You might want to do basic research yourself, such as about inflation. It isn't at all meaningless, because it devalues your grandpa's savings (unless you Gramps is super-rich, then he probably doesn't care), and also yours, if you happen to *save* part of your income.
It's government that says inflation (= expansion of the money supply) is meaningless, and that they need to micromanage the base interest rate (instead of keeping the money supply fixed, and having interest result naturally from money supply and demand).
True, electronics *still* become cheaper, but everything else doesn't (just think about it; given today's technology everywhere, even farming food should become cheaper; due to inflation food doesn't get cheaper though). If we had no inflation, things would become better over time, instead of partly better and partly much worse. Especially people living off their savings, or on minimum wage would have an easier time.
Hi Dada, that's something I always wondered about. If copyright'd be gone, how *would* content creators actually protect their work?
I'm all against patents, and against authoritarian punishment as it's being done now if you do as much as copy a CD, but I fail to see how things would work without any notion of plagiarism or copyright.
No, nothing specific, but I like messaging architectures, for instance, and de/serializing everything so it can go over a normal stream socket is a bit annoying. At least if you do it in one process with threads you can skip the whole thing (just pass a pointer to a structure).
Well, as they mention, TCP is stream-based, so if you want to transmit message chunks, something more like UDP is cool. OTOH, UDP isn't safe, so you'd have to implement half of TCP anyway (re-transmit, maybe sequence numbers and windows). I just never felt like it.
I also like their other examples, with the improved SCTP connection mechanism (with the cookie), and the simpler hangup one.
Don't get me wrong, TCP is cool, and for most (line-oriented) internet protocols just great, but SCTP seems better designed and cleaned up, i.e. a little bit more mature.
That's because IPv6 is *IP*. SCTP builds on top of IP (v4 if you want), just like UDP and TCP.
Just like many applications (mostly streaming servers and games, I suppose) use UDP without anybody caring, you can use SCTP without any host between client and server caring.
It's something for applications to use, not something that requires a different internet infrastructure, replacing routers, software etc. (IPv6 address syntax is different from the v4 one...).
Before I got my current Mini (1.42 G4), I had an iBook G4 800. Yes, they have a fan inside, and it's loud. But over one and a half years I only had the fan turn on maybe five times, and that during *hours* of 100% CPU utilization.
The mini is nice (and a lot faster), but I miss the utter silence that I had with my iBook. I wish somebody would build desktops and laptops like that, but it seems the only contender is Apple. Too bad the iBook screen is the absolute bottom crap, IMHO.
Collusion is illegal in Germany too. But even if it weren't, should all the ISPs collude to fix prices, there would be a truly *tremendous* opportunity for everybody else to develop o Free Internet, so I don't think it makes much sense for them.
Yes, it's different, but at least on PPC the OpenFirmware can load ELFs without any modification. What it does on the Mac is to load a bootloader (BootX) that will load the XNU kernel (which isn't ELF, but Mach-O).
I'm not sure about the EFI used in Intel-Macs, but maybe it can also load ELFs by itself... It'd be interesting to find out how the boot process was modified.
I don't know why Gnome would LOOK better. On Apple's X11 it looks great, and X11 is only about the screen and keyboard and mouse. It only doesn't work in some areas where Gnome obviously accesses hardware in some way.
Could you be more specific? What does open source do well? What don't Windows or the Mac do at all?
My post was - if you read it - about me being able to run a full Unix/X11 environment right there on my Mac, with one click. If I want back to the Mac GUI, it's just another keypress.
Unlike Linux, the Mac OS supports all hardware. If Gnome doesn't fully run on the Mac, that's as I already mentioned, due to its reliance on Linuxness of the system. Other software runs on the Mac without any problems; because it's *100% portable*. Unpack and compile, that's it.
I only remember that some years ago there was no Gnome on OpenBSD, and KDE didn't run too well; but at least it did. By now I'm sure that things are much better, and even Gnome works to some degree on the BSDs.
Of course the Mac isn't too well supported, because as you say the native GUI is good. But when I'm working with X apps sometimes, I'm annoyed by the Quartz WM, so I prefer to run it as a native full-screen X environment.
AFAIK Apple's X11 is a fork of XFree86, and of course it's standards compliant and runs all X apps flawlessly. But that doesn't prevent Linux apps from running less than optimally on BSD. A few years ago there wasn't even Gnome for OpenBSD, and on the Mac it doesn't run too well: system monitor doesn't show anything, and other problems.
It has nothing to do with X11, i.e. the graphics layer, but with how deeply reliant Gnome is on the specific operating system.
I don't know about what proprietary X stuff you're talking or about what closed source BSD. Apple's BSD core is all open source, and has been for many years. The Aqua GUI and the Cocoa framework are proprietary, but these have nothing at all to do with X11 or the Unix base.
Actually I wasn't talking about Linux on my Mac (but I've successfully tried the Ubuntu Live CD on my mini), but about Darwinports running directly side-by-side with other Mac applications.
It's just cool when your full-screen X11 environment is only a click away;)
I don't know about KDE, but Gnome seems very much platform dependent to me (as does much modern open-source software, sadly). It runs perfectly on Linux, but on my Mac there are lots of problems.
Cleanly written stuff that doesn't make lots of assumptions about what platform it runs on wouldn't have that problem.
(I think KDE used to be more portable than Gnome, and would even run on *BSD when Gnome wouldn't. Hmm, maybe I should install KDE on my Mac to compare...)
with the help of Palm, the company who still uses their old crappy OS4/5, who still hasn't brought to market a single device with their ready-for-maybe-two-years-now PalmOS6, who is reportedly trying to port some Linux to their devices, who's even selling Smartphones with Windows on it.
Whew.
Will they now try to develop some Mac-like OS for their handhelds? Yet another system would hardly be a surprise.
Sharing Java Class Code between processes? You mean like what Apple has developed years ago, and even given back to Sun, so they could include that same code into the stock JVM (IIRC since version 1.5)?
The downside is that "modern" Java, but also C++ programs only consist of comparably little code, but TONS of objects allocated on the heap. No code sharing will help, there.
Slashdot Mirror
You might want to do basic research yourself, such as about inflation. It isn't at all meaningless, because it devalues your grandpa's savings (unless you Gramps is super-rich, then he probably doesn't care), and also yours, if you happen to *save* part of your income.
It's government that says inflation (= expansion of the money supply) is meaningless, and that they need to micromanage the base interest rate (instead of keeping the money supply fixed, and having interest result naturally from money supply and demand).
True, electronics *still* become cheaper, but everything else doesn't (just think about it; given today's technology everywhere, even farming food should become cheaper; due to inflation food doesn't get cheaper though). If we had no inflation, things would become better over time, instead of partly better and partly much worse. Especially people living off their savings, or on minimum wage would have an easier time.
Hi Dada,
that's something I always wondered about. If copyright'd be gone, how *would* content creators actually protect their work?
I'm all against patents, and against authoritarian punishment as it's being done now if you do as much as copy a CD, but I fail to see how things would work without any notion of plagiarism or copyright.
No, nothing specific, but I like messaging architectures, for instance, and de/serializing everything so it can go over a normal stream socket is a bit annoying. At least if you do it in one process with threads you can skip the whole thing (just pass a pointer to a structure).
Well, as they mention, TCP is stream-based, so if you want to transmit message chunks, something more like UDP is cool. OTOH, UDP isn't safe, so you'd have to implement half of TCP anyway (re-transmit, maybe sequence numbers and windows). I just never felt like it.
I also like their other examples, with the improved SCTP connection mechanism (with the cookie), and the simpler hangup one.
Don't get me wrong, TCP is cool, and for most (line-oriented) internet protocols just great, but SCTP seems better designed and cleaned up, i.e. a little bit more mature.
That's because IPv6 is *IP*. SCTP builds on top of IP (v4 if you want), just like UDP and TCP.
Just like many applications (mostly streaming servers and games, I suppose) use UDP without anybody caring, you can use SCTP without any host between client and server caring.
It's something for applications to use, not something that requires a different internet infrastructure, replacing routers, software etc. (IPv6 address syntax is different from the v4 one...).
This is what I always wanted, but never had the time or resources to develop...
Ok, remains to be seen if it gives any real, measurable advantage in practice.
Before I got my current Mini (1.42 G4), I had an iBook G4 800. Yes, they have a fan inside, and it's loud. But over one and a half years I only had the fan turn on maybe five times, and that during *hours* of 100% CPU utilization.
The mini is nice (and a lot faster), but I miss the utter silence that I had with my iBook. I wish somebody would build desktops and laptops like that, but it seems the only contender is Apple. Too bad the iBook screen is the absolute bottom crap, IMHO.
Collusion is illegal in Germany too. But even if it weren't, should all the ISPs collude to fix prices, there would be a truly *tremendous* opportunity for everybody else to develop o Free Internet, so I don't think it makes much sense for them.
Full Ack with your post.
Fortunately you can "invest" in iTunes or an iPod without buying DRMed music.
WoW is about entertaining players, and rewarding them, in return for the money they spend playing the game. Now what's hard to understand about that?
Players who don't want lengthy entertaining, but a skills match, play UT, CS, or maybe some kind of strategy game.
RPGs have never really been about skill, but about entertaining in return for a lot of time.
Yes, it's different, but at least on PPC the OpenFirmware can load ELFs without any modification. What it does on the Mac is to load a bootloader (BootX) that will load the XNU kernel (which isn't ELF, but Mach-O).
I'm not sure about the EFI used in Intel-Macs, but maybe it can also load ELFs by itself... It'd be interesting to find out how the boot process was modified.
When you can no longer buy or sell something, just because some "corrupt officials" don't like the message it contains.
It'd be too easy to say, "oh it's only Australia", because American and European legislature goes in the same direction.
Only that in this case you can't.
One possible solution is to use encrypted filesystems under Linux or OpenBSD.
If you really need Windows and want secure data, it might be best to use an external encrypted SAN, or a file server running OpenBSD and Samba.
Well, I run Darwinports.
$ port installed | grep gnome
gnome-applets @2.12.2_0 (active)
gnome-backgrounds @2.12.2_0 (active)
gnome-desktop @2.12.2_0 (active)
gnome-desktop-suite @2.12_0
gnome-doc-utils @0.5.3_0 (active)
gnome-games @2.12.2_0 (active)
gnome-icon-theme @2.12.1_0 (active)
gnome-keyring @0.4.6_0 (active)
gnome-mag @0.12.3_0 (active)
gnome-menus @2.12.0_0 (active)
gnome-mime-data @2.4.2_0 (active)
gnome-panel @2.12.2_0 (active)
gnome-platform-suite @2.12_0 (active)
gnome-session @2.12.0_0 (active)
gnome-speech @0.3.9_0 (active)
gnome-system-monitor @2.12.2_0 (active)
gnome-terminal @2.12.0_0 (active)
gnome-themes @2.12.1_0 (active)
gnome-utils @2.12.2_0 (active)
gnome-vfs @2.12.2_0 (active)
gnome2-user-docs @2.8.1_0 (active)
libgail-gnome @1.1.2_0 (active)
libgnome @2.12.0.1_0 (active)
libgnomecanvas @2.12.0_0 (active)
libgnomecups @0.2.2_0 (active)
libgnomeprint @2.12.1_0 (active)
libgnomeprintui @2.12.1_0 (active)
libgnomeui @2.12.0_0 (active)
I don't know why Gnome would LOOK better. On Apple's X11 it looks great, and X11 is only about the screen and keyboard and mouse. It only doesn't work in some areas where Gnome obviously accesses hardware in some way.
Could you be more specific? What does open source do well? What don't Windows or the Mac do at all?
My post was - if you read it - about me being able to run a full Unix/X11 environment right there on my Mac, with one click. If I want back to the Mac GUI, it's just another keypress.
Unlike Linux, the Mac OS supports all hardware. If Gnome doesn't fully run on the Mac, that's as I already mentioned, due to its reliance on Linuxness of the system. Other software runs on the Mac without any problems; because it's *100% portable*. Unpack and compile, that's it.
On Windows? Wow.
I only remember that some years ago there was no Gnome on OpenBSD, and KDE didn't run too well; but at least it did. By now I'm sure that things are much better, and even Gnome works to some degree on the BSDs.
Of course the Mac isn't too well supported, because as you say the native GUI is good. But when I'm working with X apps sometimes, I'm annoyed by the Quartz WM, so I prefer to run it as a native full-screen X environment.
AFAIK Apple's X11 is a fork of XFree86, and of course it's standards compliant and runs all X apps flawlessly. But that doesn't prevent Linux apps from running less than optimally on BSD. A few years ago there wasn't even Gnome for OpenBSD, and on the Mac it doesn't run too well: system monitor doesn't show anything, and other problems.
It has nothing to do with X11, i.e. the graphics layer, but with how deeply reliant Gnome is on the specific operating system.
I don't know about what proprietary X stuff you're talking or about what closed source BSD. Apple's BSD core is all open source, and has been for many years. The Aqua GUI and the Cocoa framework are proprietary, but these have nothing at all to do with X11 or the Unix base.
Actually I wasn't talking about Linux on my Mac (but I've successfully tried the Ubuntu Live CD on my mini), but about Darwinports running directly side-by-side with other Mac applications.
;)
It's just cool when your full-screen X11 environment is only a click away
I don't know about KDE, but Gnome seems very much platform dependent to me (as does much modern open-source software, sadly). It runs perfectly on Linux, but on my Mac there are lots of problems.
Cleanly written stuff that doesn't make lots of assumptions about what platform it runs on wouldn't have that problem.
(I think KDE used to be more portable than Gnome, and would even run on *BSD when Gnome wouldn't. Hmm, maybe I should install KDE on my Mac to compare...)
Maybe it's just to avoid all that crap and advertising on TV, and those people are actually picky about what movies they rent?
I find most religions quite ridiculous, but I can understand that some people might make different choices in life than me.
with the help of Palm, the company who still uses their old crappy OS4/5, who still hasn't brought to market a single device with their ready-for-maybe-two-years-now PalmOS6, who is reportedly trying to port some Linux to their devices, who's even selling Smartphones with Windows on it.
Whew.
Will they now try to develop some Mac-like OS for their handhelds? Yet another system would hardly be a surprise.
Sharing Java Class Code between processes? You mean like what Apple has developed years ago, and even given back to Sun, so they could include that same code into the stock JVM (IIRC since version 1.5)?
The downside is that "modern" Java, but also C++ programs only consist of comparably little code, but TONS of objects allocated on the heap. No code sharing will help, there.
Excuse me.
I misread the heading as Celeron, probably because, as you say, there is no "Centrino" processor. Both start with "Ce".
I was talking about the Mobile Celeron, though, which is similar to the P-M, though it doesn't clock down.
Does the new Celeron still not clock/volt down?
I'd only ever buy a mobile CPU if I know it doesn't eat my battery for breakfast!
(actually I'm looking into buying a Turion NB, but not sure yet, as choice in that area is *slightly* limited)