That's not true. Most Windows programs accept command-line arguments (just take a look at ANY game, as a matter of fact); they're simply not used often because most Windows users a) don't know they exist, b) wouldn't know how to do it without some detailed instruction, and c) would probably not see the point in trying it anyway.
I believe he was referring to plugsched not being merged into the mainline kernel because Ingo didn't want the end user to have the choice to pick which scheduler they thought would be best for their workload.
There's a difference here, though. First and foremost, the GPL is about sharing; the RIAA/MPAA are most certainly not. You do not have to pay to obtain GPL code, but the RIAA/MPAA want you to pay out the nose for every song and movie you ever watch.
Intel has had an 8-core platform since last summer. Are they talking about "native" quad-core? Does a slight technical difference matter when one exists and one does not exist? How do we know "native" quad-core is better than dual-dual-core-on-a-single-chip?
Actually it makes a lot more difference than you'd think. This is most evident in caches. Intel's quadcore has two shared L2 caches (one per two cores). AMD has a full L2 cache per core AND a shared 2mb L3 cache. Intel doesn't have an L3 cache on any of their stuff. Besides that, HTT is a lot faster than Intel's dated FSB. More bandwidth and faster aggregate links means that yes, the native quadcore will be a lot better.
Aside from that, AMD also still has much better memory performance via the on-chip memory controller, and doubled-width op registers from the last gen AMD stuff.
It may have something to do with Microshaft, but then again, it could also simply be an aversion to experiment with something that has the possibility of decreasing their overall revenue. I think they're mainly just trying to be as efficient at money-grubbing as possible, at least in some cases.
I guess this truly puts me in the minority, because I do both IT and development stuff pretty equally well, though i do favor development a little (don't tell anyone)
Of course there are arguments to work in a homogenous environment, I encountered the same arguments in my first year IS classes. My teacher insisted it was much more efficient to buy mass amounts of generic-branded PCs because the "support was better" in case of hardware failure. Of course I argue that if I build them myself, I already know by the time each one is deployed that the hardware is not a lemon (burn-in testing), and it's probably going to last quite some time.
In my opinion, it is far better to spend a little more on in-house support, mix and match quality hardware for the best results (performance and reliability-wise), than it is to go all-out generic and be RMAing whole machines all the time. Yes, it's more work in the end, but overall there seem to be less problems. Besides, the biggest upside is, no matter who you hire onto your IT team, they WILL learn how things actually work, and how to actually fix them, after a while. The RMA-everything method discourages learning by experience, imo.
Yeah but the thing is, a website will *never* be an operating system of its own. That's somewhere between the realm of extremely improbable to absolutely impossible.
The closest that would EVER come to happening would be the possibility of remote bootstrapping, with replicating an installation image, or an X-like thin client.
A "Web OS" that runs through your browser seems ludicrous because even if it were ABLE to communicate with your hardware, there are so many layers between the site content and your hardware that it would be ridiculously inefficient. First it has to interact with the browser, which has to interact with the various APIs in your ACTUAL OS, going through the Kernel and the BIOS to get to the hardware. Thats a lot of jumps, especially considering how horribly slow most browsers are to begin with.
I'm not saying it'll never happen, it just won't happen within a web browser.
I think they're making way too big a deal out of words.
Both of my parents swore like sailors (and still do) around me all the time while I was growing up, and yet I haven't killed anyone, I have good manners, am fully capable of articulating myself in an eloquent and intelligent manner, AND manage to impress all of my friends' (and past girlfriends') parents.
I honestly don't see why they make such a big deal out of cussing. It's pretty rare to come across someone who *never* does it, and those people tend to be a little creepy.
You only get those if you buy the game that's being released alongside, "Groupie Hero," which works using system link or online play to simulate a real crowd of groupies trying to get on stage and molest your band in front of everyone.
I guess most of the funny "B" parts from video games are the voice acting. Like Castlevania: SOTN, for instance:
"Die, monster. You don't belong in this world!"
"Tribute!?! You steal men's souls! And make them your slaves!!!"
"Perhaps the same could be said of alllll religions..."
That's nuts. The Wii is dominating sales.
But anyway, I think there are two major reasons for the PS3 lagging so far behind (especially in the states):
1) The PS3 is *extremely* expensive for a console.
2) There are VERY few exclusive titles for it, generating very little incentive for customers to buy it over either of the two alternatives.
Combining that with the simple fact that the 360's hardware is better suited for games, and the Wii is like crack in it's own right, there's little wonder why the PS3 is floundering.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't really think you're in a position to flame anyone on this topic, Mister Already-admitted-he-gets-none.
I believe it, at least in the states. I got a little 20" for gaming once we got our Xbox360, just because it looked like crap on my 27" SDTV.
That's rough... I hope he at least cleaned up his eraser shavings..
They had to pay for all that receipt paper somehow...
That's not true. Most Windows programs accept command-line arguments (just take a look at ANY game, as a matter of fact); they're simply not used often because most Windows users a) don't know they exist, b) wouldn't know how to do it without some detailed instruction, and c) would probably not see the point in trying it anyway.
Klingon function calls do not have 'parameters' - they have 'arguments.' AND THEY ALWAYS WIN THEM!
We can only hope...
I believe he was referring to plugsched not being merged into the mainline kernel because Ingo didn't want the end user to have the choice to pick which scheduler they thought would be best for their workload.
This is old news, that I heard at least two weeks ago. Way to keep up, guys.
Madness...?
This... Is... SLASHDOT!!!
Ideas for suspicious subject lines: "Someone set up us the bomb, praise allah!" "bomb plan" "Pentagon destruction" etc
Seconded.
Since when *has* the government been our friend, regardless of which party or candidate we support?
Assuming the ads are real, they're logging quite a few hits, even if nobody forks over $150.
He might, but Linus is a cooler dude.
Personally, I think Linux is a great desktop environment, especially with such eyecandy as Beryl+Emerald
There's a difference here, though. First and foremost, the GPL is about sharing; the RIAA/MPAA are most certainly not. You do not have to pay to obtain GPL code, but the RIAA/MPAA want you to pay out the nose for every song and movie you ever watch.
Actually it makes a lot more difference than you'd think. This is most evident in caches. Intel's quadcore has two shared L2 caches (one per two cores). AMD has a full L2 cache per core AND a shared 2mb L3 cache. Intel doesn't have an L3 cache on any of their stuff. Besides that, HTT is a lot faster than Intel's dated FSB. More bandwidth and faster aggregate links means that yes, the native quadcore will be a lot better.
Aside from that, AMD also still has much better memory performance via the on-chip memory controller, and doubled-width op registers from the last gen AMD stuff.
Well PeerGuardian doesn't run on Vista, so that's probably why he RDP'd to it.
Though what I can't figure out is why he didn't use actual port sniffing software like WireShark. I call bullshit on this lame post.
It may have something to do with Microshaft, but then again, it could also simply be an aversion to experiment with something that has the possibility of decreasing their overall revenue. I think they're mainly just trying to be as efficient at money-grubbing as possible, at least in some cases.
I guess this truly puts me in the minority, because I do both IT and development stuff pretty equally well, though i do favor development a little (don't tell anyone)
Of course there are arguments to work in a homogenous environment, I encountered the same arguments in my first year IS classes. My teacher insisted it was much more efficient to buy mass amounts of generic-branded PCs because the "support was better" in case of hardware failure. Of course I argue that if I build them myself, I already know by the time each one is deployed that the hardware is not a lemon (burn-in testing), and it's probably going to last quite some time.
In my opinion, it is far better to spend a little more on in-house support, mix and match quality hardware for the best results (performance and reliability-wise), than it is to go all-out generic and be RMAing whole machines all the time. Yes, it's more work in the end, but overall there seem to be less problems. Besides, the biggest upside is, no matter who you hire onto your IT team, they WILL learn how things actually work, and how to actually fix them, after a while. The RMA-everything method discourages learning by experience, imo.
Yeah but the thing is, a website will *never* be an operating system of its own. That's somewhere between the realm of extremely improbable to absolutely impossible.
The closest that would EVER come to happening would be the possibility of remote bootstrapping, with replicating an installation image, or an X-like thin client.
A "Web OS" that runs through your browser seems ludicrous because even if it were ABLE to communicate with your hardware, there are so many layers between the site content and your hardware that it would be ridiculously inefficient. First it has to interact with the browser, which has to interact with the various APIs in your ACTUAL OS, going through the Kernel and the BIOS to get to the hardware. Thats a lot of jumps, especially considering how horribly slow most browsers are to begin with.
I'm not saying it'll never happen, it just won't happen within a web browser.
I think they're making way too big a deal out of words.
Both of my parents swore like sailors (and still do) around me all the time while I was growing up, and yet I haven't killed anyone, I have good manners, am fully capable of articulating myself in an eloquent and intelligent manner, AND manage to impress all of my friends' (and past girlfriends') parents.
I honestly don't see why they make such a big deal out of cussing. It's pretty rare to come across someone who *never* does it, and those people tend to be a little creepy.
You only get those if you buy the game that's being released alongside, "Groupie Hero," which works using system link or online play to simulate a real crowd of groupies trying to get on stage and molest your band in front of everyone.
I guess most of the funny "B" parts from video games are the voice acting. Like Castlevania: SOTN, for instance: "Die, monster. You don't belong in this world!" "Tribute!?! You steal men's souls! And make them your slaves!!!" "Perhaps the same could be said of alllll religions..."
That's nuts. The Wii is dominating sales. But anyway, I think there are two major reasons for the PS3 lagging so far behind (especially in the states): 1) The PS3 is *extremely* expensive for a console. 2) There are VERY few exclusive titles for it, generating very little incentive for customers to buy it over either of the two alternatives. Combining that with the simple fact that the 360's hardware is better suited for games, and the Wii is like crack in it's own right, there's little wonder why the PS3 is floundering.