Either none of you understand the architecture and security model of F/OSS, or all of you are being payed by M$ to spew FUD from your mouths. Linux is designed to be safe from spyware, it has NOTHING to do with desktop market share. The very fact that you claim you always come back to Windows says you probably couldn't figure out how to use BSD/Linux and wanted the comfort of a buggy OS that you can just "click OK" in. Please tell me once again why if there are millions of people using both Linux and OSX, hackers still aren't motivated to write spyware / viruses?
Have you ever run Linux? Or OSX? While running these operating systems, have you ever received any spyware? If so, please list the name of the said spyware program, along with a link to an information resource about said spyware. If you can't find one, I'd be glad to list information resources that contain such information for Windows:
Each of these contains thousands of listed spyware programs for Windows. Considering Linux and OSX are the next most popular OSes after Windows, why wouldn't hackers be motivated to write spyware or viruses? The source code is open source, after all.
Linux has been around much longer than XP / 2k / 98, all of which are extremely vulnerable to Spyware / Malware / Viruses. Why has Linux, which has been available since 1991, along with all of the source code that makes it work, not had one spyware program written for it? I'm not trying to claim there has never been a virus or worm written for Linux, or *nixes in general. The difference is that developers of any POSIX-compliant OS or distro will have things patched much quicker than MS, with updates going out to multiple software repositories across the internet, updating any compatible distro of Linux (whether by deb, RPM, or ports/portage) quickly. Linux users tend to keep their OS up to date with the latest packages and security fixes. Windows has "Windows Update" which is a lame attempt to replicate the success of OSS package management systems. Many MS users tend to turn this feature off, but the sad thing is even if they leave it on, MS is still typically much slower to release a fix for problems with their OS. Spyware has been around for how many years now? They still haven't fixed it? Funny, I've been running Linux since 2000, never had one peice of Spyware infect my computer. Or a virus for that matter. All this using software that has the source code available for public viewing. Shouldn't this make it more insecure? Hmm, guess not.
Linux, etc. would have had the same problem if it had made it to the top of the food chain.
Can you please explain how this is so? Linux has been around much longer than XP / 2k / 98, all of which are extremely vulnerable to Spyware / Malware / Viruses. Why has Linux, which has been available since 1991, along with all of the source code that makes it work, not had one spyware program written for it? I'm not trying to claim there has never been a virus or worm written for Linux, or *nixes in general. The difference is that developers of any POSIX-compliant OS or distro will have things patched much quicker than MS, with updates going out to multiple software repositories across the internet, updating any compatible distro of Linux (whether by deb, RPM, or ports/portage) quickly. Linux users tend to keep their OS up to date with the latest packages and security fixes. Windows has "Windows Update" which is a lame attempt to replicate the success of OSS package management systems. Many MS users tend to turn this feature off, but the sad thing is even if they leave it on, MS is still typically much slower to release a fix for problems with their OS. Spyware has been around for how many years now? They still haven't fixed it? Funny, I've been running Linux since 2000, never had one peice of Spyware infect my computer. Or a virus for that matter. All this using software that has the source code available for public viewing. Shouldn't this make it more insecure? Hmm, guess not.
All I had to do on my debian box was download the tarball from Sun and extract it where I wanted (/usr/java/jre1.5x) Then I copied the java runtime for mozilla to my firefox plugins dir. Wasn't really that difficult.
I'm done trying to defend myself... It's obvious that almost everyone wants to attack me for my thoughts. Well to you I say POO good sir. Your diatribe about the 50 years is irrelevant. I said "close" to 50 years ago. I'm so sorry I didn't say exactly 48 years to appease you! So keep trolling/. and enjoy leading a life of no imagination or creativity.
I do agree computing power isn't the only factor, but it helps greatly. Consider that the computers control much of the direction of the spacecraft (they aren't flying using a joystick) and all other functions of the spacecraft (life support and such) and it does play a larger role than you think.
Yes, I was thinking the shuttle boosters, which is even funnier considering they are much newer. It was late at night and I got the two mixed up. I agree it was an engineering marvel, but now that we have the ISS we should be able to do space based launches, greatly reducing the need for fuel.
Thank you for being first to agree that we should have been on Mars by now! I'm not saying it should be priority #1 right now, just that we should think about it, and push for it to happen. And everyone keeps saying that Mars is way farther away than the Moon, which is obvious. But other Galaxies and possible planets are extremely far away compared to Mars, so if we are giving up on Mars we may as well give up on space travel itself.
I swear, EVERYONE that has responded to my first simple question has been negative. Why is it so unreasonable to want to go to Mars? We will have to if we continue treating this planet the way we do, strip mining its resources and spewing waste into the air. Where else would we go? The moon is completely out of question, and I'm pretty sure we won't be able to get to the next closest habitable planet anytime soon (see, I actually know there are some restrictions to space travel!) The main point is that we can stare all we want at Mars through our telescopes and maybe one day we will have telescopes that can even look at grains of dust on Mars! But it still will never be the same thing as setting foot there, making that next small step in space travel. With all of the nerds on Slashdot, I'm suprised you guys aren't all for going to Mars, regardless of how hard it would be... C'mon, think Star Trek! You never sat and watched, and thought how cool it would be to travel the stars, meeting new races and new civilizations! NOOOOOO, NOOOO, we don't want to have that. We just want to stare through our telescopes, because they let us see SO far.
Wait, what? WTF is that misdirection? So what if the computer that was used for it was tiny. That has nothing to do with rocket and habitation design.
I don't understand how making a sealed airtight container is so difficult. Yes, they have to use exotic materials that cost alot of money, but the design is essentially simple. The computer controlling their craft was as powerful as a graphing calculator. We have home computers and game consoles that can almost replicate an accurate image of reality (cheaply.) Yet we haven't flown to Mars.
And Mars may be "VERY close", but it's still 78,340,000km from the earth. The moon is 385,000km away. That's a factor of 203 difference in just plain distance.
And Russia may be "VERY close," but it's still 9,790km from my house. My friends house is 48.2km away. Thats a factor of some great difference in just plain distance.
Not a small feat, especially considering how much work it was just to land on the moon. And what, it took them 4 days to get to the moon? Let's be generous and give them 3. That's 606 days. A year and a half. Just to get there. They have to have food, fuel, not die of muscle atrophy, all kinds of things.
So it would take me about an hour to get to my friends house (driving my 1969 Dart.) To get to Russia, driving this same vehicle, well it would be physically impossible actually. But if was to hop in a 1969 Cessna 152! I could possibly reach Russia (if I could make it over the Pacific.) Or, I could hop in a Concorde and make it there in, well, let's just say I would get there quickly. I think you see my point. You also aren't considering a space-based (instead of launching it from Earth, what a concept!) launch. The thing is, to reach escape velocity is much harder and uses much more fuel than simply launching when you are already in orbit, using the Earth as a slingshot instead of working against it. This is why we have the ISS! Which brings me to my next point. Valeri Polyakov stayed in space for 437 days straight. You estimated 606 days, but like I said before advances in propulsion (coupled with advances in metallurgy) should allow us to get there much easier than it would have been in 1969.
And I'm just an armchair scientist.
No arguments here.
Get your head out of your ass.
What are you, a troll?
BTW, that tax money spent on bombs is because other people spend theirs on bombs.
Let's dissect this logic - kid on playground kicks another kid in the shin, so the other kid kicks back. Both their parents told them not to kick other children, but they still haven't learned their lessons and won't listen to their parents. So what do these kids do later in life? Build bombs, because it's much easier to push a button and kill thousands of people without even seeing them! Oh gee!
We wouldn't have scientists free to think about things like space without bombs
This statement is just sadistic.
because there are many groups willing to censor and kill to constrain such thought. It's the old book they believe in or you die.
I still can't decide if you are talking about the Bush regime or the Terrorists?
Yes, but how many months/years would it take to get to Mars using the Saturn V? That's a lot supplies they'll have to take with them, which will increase the weight at liftoff, which will require more thrust, etc. Plus, look at where we're at even today. We have enough trouble just getting things into orbit.
Did I ever say we should use the Saturn V? Why would we use 1969 technology in 2005? I was saying since there has been so much time for science and technology to advance, it's a shame we haven't stepped foot on Mars.
Perhaps if we pushed the technology continually since the moon landing, then maybe. But the main factor is that there was really no reason to do so, militarily speaking. Believe it or not, the space program exists because of military reasons. So, going back to your first post, by cutting military spending you would in effect kill space exploration as well. I'm not saying this is *right* or anything, I'm just saying that that's the way it is.
We have pushed the technology continually since then. Technology is technology, and when it improves in one discipline then all the others benefit in some way. I understand that the space program started as an extension of the USAF. My brother is an F-16 pilot. I know the history and nature of our space program. If we were to cut military spending it would not cut NASA spending. NASA is not funded by the DoD, each department gets their own funding allocation. If the DoD is somehow secretly giving NASA money, then it most likely is being used for military applications, not the exploration of space.
That argument doesn't hold up. Alpha Centauri is also VERY close to us compared to many other things out in space, but no one's suggesting we start planning that mission just yet.
Proxima Centauri is even closer, and just because something is unreachable in terms of modern technology or physics (speed of light and such,) why can't we dream? What if Jules Verne had never written his novels? Consider that Proxima Centauri is only 4.22 light years away. Now consider we can slowly accelerate to the speed of light (which is possible by slingshotting around the sun riding the solar winds) So what if it takes us 10 years, or even 20? I think we should investigate faster ways of reaching close to light speed or obviously warping space-time and going faster, but saying that "no one's planning that mission just yet" is horribly inaccurate because there are many scientists out there planning it every day.
I wonder if you realise how much the DoD has helped NASA out over the years.
I hope you understand this is due to wackjob ideas like star wars and the many military satellites that handymen (astronauts) from NASA go up and fix for them. The military helps NASA because NASA fixes their shit. It's unfortunate that dollars go wasted on LOE or orbital programs rather than expanding our exploration of the Universe, whether by man or robot.
Well yes, when I say a long time ago I don't mean 100 years ago... I'm talking we could have been on Mars 10-15 years ago. BTW Sputnik was '57 which is close to 50 years ago. Keep in mind it was only 12 years between the first satellite and landing on the Moon. We've had 36 years of advances in science and technology, and we still haven't made the next step. Is it because it's not possible, or because our priorities are slightly different now?
The first manned mission to the Moon used a computer with the power of a typical modrn graphing calculator. The Saturn V rocket that took them there was in essence a giant Estes model rocket (black powder)
So why don't YOU take a step back, and realize I'm not talking about inter-galactic space travel here, I'm talking about going to Mars, which is VERY close to us compared to many other things out in space.
When are we going to send a manned mission to Mars? We understand so much about the Universe, we can see millions of light years away using these amazing telescopes, but we STILL haven't set foot on the next planet over.
Maybe if we used tax money for space exploration instead of bombs this wouldn't be an issue; I think we could have been there a long time ago.
PPC would probably be the best as it's the closest relative, however I think you are missing the point. Unless you are a developer with lots and LOTS of experience coding, this simulator would most likely be worthless to you. It's not going to show you anything meaningful about the PS3 (once again unless you are a developer) and you are most likely to become confused by even trying to run it. I'm not trying to say that I personally would have any better luck running it. It's just this really isn't a "toy" to play with unless you know what you are doing.
I know this is offtopic, but this whole "Mambo" name reminded me of a funny website my friend showed me years and years ago.
Has anyone else been to www.zombo.com? The infinite is possible at zombocom! The unattainable is unknown at zombocom! Welcome to ZOMBOCOM!!
LOL it's the most pointless site on the web outside of a good laugh, but the funniest thing is that it's been up for years, I wonder who pays for the hosting?
I stand corrected. Here is a link to info about the cell based blade servers. One interesting thing to note is at the bottom of the page: "The OS used was Linux 2.6.11" So I guess that kinda disproves all the people saying Linux won't run well on the Cell.
Except.. the PS3 is like no other console seen before. So your argument doesn't stand.
First, there is no "argument." All I am arguing is that anything is possible. Am I saying it's likely to happen soon? Not at all.
Maybe we could emulate the Cell arch on x86, but the fact of the matter is that its not reasonable to even hope that any time in the foreseeable future we'll be able to run a PS3 game in an emulated environment at playable speed.
Why is it not reasonable to hope for that? I never said it would be happening anytime soon, I'm just leaving the possibility open. People said the PS2 could never be emulated, yet there are (somewhat) working emulators for it.
The architectures are so dissimilar that even innovative emulator techniques like dynamic recompilation wouldn't be able to achieve reasonable performance.
Honestly I don't know what you are talking about here... emulators "emulate" the hardware of a specific device, allowing *gasp* native binaries to run on a non-native architecture. x86 and PowerPC aren't very similar, yet we have Bochs and PearPC (and many others.)
Look at the Intel and AMD roadmaps as the grandparent noted; we aren't going to have even comparable native performance in the coming years, much less the level of performance that would be required to emulate the platform at full speed.
Once again, I never said it would happen anytime soon, or that any of the current Intel/AMD processors (or near-future, for that matter) would be able to emulate it. I'm talking a LONG TIME before anything would be possible. C'mon, do you think back when the SNES was released that people thought years later we would be able to play any SNES game on your home computer? But give anything time, and someone will code it.
As the other posters have made clear, the PS3 / Cell architecture is not designed for workstations or PCs. It is designed specifically for gaming and for graphics. Yes, you could probably make a good graphics workstation out of the cell architecture, but will it compete with an SGI box? Not likely.
Slashdot Mirror
Either none of you understand the architecture and security model of F/OSS, or all of you are being payed by M$ to spew FUD from your mouths. Linux is designed to be safe from spyware, it has NOTHING to do with desktop market share. The very fact that you claim you always come back to Windows says you probably couldn't figure out how to use BSD/Linux and wanted the comfort of a buggy OS that you can just "click OK" in. Please tell me once again why if there are millions of people using both Linux and OSX, hackers still aren't motivated to write spyware / viruses?
Microsoft Visual Basic 2005 Express Edition: Build a Program Now!
This must have been the main source of influence for M$ engineers working on Windows.
Have you ever run Linux? Or OSX? While running these operating systems, have you ever received any spyware? If so, please list the name of the said spyware program, along with a link to an information resource about said spyware. If you can't find one, I'd be glad to list information resources that contain such information for Windows:
Spyware Guide
Spyware Encyclopedia
Spyware Database
Each of these contains thousands of listed spyware programs for Windows. Considering Linux and OSX are the next most popular OSes after Windows, why wouldn't hackers be motivated to write spyware or viruses? The source code is open source, after all.
Linux has been around much longer than XP / 2k / 98, all of which are extremely vulnerable to Spyware / Malware / Viruses. Why has Linux, which has been available since 1991, along with all of the source code that makes it work, not had one spyware program written for it? I'm not trying to claim there has never been a virus or worm written for Linux, or *nixes in general. The difference is that developers of any POSIX-compliant OS or distro will have things patched much quicker than MS, with updates going out to multiple software repositories across the internet, updating any compatible distro of Linux (whether by deb, RPM, or ports/portage) quickly. Linux users tend to keep their OS up to date with the latest packages and security fixes. Windows has "Windows Update" which is a lame attempt to replicate the success of OSS package management systems. Many MS users tend to turn this feature off, but the sad thing is even if they leave it on, MS is still typically much slower to release a fix for problems with their OS. Spyware has been around for how many years now? They still haven't fixed it? Funny, I've been running Linux since 2000, never had one peice of Spyware infect my computer. Or a virus for that matter. All this using software that has the source code available for public viewing. Shouldn't this make it more insecure? Hmm, guess not.
Linux, etc. would have had the same problem if it had made it to the top of the food chain.
Can you please explain how this is so? Linux has been around much longer than XP / 2k / 98, all of which are extremely vulnerable to Spyware / Malware / Viruses. Why has Linux, which has been available since 1991, along with all of the source code that makes it work, not had one spyware program written for it? I'm not trying to claim there has never been a virus or worm written for Linux, or *nixes in general. The difference is that developers of any POSIX-compliant OS or distro will have things patched much quicker than MS, with updates going out to multiple software repositories across the internet, updating any compatible distro of Linux (whether by deb, RPM, or ports/portage) quickly. Linux users tend to keep their OS up to date with the latest packages and security fixes. Windows has "Windows Update" which is a lame attempt to replicate the success of OSS package management systems. Many MS users tend to turn this feature off, but the sad thing is even if they leave it on, MS is still typically much slower to release a fix for problems with their OS. Spyware has been around for how many years now? They still haven't fixed it? Funny, I've been running Linux since 2000, never had one peice of Spyware infect my computer. Or a virus for that matter. All this using software that has the source code available for public viewing. Shouldn't this make it more insecure? Hmm, guess not.
All I had to do on my debian box was download the tarball from Sun and extract it where I wanted (/usr/java/jre1.5x) Then I copied the java runtime for mozilla to my firefox plugins dir. Wasn't really that difficult.
Kudos to Sun I say!
I'm done trying to defend myself... It's obvious that almost everyone wants to attack me for my thoughts. Well to you I say POO good sir. Your diatribe about the 50 years is irrelevant. I said "close" to 50 years ago. I'm so sorry I didn't say exactly 48 years to appease you! So keep trolling /. and enjoy leading a life of no imagination or creativity.
I do agree computing power isn't the only factor, but it helps greatly. Consider that the computers control much of the direction of the spacecraft (they aren't flying using a joystick) and all other functions of the spacecraft (life support and such) and it does play a larger role than you think.
Yes, I was thinking the shuttle boosters, which is even funnier considering they are much newer. It was late at night and I got the two mixed up. I agree it was an engineering marvel, but now that we have the ISS we should be able to do space based launches, greatly reducing the need for fuel.
Thank you for being first to agree that we should have been on Mars by now! I'm not saying it should be priority #1 right now, just that we should think about it, and push for it to happen. And everyone keeps saying that Mars is way farther away than the Moon, which is obvious. But other Galaxies and possible planets are extremely far away compared to Mars, so if we are giving up on Mars we may as well give up on space travel itself.
I swear, EVERYONE that has responded to my first simple question has been negative. Why is it so unreasonable to want to go to Mars? We will have to if we continue treating this planet the way we do, strip mining its resources and spewing waste into the air. Where else would we go? The moon is completely out of question, and I'm pretty sure we won't be able to get to the next closest habitable planet anytime soon (see, I actually know there are some restrictions to space travel!) The main point is that we can stare all we want at Mars through our telescopes and maybe one day we will have telescopes that can even look at grains of dust on Mars! But it still will never be the same thing as setting foot there, making that next small step in space travel. With all of the nerds on Slashdot, I'm suprised you guys aren't all for going to Mars, regardless of how hard it would be... C'mon, think Star Trek! You never sat and watched, and thought how cool it would be to travel the stars, meeting new races and new civilizations! NOOOOOO, NOOOO, we don't want to have that. We just want to stare through our telescopes, because they let us see SO far.
Wait, what? WTF is that misdirection? So what if the computer that was used for it was tiny. That has nothing to do with rocket and habitation design.
I don't understand how making a sealed airtight container is so difficult. Yes, they have to use exotic materials that cost alot of money, but the design is essentially simple. The computer controlling their craft was as powerful as a graphing calculator. We have home computers and game consoles that can almost replicate an accurate image of reality (cheaply.) Yet we haven't flown to Mars.
And Mars may be "VERY close", but it's still 78,340,000km from the earth. The moon is 385,000km away. That's a factor of 203 difference in just plain distance.
And Russia may be "VERY close," but it's still 9,790km from my house. My friends house is 48.2km away. Thats a factor of some great difference in just plain distance.
Not a small feat, especially considering how much work it was just to land on the moon. And what, it took them 4 days to get to the moon? Let's be generous and give them 3. That's 606 days. A year and a half. Just to get there. They have to have food, fuel, not die of muscle atrophy, all kinds of things.
So it would take me about an hour to get to my friends house (driving my 1969 Dart.) To get to Russia, driving this same vehicle, well it would be physically impossible actually. But if was to hop in a 1969 Cessna 152! I could possibly reach Russia (if I could make it over the Pacific.) Or, I could hop in a Concorde and make it there in, well, let's just say I would get there quickly. I think you see my point. You also aren't considering a space-based (instead of launching it from Earth, what a concept!) launch. The thing is, to reach escape velocity is much harder and uses much more fuel than simply launching when you are already in orbit, using the Earth as a slingshot instead of working against it. This is why we have the ISS! Which brings me to my next point. Valeri Polyakov stayed in space for 437 days straight. You estimated 606 days, but like I said before advances in propulsion (coupled with advances in metallurgy) should allow us to get there much easier than it would have been in 1969.
And I'm just an armchair scientist.
No arguments here.
Get your head out of your ass.
What are you, a troll?
BTW, that tax money spent on bombs is because other people spend theirs on bombs.
Let's dissect this logic - kid on playground kicks another kid in the shin, so the other kid kicks back. Both their parents told them not to kick other children, but they still haven't learned their lessons and won't listen to their parents. So what do these kids do later in life? Build bombs, because it's much easier to push a button and kill thousands of people without even seeing them! Oh gee!
We wouldn't have scientists free to think about things like space without bombs
This statement is just sadistic.
because there are many groups willing to censor and kill to constrain such thought. It's the old book they believe in or you die.
I still can't decide if you are talking about the Bush regime or the Terrorists?
Yes, but how many months/years would it take to get to Mars using the Saturn V? That's a lot supplies they'll have to take with them, which will increase the weight at liftoff, which will require more thrust, etc. Plus, look at where we're at even today. We have enough trouble just getting things into orbit.
Did I ever say we should use the Saturn V? Why would we use 1969 technology in 2005? I was saying since there has been so much time for science and technology to advance, it's a shame we haven't stepped foot on Mars.
Perhaps if we pushed the technology continually since the moon landing, then maybe. But the main factor is that there was really no reason to do so, militarily speaking. Believe it or not, the space program exists because of military reasons. So, going back to your first post, by cutting military spending you would in effect kill space exploration as well. I'm not saying this is *right* or anything, I'm just saying that that's the way it is.
We have pushed the technology continually since then. Technology is technology, and when it improves in one discipline then all the others benefit in some way. I understand that the space program started as an extension of the USAF. My brother is an F-16 pilot. I know the history and nature of our space program. If we were to cut military spending it would not cut NASA spending. NASA is not funded by the DoD, each department gets their own funding allocation. If the DoD is somehow secretly giving NASA money, then it most likely is being used for military applications, not the exploration of space.
That argument doesn't hold up. Alpha Centauri is also VERY close to us compared to many other things out in space, but no one's suggesting we start planning that mission just yet.
Proxima Centauri is even closer, and just because something is unreachable in terms of modern technology or physics (speed of light and such,) why can't we dream? What if Jules Verne had never written his novels? Consider that Proxima Centauri is only 4.22 light years away. Now consider we can slowly accelerate to the speed of light (which is possible by slingshotting around the sun riding the solar winds) So what if it takes us 10 years, or even 20? I think we should investigate faster ways of reaching close to light speed or obviously warping space-time and going faster, but saying that "no one's planning that mission just yet" is horribly inaccurate because there are many scientists out there planning it every day.
But we ain't ever setting foor on Venus, I'll wager.
*smirks* yeah I'll have to definitely agree on that!
I wonder if you realise how much the DoD has helped NASA out over the years.
I hope you understand this is due to wackjob ideas like star wars and the many military satellites that handymen (astronauts) from NASA go up and fix for them. The military helps NASA because NASA fixes their shit. It's unfortunate that dollars go wasted on LOE or orbital programs rather than expanding our exploration of the Universe, whether by man or robot.
Well yes, when I say a long time ago I don't mean 100 years ago... I'm talking we could have been on Mars 10-15 years ago. BTW Sputnik was '57 which is close to 50 years ago. Keep in mind it was only 12 years between the first satellite and landing on the Moon. We've had 36 years of advances in science and technology, and we still haven't made the next step. Is it because it's not possible, or because our priorities are slightly different now?
The first manned mission to the Moon used a computer with the power of a typical modrn graphing calculator. The Saturn V rocket that took them there was in essence a giant Estes model rocket (black powder)
So why don't YOU take a step back, and realize I'm not talking about inter-galactic space travel here, I'm talking about going to Mars, which is VERY close to us compared to many other things out in space.
Please don't post the entire article... a link to it and a summary would do fine.
Duh, it's the team Mars olympic-sized swimming pool! Didn't you hear they were training for Beijing 2008?
When are we going to send a manned mission to Mars? We understand so much about the Universe, we can see millions of light years away using these amazing telescopes, but we STILL haven't set foot on the next planet over.
Maybe if we used tax money for space exploration instead of bombs this wouldn't be an issue; I think we could have been there a long time ago.
PPC would probably be the best as it's the closest relative, however I think you are missing the point. Unless you are a developer with lots and LOTS of experience coding, this simulator would most likely be worthless to you. It's not going to show you anything meaningful about the PS3 (once again unless you are a developer) and you are most likely to become confused by even trying to run it. I'm not trying to say that I personally would have any better luck running it. It's just this really isn't a "toy" to play with unless you know what you are doing.
There's no infrastructure for tracing the location of IPs/MACs
whois? traceroutes?
I know this is offtopic, but this whole "Mambo" name reminded me of a funny website my friend showed me years and years ago.
Has anyone else been to www.zombo.com? The infinite is possible at zombocom! The unattainable is unknown at zombocom! Welcome to ZOMBOCOM!!
LOL it's the most pointless site on the web outside of a good laugh, but the funniest thing is that it's been up for years, I wonder who pays for the hosting?
I stand corrected. Here is a link to info about the cell based blade servers. One interesting thing to note is at the bottom of the page: "The OS used was Linux 2.6.11" So I guess that kinda disproves all the people saying Linux won't run well on the Cell.
Except.. the PS3 is like no other console seen before. So your argument doesn't stand.
First, there is no "argument." All I am arguing is that anything is possible. Am I saying it's likely to happen soon? Not at all.
Maybe we could emulate the Cell arch on x86, but the fact of the matter is that its not reasonable to even hope that any time in the foreseeable future we'll be able to run a PS3 game in an emulated environment at playable speed.
Why is it not reasonable to hope for that? I never said it would be happening anytime soon, I'm just leaving the possibility open. People said the PS2 could never be emulated, yet there are (somewhat) working emulators for it.
The architectures are so dissimilar that even innovative emulator techniques like dynamic recompilation wouldn't be able to achieve reasonable performance.
Honestly I don't know what you are talking about here... emulators "emulate" the hardware of a specific device, allowing *gasp* native binaries to run on a non-native architecture. x86 and PowerPC aren't very similar, yet we have Bochs and PearPC (and many others.)
Look at the Intel and AMD roadmaps as the grandparent noted; we aren't going to have even comparable native performance in the coming years, much less the level of performance that would be required to emulate the platform at full speed.
Once again, I never said it would happen anytime soon, or that any of the current Intel/AMD processors (or near-future, for that matter) would be able to emulate it. I'm talking a LONG TIME before anything would be possible. C'mon, do you think back when the SNES was released that people thought years later we would be able to play any SNES game on your home computer? But give anything time, and someone will code it.
As the other posters have made clear, the PS3 / Cell architecture is not designed for workstations or PCs. It is designed specifically for gaming and for graphics. Yes, you could probably make a good graphics workstation out of the cell architecture, but will it compete with an SGI box? Not likely.