He was commenting on the crafty scores anandtech got, and the crafty section of spec. Same test different results. Good to question anandtech it seems, but intel probably used INtel C Compiler.
If you read the papers at the recent OLS (Ottawa linux simposium) you'll see that SGI is running linux images (specially tuned) on 64, 128, 256, and in 2 cases 512 cpus. Reading the paper is an interesting view into the problems of running kernels and OS's on such huge NUMA machines.
I think your sentiment of wanting everyone to know what you read and vice-versa is well-intentioned. It doesn't address the many thousands, maybe millions, who actually fear the power of surveillance that our government will hold and keep the details secret from the american public.
If you've read a bit of Noam Chomsky you can see how the common american is played for the pawn of major corporate and media interests serving hand-in-hand with our governing representatives. It's in their interest to keep us dumbed downed consumers, and as such they will abuse their power in order to maintain such power. The aristocracy seems alive and weel in the country.
But idealisticly I agree with you, and with RMS, who said in an interview that he views passworded computers accounts as a kind of necessary evil, and actually in college (and I assume beyond) never used a password on his computer accounts. This could lead to another problem however, that of plausable deniability: "It wasn't me it was someone else". If ever single moment of our lives is open to review by every other member of society then once can not plausibly claim to have unique knowledge or be in operation, solely, of certain information.
Anyway. What you bring up is a future utopia. Maybe when mass-conciousness through human-human interfaces arises, we can implement universal right to all knowledge. But that's extremely post human and one could envision mechanical entities like silicon neural networks having the same features.
Use windowmaker or afterstep for a lightweight window manager/desktop system. Your distro will populate the program menus for you, and they have applets for stuff the other desktop environments have.
Of course if you want to run a Gnome or KDE app, you're kind of ruining the advantage, but oh well.
Free software means Open, Unfettered, Liberated. Free hardware in this context just means a shifted cost (into a software tax).
Anyway, this is bad news, But I don't doubt anyone with enough money will be able to buy their computer and run Linux or what-have-you. Companies will still need servers, so there will still be an open market for that, unless they become illegal or regulated or something evil nasty corperations weild in order to control people and markets.
You flac fanatics are nuts,I tell ya!!! What the hell do you need such huge file sizes for? Are you the same people that pay $6000 for your stereo equipment?
Take a double blind listening test with a program called "abx" using FLAC and -q5 ogg, and tell me if you find ANY statistically significant differences.
YOU CAN'T unless you're a goddamn CAT, in which case I'd suggest deliberately causing yourself hearing loss - only a little. No point in suffering a human world with non-human ears. It gives you NOTHING, unless your a secret agent man or something, in which case how human are you really?
The need for complexity in software is directly related to the need to support past versions of said software. Think microsoft's massive heap of code. The beauty of free software is that no one really likes the complexity involved in projects after a while and the community lets them die (good thing).
If by innovation you mean cool buttons and color schemes then, yeah, proprietary model might be mroe innovative, but only because they're selling to the lowest common denominator. The internet was built on open systems and free software. Every day someone in the free software community releases software with innovative features, even though it may have other problems. So I don't quite see this lack off inovation you speak of.
RMS will go down in history as the visionary that made free software and open systems the prevailing technological force for the rest of the century. This is assuming that corperate influences can be subdued long enough to continue the huge momentum we've acheived over the past decade or two.
I'm inclined to predict at 10:1 odds against that RMS will go down as the most influential person of the next century, kind of in the same way as gutenberg is known now. He wasn't known at all really when he was alive, but the study of history set him in his proper place.
I think that's kind of wishful thinking. Most people have no idea how much money is being spent on defense, just the fact that they hear alot of defense lobbyists and their paid-for legislators saying we're going to be in serious trouble if we don't spend more in that certain area. Yeah they voted for it, essentially, but so did the homeless guy vote for homelessness when he maxed out all his credit cards. It's not something he wanted or anticipated (unless he was a masochist, or intentionally self-destructive). We need to stop giving the american people and their propagandist overlords more credit than they deserve. It's like a sick patient that hasn't been diagnosed yet.
You get a better idea of what people want when you realize that's it's preprogrammed into them or administered and tweaked into what powerful people want. There are people on the fringes of our democracy who make intelligent choices on their own about our governance. And they represent a nice model for the less fortunate people who buy in to the current system, but not with the current setup. It's kind of sad how most of us accept two-party rule even though our real centers of political concern cover such a vast array of issues and interests.
defense spending doesn't really come back to the public that much. It's mainly free R&D for large defense contracters. Of course the upside is that we get things like the internet from it, however socially good that is.
God forbid american's actually have to work to produce the things they consume! We need an ever-increasing supply of destabilized 3rd-world countries with corrupt leaders who sign on to "free trade" so that we can consume to our hearts' content.
Free software is the technological equivalent of the Alexandrian Library, but more spread out. It is one of the greatest gifts to humanity ever made by human hands, even though it was written on the backs of exploited workers everywhere (how were they able to live in the first place?). We are giving back something, even though it is mostly useless to them. And that is a good thing. We just need to do more of it. How about reimporting some of those low wage jobs and making sure multinationals don't rape countries and steal all their profit? Too drastic, I imagine. What American would want that? Myself, I'm happy making $16k a year, I just wish I had free medical insurance. If more people weren't such avid consumers (international-oppressors) then, well... I guess I'm losing track. Just remember your context folks before you complain about no money and giving things away for free. Chicken little is dropping ecstasy right now and trying to get over last decades mass devastation.
I see nothing wrong with walking up to a girl and in the middle of the initial conversation you tell them about your coding adventures, courteously, and not ad hominum. If she can relate to that then she might be someone special for you. If she can't relate to that and you still want to get laid? Well, I'd suggest practicing those social hacking skills and just tell her what she wants to hear; either that or use her to draw other womens' attention your way.
You can't know if they put them in intentionally. There won't be a code segment that says "backdoor(...)"
If the NSA was going to put in a backdoor, they would just incorperate some innocent looking bugs into the code that are hard to diagnose by auditing. Even OpenBSD has had some local root exploits after being heavily audited - how many times?
The NSA probably has teams experienced in putting bugs into code and other subversive activities. They are the largest employer of mathemeticians in the world. All that brain power is constantly being used to find ways of secretly harvesting information and making backdoors into security infrastructures around the world.
actually it is copyright law. they are suing for damages based on code in the linux kernel and demanding, prior to judgement, license fees from all linux users. How is that not copyright? The court case might involve a contract dispute but it is based on copyright infringement. They have to prove that linux contains copyrighted code.... Copyright law will be directly involved, the contract is just an easy way for SCO to claim that IBM was tainted with SCOs copyrighted code, which is probably bogus and a ploy by microsoft (maybe something like, 'well invest some money in you, SCO, but only if you start suing linux companies, and consider the investment a downpayment on your attourney's fees).
Look, that's google's job, not mine. I'm just saying, google already accomidates most of the article's criticisms, if only one knows intuitively what to search for. If Microsoft wants to to make it easier for people without that intuition (Slate partly serves as a Microsoft propaganda arm, meaning articles are "weighted" as to their effect on microsoft) then that's fine. Just give google its proper due. It's far superior to anything out there if you know what you're doing.
The article was just trying to point out flaws that can be corrected with knowledge an intuition. And also a new kind of search engine: one that caters to the perennial newbie (as opposed to annual newbie, in plant-speak) - one that is always behind the curve on the true nature of the web in regards to their topic of interst.
A Congratulatory point is that most of us are alwas dumbfounded, now and then, by search results not returning what we're looking for. So is there a better model? Of course. Does the article address a better model? no. It only highlights shortcomings, possibly cynically, as a route for Microsoft's new research into a market dominating search engine.
Ok first of all, I think I have to discount almost the entire article based on one simple oversight. It was the example of trying to find information on Apples, no the plastic-silicon-metal apples, the organic-delicious apples. The author searched for "Apple." In common parlance, especially on the web, it seems obvious to anyone "in the know" that "Apple" would produce computer-related results. Searching for "Apples", a simple addition of the character "s" changes everything. Now you can have your apple and eat it too, with google.
Looking over the entire article, I imagine that all the shortcomings of google that the author points out, and I admit they are shortcomings, can be solved by more intelligence on the part of the user. Maybe that should have been the articles premise: the user isn't smart enough to find what he's looking for on the web, so microsoft needs to intervene. It would have been better than "google is fundamentally flawed". A better tract would have been to start out philisophically instead of practically: What is an ideal structure for a search engine?
I think the answer that the article was implying, though not stating, was that a nested structure was necessary. So if you searched for flowers, the search engine would know into which category all the google-type links fell into. So you would have stores selling flowers (category 1), information on what a flower is (category 2), and so on. This is nested because the actually "flat" data that google spills out is then organized into a hierarchy of different categories.
In another vein, and kind of antithetical to a search engine, is basic beforehand knowledge of where to find something, precluding a search engine. This kind of information knowledge is typified by librarians, who study for years on how to research and find specific types of information.
It is this Academic versus Economic dichotomy that is at the heart of the article. It might be apples and oranges, but only if you don't know what you're doing, and presume that a search engine like google is something it isn't, i.e. a librarian. If you search the web for something you better damn well have some idea of what the web contains in that respect or your searching will most likely be out of focus.
With the new O(1) scheduler and other improvements made by ingo molnar scheduling kernel threads is no longer a major bottleneck. Besides, NGPT goes against the linux philosophy of minimally invasive changes to the kernel api, and it's doubtful linus will accept it into the kernel.
In the next boom...Like the stock market, the bandwidth market has its up times and its down times
Chances are there won't be another boom for another 20 years (my estimate for mean time between booms). So you're saying that the bandwidth growth is somehow inextricably tied to the economic growth. Zap. false.
Bandwidth is more a feature of technological innovation than economic forces, although economic forces naturally affect buying decisions.
It's internet-age thinking that makes people beleive that technology improvements MUST translate into stock market gains. After all, if I can compute twice as fast as I used to, my stock must be worth twice as much! Zap. Wrong. Boom -> Bust. Meanwhile technology keeps its pace.
How come you dont love any man lawyers. you only like the women lawyers. Granted I do too, but men needs loving too.
Besides, feminism is stupid. Why be a feminist when you can be a humanist. Feminists never have good answer for that. Either they are stupid, or highly political. Either way, not my cup of tea.
Did I just say tea? I brew alot of tea now a days. I take a pot of strong darjeeling FTGOP #1, and mix 1 part tea with 7 parts water for a refreshing pitcher of tea thirst quentching. This pot of tea will last me a week maybe. It's much cheaper than buying frozen concentrate, and healthier and tasting better than plain water. I wont comment on powdered drink mix. That is for retards.
Did I just say retards? Retards are great. They make the rich richer and the poor poorer. Good for me anyway, because I am not a retard. In an ideal world there would be no retards, but I am not advocating euthanasia. On the contrary, I am advocating a celebration of life in the form of reproduction licenses.
Slashdot Mirror
He was commenting on the crafty scores anandtech got, and the crafty section of spec. Same test different results. Good to question anandtech it seems, but intel probably used INtel C Compiler.
If you read the papers at the recent OLS (Ottawa linux simposium) you'll see that SGI is running linux images (specially tuned) on 64, 128, 256, and in 2 cases 512 cpus. Reading the paper is an interesting view into the problems of running kernels and OS's on such huge NUMA machines.
http://www.finux.org/proceedings/
If you think that's bad, check out what the press says about the Bush Administration. Talk about taking the devil at his word!
I think your sentiment of wanting everyone to know what you read and vice-versa is well-intentioned. It doesn't address the many thousands, maybe millions, who actually fear the power of surveillance that our government will hold and keep the details secret from the american public.
If you've read a bit of Noam Chomsky you can see how the common american is played for the pawn of major corporate and media interests serving hand-in-hand with our governing representatives. It's in their interest to keep us dumbed downed consumers, and as such they will abuse their power in order to maintain such power. The aristocracy seems alive and weel in the country.
But idealisticly I agree with you, and with RMS, who said in an interview that he views passworded computers accounts as a kind of necessary evil, and actually in college (and I assume beyond) never used a password on his computer accounts. This could lead to another problem however, that of plausable deniability: "It wasn't me it was someone else". If ever single moment of our lives is open to review by every other member of society then once can not plausibly claim to have unique knowledge or be in operation, solely, of certain information.
Anyway. What you bring up is a future utopia. Maybe when mass-conciousness through human-human interfaces arises, we can implement universal right to all knowledge. But that's extremely post human and one could envision mechanical entities like silicon neural networks having the same features.
Use windowmaker or afterstep for a lightweight window manager/desktop system. Your distro will populate the program menus for you, and they have applets for stuff the other desktop environments have.
Of course if you want to run a Gnome or KDE app, you're kind of ruining the advantage, but oh well.
install the libs required in 7.2 in a chrooted environment and run cadence there? Try it out
Free software means Open, Unfettered, Liberated. Free hardware in this context just means a shifted cost (into a software tax).
Anyway, this is bad news, But I don't doubt anyone with enough money will be able to buy their computer and run Linux or what-have-you. Companies will still need servers, so there will still be an open market for that, unless they become illegal or regulated or something evil nasty corperations weild in order to control people and markets.
You flac fanatics are nuts,I tell ya!!! What the hell do you need such huge file sizes for? Are you the same people that pay $6000 for your stereo equipment?
Take a double blind listening test with a program called "abx" using FLAC and -q5 ogg, and tell me if you find ANY statistically significant differences.
YOU CAN'T unless you're a goddamn CAT, in which case I'd suggest deliberately causing yourself hearing loss - only a little. No point in suffering a human world with non-human ears. It gives you NOTHING, unless your a secret agent man or something, in which case how human are you really?
The need for complexity in software is directly related to the need to support past versions of said software. Think microsoft's massive heap of code. The beauty of free software is that no one really likes the complexity involved in projects after a while and the community lets them die (good thing).
If by innovation you mean cool buttons and color schemes then, yeah, proprietary model might be mroe innovative, but only because they're selling to the lowest common denominator. The internet was built on open systems and free software. Every day someone in the free software community releases software with innovative features, even though it may have other problems. So I don't quite see this lack off inovation you speak of.
Therefore all your other points seem moot.
RMS will go down in history as the visionary that made free software and open systems the prevailing technological force for the rest of the century. This is assuming that corperate influences can be subdued long enough to continue the huge momentum we've acheived over the past decade or two.
I'm inclined to predict at 10:1 odds against that RMS will go down as the most influential person of the next century, kind of in the same way as gutenberg is known now. He wasn't known at all really when he was alive, but the study of history set him in his proper place.
Won't blatant, underhanded use of software patents stifle innovation more?
I think that's kind of wishful thinking. Most people have no idea how much money is being spent on defense, just the fact that they hear alot of defense lobbyists and their paid-for legislators saying we're going to be in serious trouble if we don't spend more in that certain area. Yeah they voted for it, essentially, but so did the homeless guy vote for homelessness when he maxed out all his credit cards. It's not something he wanted or anticipated (unless he was a masochist, or intentionally self-destructive). We need to stop giving the american people and their propagandist overlords more credit than they deserve. It's like a sick patient that hasn't been diagnosed yet.
You get a better idea of what people want when you realize that's it's preprogrammed into them or administered and tweaked into what powerful people want. There are people on the fringes of our democracy who make intelligent choices on their own about our governance. And they represent a nice model for the less fortunate people who buy in to the current system, but not with the current setup. It's kind of sad how most of us accept two-party rule even though our real centers of political concern cover such a vast array of issues and interests.
defense spending doesn't really come back to the public that much. It's mainly free R&D for large defense contracters. Of course the upside is that we get things like the internet from it, however socially good that is.
God forbid american's actually have to work to produce the things they consume! We need an ever-increasing supply of destabilized 3rd-world countries with corrupt leaders who sign on to "free trade" so that we can consume to our hearts' content.
Free software is the technological equivalent of the Alexandrian Library, but more spread out. It is one of the greatest gifts to humanity ever made by human hands, even though it was written on the backs of exploited workers everywhere (how were they able to live in the first place?). We are giving back something, even though it is mostly useless to them. And that is a good thing. We just need to do more of it. How about reimporting some of those low wage jobs and making sure multinationals don't rape countries and steal all their profit? Too drastic, I imagine. What American would want that? Myself, I'm happy making $16k a year, I just wish I had free medical insurance. If more people weren't such avid consumers (international-oppressors) then, well... I guess I'm losing track. Just remember your context folks before you complain about no money and giving things away for free. Chicken little is dropping ecstasy right now and trying to get over last decades mass devastation.
I see nothing wrong with walking up to a girl and in the middle of the initial conversation you tell them about your coding adventures, courteously, and not ad hominum. If she can relate to that then she might be someone special for you. If she can't relate to that and you still want to get laid? Well, I'd suggest practicing those social hacking skills and just tell her what she wants to hear; either that or use her to draw other womens' attention your way.
Free Software! Expensive Girls! Ra ra ra!
You can't know if they put them in intentionally. There won't be a code segment that says "backdoor(...)"
If the NSA was going to put in a backdoor, they would just incorperate some innocent looking bugs into the code that are hard to diagnose by auditing. Even OpenBSD has had some local root exploits after being heavily audited - how many times?
The NSA probably has teams experienced in putting bugs into code and other subversive activities. They are the largest employer of mathemeticians in the world. All that brain power is constantly being used to find ways of secretly harvesting information and making backdoors into security infrastructures around the world.
agnosticism is dumb. Join the intellectual elite and become an athiest!!
actually it is copyright law. they are suing for damages based on code in the linux kernel and demanding, prior to judgement, license fees from all linux users. How is that not copyright? The court case might involve a contract dispute but it is based on copyright infringement. They have to prove that linux contains copyrighted code.... Copyright law will be directly involved, the contract is just an easy way for SCO to claim that IBM was tainted with SCOs copyrighted code, which is probably bogus and a ploy by microsoft (maybe something like, 'well invest some money in you, SCO, but only if you start suing linux companies, and consider the investment a downpayment on your attourney's fees).
The SCO issue is one of Copyright law, not patent law. Different ballgame.
I'm not asking for anything.
Look, that's google's job, not mine. I'm just saying, google already accomidates most of the article's criticisms, if only one knows intuitively what to search for. If Microsoft wants to to make it easier for people without that intuition (Slate partly serves as a Microsoft propaganda arm, meaning articles are "weighted" as to their effect on microsoft) then that's fine. Just give google its proper due. It's far superior to anything out there if you know what you're doing.
The article was just trying to point out flaws that can be corrected with knowledge an intuition. And also a new kind of search engine: one that caters to the perennial newbie (as opposed to annual newbie, in plant-speak) - one that is always behind the curve on the true nature of the web in regards to their topic of interst.
A Congratulatory point is that most of us are alwas dumbfounded, now and then, by search results not returning what we're looking for. So is there a better model? Of course. Does the article address a better model? no. It only highlights shortcomings, possibly cynically, as a route for Microsoft's new research into a market dominating search engine.
Ok first of all, I think I have to discount almost the entire article based on one simple oversight. It was the example of trying to find information on Apples, no the plastic-silicon-metal apples, the organic-delicious apples. The author searched for "Apple." In common parlance, especially on the web, it seems obvious to anyone "in the know" that "Apple" would produce computer-related results. Searching for "Apples", a simple addition of the character "s" changes everything. Now you can have your apple and eat it too, with google.
Looking over the entire article, I imagine that all the shortcomings of google that the author points out, and I admit they are shortcomings, can be solved by more intelligence on the part of the user. Maybe that should have been the articles premise: the user isn't smart enough to find what he's looking for on the web, so microsoft needs to intervene. It would have been better than "google is fundamentally flawed". A better tract would have been to start out philisophically instead of practically: What is an ideal structure for a search engine?
I think the answer that the article was implying, though not stating, was that a nested structure was necessary. So if you searched for flowers, the search engine would know into which category all the google-type links fell into. So you would have stores selling flowers (category 1), information on what a flower is (category 2), and so on. This is nested because the actually "flat" data that google spills out is then organized into a hierarchy of different categories.
In another vein, and kind of antithetical to a search engine, is basic beforehand knowledge of where to find something, precluding a search engine. This kind of information knowledge is typified by librarians, who study for years on how to research and find specific types of information.
It is this Academic versus Economic dichotomy that is at the heart of the article. It might be apples and oranges, but only if you don't know what you're doing, and presume that a search engine like google is something it isn't, i.e. a librarian. If you search the web for something you better damn well have some idea of what the web contains in that respect or your searching will most likely be out of focus.
countries can't corner the software developer market because they can't move all the software developers to their homeland.
On the other hand, microsoft can corner the software developer market in another respect, and this should be feared and watched for.
With the new O(1) scheduler and other improvements made by ingo molnar scheduling kernel threads is no longer a major bottleneck. Besides, NGPT goes against the linux philosophy of minimally invasive changes to the kernel api, and it's doubtful linus will accept it into the kernel.
In the next boom...Like the stock market, the bandwidth market has its up times and its down times
Chances are there won't be another boom for another 20 years (my estimate for mean time between booms). So you're saying that the bandwidth growth is somehow inextricably tied to the economic growth. Zap. false.
Bandwidth is more a feature of technological innovation than economic forces, although economic forces naturally affect buying decisions.
It's internet-age thinking that makes people beleive that technology improvements MUST translate into stock market gains. After all, if I can compute twice as fast as I used to, my stock must be worth twice as much! Zap. Wrong. Boom -> Bust. Meanwhile technology keeps its pace.
How come you dont love any man lawyers. you only like the women lawyers. Granted I do too, but men needs loving too.
Besides, feminism is stupid. Why be a feminist when you can be a humanist. Feminists never have good answer for that. Either they are stupid, or highly political. Either way, not my cup of tea.
Did I just say tea? I brew alot of tea now a days. I take a pot of strong darjeeling FTGOP #1, and mix 1 part tea with 7 parts water for a refreshing pitcher of tea thirst quentching. This pot of tea will last me a week maybe. It's much cheaper than buying frozen concentrate, and healthier and tasting better than plain water. I wont comment on powdered drink mix. That is for retards.
Did I just say retards? Retards are great. They make the rich richer and the poor poorer. Good for me anyway, because I am not a retard. In an ideal world there would be no retards, but I am not advocating euthanasia. On the contrary, I am advocating a celebration of life in the form of reproduction licenses.
Adeui.