and the gravitation to prepositional phrases, for example. Basically, you lose a simple way to convey a complex idea, instead relying on entire phrase constructions. You lose flexibility, and word position variation introduces ambiguity or separate meaning.
At least for Indo-European languages, the pattern seems to have been deevolution rather than evolution. Compare any of the "ancient" languages to their derivates (examining Romance, Germanic, Slavic languages, Greek, etc..) and you know what I am talking about.
Which is why turtling is always a bad idea. And if you played on the Zone (or igzones now), you would get raped every single time.
imo AoK:TC always had larger scope...
I've played 4 hour AoK games...not so with AoM. Also AoM introduced rigidity into game play with TC positions. AoE III makes it even worse, being able to only build one castle... while the game play has de-evolved greately from an economic management stand point (which is was AoE/AoK always has been about). You could Ensemble has tried to make the game more approachable for people who can't devote time to master a more complex system, or to play 4 hour games... but it's just made it boring for me. Sure, the graphics are nice. If they just released AoC with better graphics... taht would be awesome.
He didn't get what he deserved. You don't ever deserve discrimination.
Fuck Google.