bcrowell said:
Or did you mean open-source versus closed-source? But if you want your app to be closed-source, then of course you wouldn't use GPL'd libraries -- you'd use closed-source ones, or open-source ones that were released under LGPL or BSD. Otherwise you'd be the one ripping something out from under someone else.
Not quite true. While there is admittedly some controversy over this, if the application merely links to a library, then there is no need to provide the source so long as they don't distribute or change it. Whether the license of the library is GPL, LGPL, or BSD doesn't matter. The issue is not use, but modification and distribution.
If you paid any attention to what was actually coming out of Transmeta, they did exactly what they said they would. Between Code-Morphing and LongRun, they did quite well. LongRun put a standard laptop (identical in every way to an Intel based laptop) up to 13 hours and then later on (I think with LongRun2) up to 20 hours. If there was any issue with only getting 2 or so hours, then it would have been because they did not actually make them equal laptops (i.e same battery, etc.) - as the other post suggests.
They did have some performance issues until a little while ago, but they overcame that.
As to comparing to Intel & AMD, AMD has been licensing some of the technology for quite a while; and its likely that that is how AMD lowered its power consumption. I don't know if (and doubt that) Intel would license technology from them.
And comparitively speaking, Transmeta has an excellent product as the processor effectively runs cold; where as even the AMD and Intel chips that are cooler still run very hot. (I can't keep my Pentium M laptop on my lap for very long..it simply gets way to hot, and could possibly even burn me if I did so.)
If I found a Transmeta based laptop in the US, I would buy it, assuming I had the money to do so. The biggest part of their problem was that you simply couldn't find a system with their processor in it; likely a marketing problem.
I will never accept any DRM. But, any DRM that gets in the way of any Fair Use law (Copyright and any other related laws) should never be accepted any way.
Some may argue that there is a license involved. But that's not really what the courts have upheld under the principle of "First Sale", which grants the several rights, including the right to be able to transform the media from one medium to another without having to purchase it again.
If you really wanted to try and argue that there is a license involved, then you have the problem that there is (a) no license provided with the media (CD, Tape, LP, DVD or other) and (b) no contract provided with it either; either or both of which are required for there to be a license granted. Thus whatever you do with your copy is your right to do (burn it, give it away, etc.). DRM gets in the way of that, and thus will never be accepted.
RIAA, MPAA, Microsoft, etc, all need to learn that they need to change their business model to over come the issue. (Granted, part of the issue relates to moral and ethical principles that are no longer taught in the US schools; the doing of which would also hinder the issue, but they'd have to wait for the next generation to come of age for it to occur.)
"Administration is where it makes sense, but I still think thin client is a step backward."
Agreed, but a few points.
"A full-powered workstation is *cheaper* than a thin client."
Well...as others have pointed out, this really depends on the factors considered. To purchase the systems, it is likely possible to be cheaper, but to run (power, etc.) and maintain the systems, it is not. Some of those costs cannot be helped even with thin-clients - you still have to power a monitor, and keyboard; although it will be cheaper than running a P4 under the desk.
However, I think that is really where we need to consider what is necessary. Is it necessary for every office worker to be running a 3.6GHz P4 with 512 MB RAM? Or rather should software programmers do their job and write applications just as tight as they use to?
There is no reason why a word processor (e.g. Microsoft Word) should require a PII (even a Pentium) system to operate. Or why a web browser (e.g. Internet Explorer) should either. There is no reason why the operating system should either. And this is probably one of the more advantageous points about Open Source - the software has the potential and ability (in most cases) to run on even an i386.
So, perhaps what really needs to be done is that software needs to become better written and be able to run on more versions of the architecture (from the i386 to the P4 IA32e), and not be so consuming of the resources that it can do so; and then instead of buying the big computers to operate the entire organization, utilize the corporate network (the intranet of the company) as a super computer, much like SetiOnline and similar programs do. That is where savings will come from, since you will no longer need to keep as many servers around, and the servers you do have will be more able to do their job (file management, authentication, DHCP, DNS, etc.).
This will not only lower the power of the computers, but also make the usage of the computers (and their depreciation cost) last longer. So, companies would be able to bring back the i486 as the company standard, or use the P4 3.6 GHz for the next 15 years. Replacement costs will go down, and users will actually be more productive since they won't be waiting on the computer so much.
Unfortunately, this will not likely happen in the commercial computer industry since that would mean that people don't have to buy the latest and greatest computer, and they may not need that upgrade except to get a few bug fixes. Yet another reason why F/OSS will win in the end (mainly b/c F/OSS programmers tend to keep older systems around).
FYI - I am a programmer. Oh, and I actually feel more productive on my PII 233 than on my Pentium M 1.4 GHz. The applications are just more responsive.
Hehehee...I'm quite in the same boat. I'm using a PII/233 from Dec. 1997 with its original nVidia Rivia 128 4 MB vid card, and most of the rest of the equipment. It's original hard drive is now sitting in my server where it gets a lot more use (it usually runs a lot more than the PII system now), and upgraded its hard drives, and CD-ROM (original still works in another system). I play DVD on the system with no problem. (Original RAM is still in the system, but more has been added as well.) The system runs great, and the only reason I'm thinking of upgrading is b/c I'm a developer and would like to have some new hardware to experiment with in OS-Development.
While with the AMD and Intel chips, 5.5 would be a long stretch, Transmeta has a long history of getting 10+ hours of battery life with their chips. (I've even seen a report or two with over 20 hours of battery life.) I would expect that the battery life would be at least 10 hours, probably around their mean of 11, at least with the Crusoe. I doubt they would release a processor with extremely less battery life for the Efficeon line. So, 5 hours would probably be way too low, unless the system was being utilized at full usage the entire time, under the heaviest of applications.
Slashdot Mirror
bcrowell said: Or did you mean open-source versus closed-source? But if you want your app to be closed-source, then of course you wouldn't use GPL'd libraries -- you'd use closed-source ones, or open-source ones that were released under LGPL or BSD. Otherwise you'd be the one ripping something out from under someone else. Not quite true. While there is admittedly some controversy over this, if the application merely links to a library, then there is no need to provide the source so long as they don't distribute or change it. Whether the license of the library is GPL, LGPL, or BSD doesn't matter. The issue is not use, but modification and distribution.
If you paid any attention to what was actually coming out of Transmeta, they did exactly what they said they would. Between Code-Morphing and LongRun, they did quite well. LongRun put a standard laptop (identical in every way to an Intel based laptop) up to 13 hours and then later on (I think with LongRun2) up to 20 hours. If there was any issue with only getting 2 or so hours, then it would have been because they did not actually make them equal laptops (i.e same battery, etc.) - as the other post suggests.
They did have some performance issues until a little while ago, but they overcame that.
As to comparing to Intel & AMD, AMD has been licensing some of the technology for quite a while; and its likely that that is how AMD lowered its power consumption. I don't know if (and doubt that) Intel would license technology from them.
And comparitively speaking, Transmeta has an excellent product as the processor effectively runs cold; where as even the AMD and Intel chips that are cooler still run very hot. (I can't keep my Pentium M laptop on my lap for very long..it simply gets way to hot, and could possibly even burn me if I did so.)
If I found a Transmeta based laptop in the US, I would buy it, assuming I had the money to do so. The biggest part of their problem was that you simply couldn't find a system with their processor in it; likely a marketing problem.
I will never accept any DRM. But, any DRM that gets in the way of any Fair Use law (Copyright and any other related laws) should never be accepted any way. Some may argue that there is a license involved. But that's not really what the courts have upheld under the principle of "First Sale", which grants the several rights, including the right to be able to transform the media from one medium to another without having to purchase it again. If you really wanted to try and argue that there is a license involved, then you have the problem that there is (a) no license provided with the media (CD, Tape, LP, DVD or other) and (b) no contract provided with it either; either or both of which are required for there to be a license granted. Thus whatever you do with your copy is your right to do (burn it, give it away, etc.). DRM gets in the way of that, and thus will never be accepted. RIAA, MPAA, Microsoft, etc, all need to learn that they need to change their business model to over come the issue. (Granted, part of the issue relates to moral and ethical principles that are no longer taught in the US schools; the doing of which would also hinder the issue, but they'd have to wait for the next generation to come of age for it to occur.)
"Administration is where it makes sense, but I still think thin client is a step backward." Agreed, but a few points. "A full-powered workstation is *cheaper* than a thin client." Well...as others have pointed out, this really depends on the factors considered. To purchase the systems, it is likely possible to be cheaper, but to run (power, etc.) and maintain the systems, it is not. Some of those costs cannot be helped even with thin-clients - you still have to power a monitor, and keyboard; although it will be cheaper than running a P4 under the desk. However, I think that is really where we need to consider what is necessary. Is it necessary for every office worker to be running a 3.6GHz P4 with 512 MB RAM? Or rather should software programmers do their job and write applications just as tight as they use to? There is no reason why a word processor (e.g. Microsoft Word) should require a PII (even a Pentium) system to operate. Or why a web browser (e.g. Internet Explorer) should either. There is no reason why the operating system should either. And this is probably one of the more advantageous points about Open Source - the software has the potential and ability (in most cases) to run on even an i386. So, perhaps what really needs to be done is that software needs to become better written and be able to run on more versions of the architecture (from the i386 to the P4 IA32e), and not be so consuming of the resources that it can do so; and then instead of buying the big computers to operate the entire organization, utilize the corporate network (the intranet of the company) as a super computer, much like SetiOnline and similar programs do. That is where savings will come from, since you will no longer need to keep as many servers around, and the servers you do have will be more able to do their job (file management, authentication, DHCP, DNS, etc.). This will not only lower the power of the computers, but also make the usage of the computers (and their depreciation cost) last longer. So, companies would be able to bring back the i486 as the company standard, or use the P4 3.6 GHz for the next 15 years. Replacement costs will go down, and users will actually be more productive since they won't be waiting on the computer so much. Unfortunately, this will not likely happen in the commercial computer industry since that would mean that people don't have to buy the latest and greatest computer, and they may not need that upgrade except to get a few bug fixes. Yet another reason why F/OSS will win in the end (mainly b/c F/OSS programmers tend to keep older systems around). FYI - I am a programmer. Oh, and I actually feel more productive on my PII 233 than on my Pentium M 1.4 GHz. The applications are just more responsive.
Hehehee...I'm quite in the same boat. I'm using a PII/233 from Dec. 1997 with its original nVidia Rivia 128 4 MB vid card, and most of the rest of the equipment. It's original hard drive is now sitting in my server where it gets a lot more use (it usually runs a lot more than the PII system now), and upgraded its hard drives, and CD-ROM (original still works in another system). I play DVD on the system with no problem. (Original RAM is still in the system, but more has been added as well.) The system runs great, and the only reason I'm thinking of upgrading is b/c I'm a developer and would like to have some new hardware to experiment with in OS-Development.
While with the AMD and Intel chips, 5.5 would be a long stretch, Transmeta has a long history of getting 10+ hours of battery life with their chips. (I've even seen a report or two with over 20 hours of battery life.) I would expect that the battery life would be at least 10 hours, probably around their mean of 11, at least with the Crusoe. I doubt they would release a processor with extremely less battery life for the Efficeon line. So, 5 hours would probably be way too low, unless the system was being utilized at full usage the entire time, under the heaviest of applications.
. html
Check their website for more details - http://www.transmeta.com/efficeon/efficeon_tm8800