Courts have ruled that a phone directory is copyright-able, but the data is not, because phone books organize data in a creative way. Not sure how that applies here.
Indeed (as we'll see), every decade since the '80s, billions of dollars and gazillions of man-hours have been invested in this fundamental error, to end routinely in disaster. It's as though the automotive industry had a large ongoing research program searching for the perpetual-motion engine.
The error is that control interfaces must not be intelligent. Briefly, intelligent user interfaces should be limited to applications in which the user does not expect to control the behavior of the product. If the product is used as a tool, its interface should be as unintelligent as possible. Stupid is predictable; predictable is learnable; learnable is usable.
I was reminded of this lesson by a brief perusal of Wolfram Alpha, the hype machine's latest gift. Briefly: there is actually a useful tool inside Wolfram Alpha, which hopefully will be exposed someday. Unfortunately, this would require Stephen Wolfram to amputate what he thinks is the beautiful part of the system, and leave what he thinks is the boring part.
WA is two things: a set of specialized, hand-built databases and data visualization apps, each of which would be cool, the set of which almost deserves the hype; and an intelligent UI, which translates an unstructured natural-language query into a call to one of these tools. The apps are useful and fine and good. The natural-language UI is a monstrous encumbrance, which needs to be taken out back and shot. It won't be.
et's examine this difference between Google and WA. Basically, Google is the exception: the UI that is not a control interface. Because Google's search interface is not a control interface, it should be an intelligent interface, as of course it is.
Google is not a control interface because intrinsic to the state of performing a full-text search is the assumption that the results are to some extent random. Let's say I've heard of some blog called "Unqualified Reservations" and I type it into Google.
Am I sure that the first result will be the blog itself? I suppose I'm about 95% sure. Do I have any idea what will come next? Of course not. Will I automatically click on the first result? Certainly not. I will look first. Because for all I know, the million lines of code that parsed my query could be having a bad hair day, and send me to Jim Henley instead.
Google is not a control interface, because no predictable mapping exists between control input and system behavior, and none can be expected. A screwdriver is a control interface because if I am screwing in a screw and I turn the handle clockwise, I expect the screw to want to go in. If the screw is reverse threaded, it will want to come out instead, confusing me dreadfully. Fortunately, this mapping is not random; it is predictable. (Yes, Aspies, by "random" I mean "arbitrary.")
But if you are an actual flow user who actually needs to get something done, WA could give you an alternative, manual interface for selecting your tool. You might perform the discovery task by browsing, say, a good old-fashioned menu. For example, the Nutrition Facts tool might come with its own URL, which you could bookmark and navigate to directly. There might even be a special form for entering your recipe. Yes, I know none of this is very high-tech. (Obviously the coolest thing would be a true command line - but the command line is truly not for all.)
A more intriguing question is whether the Graffiti approach can be applied to full-text search. Many modern search engines, notably the hideous, awfully-named Bing, are actually multiple applications under the hood - just like WA. If Bing figures out that you are searching for a product, it will show you
We would probably be seeing a much more streamlined and pure "operating system",
While this is a ideal goal, it's never a good idea in practice. It's like selling a car engine to customers and expecting them to shop for seats etc. Consumers expect a minimum level of functionality from a OS they purchase.
If you're going to gloat about law school, let me tell you that I have a Masters in Computer Science, I have messed with the internals of Linux, written a kernel driver for Linux that mounts.tar files as a read only directory and I know how OSes work and integrate with other software.
What you want is Slackware, or Linux From Scratch. Go get it instead of trying to ram such a thing down all our collective throats. (PS I ran gentoo for a year when I had a lot of free time and didn't end up too happy with it at the end).
Um, troll? I am being deadly serious here. Read the news please, our president recently attempted to (and failed) to get drone tech from you guys, but you wouldn't share. Come on, if you want to defeat them, then please help us, instead of ignoring us.
Because everyone knows that what happened earlier was that all the technology given earlier was used more to rattle sabers with India instead of using them against the terrorists that your intelligence,military and government raised in the first place.
The problem is, unlike you lucky folks with you spy satellites, we have to rely on such open techs as Google Earth. If only you guys would share the info and the tech with us.
Instead, your military insists it wants to hunt the terrorist itself in our territory, which seeing your track record, we simply cannot allow.
And the terrorist roam free as a result, blowing bombs with impunity, at least once a week.
Looks like a self made problem. The Pakistani military, intelligence and government sponsored terrorism and trained and armed them to create big trouble in Afghanistan and India. It succeeded. Now when the chickens come home to roost, you're blaming others. The US gives billions in military and other aid to Pakistan, every year anyway. Stop whining, the terrorist problem you're facing now(and you and your country no doubt cheered in glee when India or Kashmir was/is attacked by pakistani made terrorists) is entirely of your making. As you sow so shall you reap.
signature: muslims!=terrorists
That might be true, but there seems to be something about the culture which seems to raise terrorists very easily compared to other cultures. Is it because the culture prohibits all contact with members of other sex except in marriage, resulting in testosterone fueled violence or is it the strict adherence to some questionable material in the holy book? I don't know, but all I know is, the tendency and problem does exist and you can't brush it under the carpet with inane platitudes like the one in your sig.
Looks like you're submitting an App to Apple for approval. Do you want to:
1) Pray to Steve to get it approved 2) Duplicate functionality of ipod software to get it rejected 3) Charge $1000 for it and become the new "I am rich" app
A consumer spinoff, Siri, is coming to the iPhone later this year.
Will Apple approve it? Or will it meet the fate of VoiceCentral for duplicating the (future) feaures of the iPhone? http://www.riverturn.com/blog/?p=455
The Infoworld article that you cited said this about Windows 7:
But for the rest of us (that is, veteran Windows users who can see through the hype), Windows 7 is really just Windows Vista with some performance tweaks and an updated Explorer shell. It's a modest update that may or may not swing the public-perception pendulum back in Microsoft's favor.
It should come as no surprise that Windows 7 performs very much like its predecessor. In fact, during extensive multiprocess benchmark testing, Windows 7 essentially mirrored Vista in almost every scenario. Database tasks? Roughly 118 percent slower than XP on dual-core (Vista was 92 percent slower) and 19 percent slower than XP on quad-core (identical to Vista). Workflow? A respectable 38 percent slower than XP on dual-core (Vista was 98 percent slower) and 59 percent slower on quad-core (Vista was 66 percent slower).
Even on a quad-core CPU, its 19 percent ***SLOWER*** than XP. At DATABASE tasks - tasks that require litte or no graphics (and presumably aren't using Aero)..
You can only say it "takes advantage" of multiple cores because it gets *less slower than XP* as you add more CPU cores. THIS IS NOT PROGRESS.
Hating? Yes. Irrational? Hardly.
Perhaps you missed this part(remember that your original gripe was that Windows 7 doesn't scale well with Intel's coming 8 and 16 and a kajillion no. of cores)
But it's not all bad news with Windows 7. Microsoft's new OS has a clear multicore scalability advantage over both Windows XP and Windows Vista, especially on less I/O-bound tasks like our multiprocess database workload. (We can thank SQL Server 2008 for that one.) In fact, with its second-generation multicore tweaking (good-bye, global lock!), Windows 7 is poised to overtake XP even earlier than Windows Vista -- perhaps at 16 or 24 cores.
And progress is not just measured in raw speed. Or else we would all be running DOS and Minix.
Only IE7 and IE8 on Vista/7 support it and it has mitigated a lot of web based attacks on browsers(including the Flash vulnerability discussed recently that affected Windows/Linux/OS X). I was told by someone here that Firefox/Ubuntu will have it with the next release of Ubuntu in Oct 2009, but don't quote me on that.
The other reasons are the integrated search on start menu, better looking and functioning UI. One of the main reasons is that there's no real reason to stick to a 7 year OS that may not be well supported by MS in the future with functionality(USB 3.0, IE9) and security patches. So unless you absolutely need XP, there's no real to avoid 7 if you get it with a new PC. And there's always XP mode in some versions of 7.
Well, the law that MS was prosecuted under is generally known as 'anti-trust regulation'. Google(or Bing?!) that if you if wish to see what I am talking about.
My other points still stand though.
Fast-forward about 10 years, and we get "Windows 7" - a 20GB "operating system" that requires a 128MB video card, with handwriting recognition, media center, Aero etc. etc. etc.
If you RTFA you will understand that the whole point of this Slashdot article that we are supposed to be commenting about is that 'Windows 7 runs well on netbooks'(even with aero enabled). In case you didn't know, netbooks contain the most smallest, cheapest and slowest hardware available for sale in the market, which are slower than mainstream desktops sold 3 years ago.
So, including 'handwriting recognition, media center, Aero etc. etc. etc. ' doesn't hurt the people who don't need them and immensely helps people who need them.
Re:No you can not (Score:4, Informative) by recoiledsnake (879048) on Tuesday September 18 2007, @01:35PM (#20655809) That is a gross over-simplication of what happened and almost qualifies as revisionist history and brushing things under the carpet. Let me summarize my understanding of what happened and someone please correct me if I am wrong.
Con Kolivas had been shouting from rooftops about slow desktop performance and was submitting feedback and bug reports. One of the kernel devs apparently said "I do not notice the issue on my quadcore machine with 4GB RAM". Rightly or wrongly, this lead Con to believe that the kernel devs do not care about desktop performance and only give priority to issues that big corporates complain about.
In the true open source style, he took upon himself to learn kernel programming and released a whole set of -CK patches and various versions of benchmarking tools and schedulers. On the other side, Ingo Molnar was the maintainer of the scheduler portion of the kernel and maintained that the O(1) scheduler(and the one before it?) is good enough and has no problems. Con conclusively started proving this wrong with his benchmarks. At this point, everyone assumed the -CK branch would be merged into the kernel at some point and Linus says he had been considering it.
At some point, Ingo starts making his own scheduler, which later evolved into the Completely Fair Scheduler. A number of posts claim that it was kind of rip off of the ideas behind Con's scheduler with which it was in a race to get included in the kernel. Then Linus decides to include CFS into the kernel instead of Con's scheduler. The reason he gave was that Con thought SD was perfect and that he ignored and flamed the users on the CK mailing list and that he(Linus) was far more comfortable working with Ingo since he knew him well. He also admitted that he might have formed this opinion on a single incident on the mailing list and he didn't have the time to follow the CK mailing list.
Some people on Con's side in the LKML tried to explain this by saying that the single incident was in response to a troll who submitted faulty bug reports and ignored the reasons for why they were rejected and that Linus was playing favorites. Con couldn't take the non-inclusion of -CK and plugsched(which would have given users a clean way of using a custom scheduler) and quit kernel development totally.
The latest twist in the story was reported on Slashdot here [slashdot.org]. The gist of it was that another hacker(Roman Zippel) was trying work on CFS. He had asked questions about what some parts of the code did, and also made some patches that considerably simplified the code and mathematically proved his patches made things better. In response, Ingo came out with a big patch that ripped out the code that was questioned and included Roman's Zippel's ideas(another rip off?) with hardly any discussion and a tangential acknowledgement of including his changes. Roman complained that talking in patches without explanation is detrimental to collaborative OSS development./quote
Because performance is not the only thing that defines a new OS. If that were so, we would all be running DOS or Minix. The latest Ubuntu is slower than the oldest Ubuntu(on the same hardware) but is still an upgrade. Same with OS X vs. OS 9. People don't notice it because usually they're using faster hardware with the latest version. But Windows 7 adds a lot of security, reliability and UI features while almost remaining at par with a 7 year old OS on the same hardware. That is the real news here.
All this astroturfed media about how great Win7 is and how it is going to kick butt on netbooks. Funny.
That maybe funny to you but not to me. There seems to be some slashdotters too who report Win7 RC working as well or better than Linux on their netbooks. Maybe you think all of them are astroturfers too. I do not have a netbook to test, and I guess you don't too. But, can you point me to what you think is a objective comparison by someone(not a M$ hater in his basement railing against MS) who has actually used Windows 7 and a version of Linux on their netbook? Or do you think MS and media has buried all mentions of how bad Windowss 7 is on netbooks all over the internet?
This was supposed to be in quotes in the bottom half of my comment. Need more coffee.
This is what happens when you don't have any competition. Its not an operating system, its a bloated behemoth born of a monopoly that wants to kill competition in every software market it can.
Microsoft should have been split up in 2000. You can't create competition through regulation
MS isn't improving the performance or security of their operating system. Instead, they are simply cramming more products in and calling the monstrosity an "operating system" - in an effort to expand into more markets.
Huh? MS just fixed and tweaked what was wrong with Vista without promising or adding a bajillion new features. Security is a lot better, with many exploits for XP that are coming out not working on Vista or 7.
Intel has announced 8-core CPUs. And yet the "new" (its basically a rebranded Vista) Windows 7 will barely take advantage of any of them other than the first.. http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=1612
This is what happens when you don't have any competition. Its not an operating system, its a bloated behemoth born of a monopoly that wants to kill competition in every software market it can.
Microsoft should have been split up in 2000. You can't create competition through regulation.
Err, you want MS to be split up because of regulation and then say you can't create competition through regulation. Cognitive dissonance?
1. Microsoft is no startup 2. Google has yet to prove their mettle in OSes. 3. Android is 'meh' compared to iPhone as of now 4. OS development and refining takes a loooooong time(even if Google uses Linux as a base). Windows 1.0 came out in 1985. Linus posted first code for Linux back in 1991(which had it's design roots in Unix) 5. You think many consumers will wait for Chrome OS till after the middle next year when they want to buy a $300 netbook now? 6. If vendors don't ship netbooks now and instead wait, other vendors will eat their lunch 7. Same as #6 with device driver writers
MS might be pressured to reduce prices sooner or later though.
I am sure some old hardware does exist that still doesn't have 64bit drivers for Vista/2008, but you really really need to try to actually find such hardware.
Well, you don't need to try too hard if you have older Dell or HP equipment. See what I mean?
You do realise that your own link contains download links for the 64bit Vista and Win2008 drivers?
Um, I just went through the article and XP was faster in basically every bench mark.
What feature does 7 provide you that is a huge benefit over XP, especially on a netbook?
Sandboxed IE, per application volume control, increased security(many of the security holes affecting XP over the past few weeks don't affect vista/7 or throw a UAC dialog) etc etc.
Bullcrap. SMS is sent during the status messages exchange from the tower to the phone(that's why the small 140 char limit). Your idiotic plan is worse than trying to make the Arctic ocean hot by a Cox customer pissing on it for a week.
One cell phone a mile away from a tower can block the tower from all the other cellphones? I call pure unadulterated BS. This sounds like old wives' tales(esp. coming from a AC) like the tales the G4 and G5 are better than their Intel equivalents. Will not stop it from getting modded up though, as it already is.
Slashdot Mirror
Courts have ruled that a phone directory is copyright-able, but the data is not, because phone books organize data in a creative way. Not sure how that applies here.
This not a troll. I am serious. For a full analysis read here --> http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/07/wolfram-alpha-and-hubristic-user.html
Some choice quotes
Indeed (as we'll see), every decade since the '80s, billions of dollars and gazillions of man-hours have been invested in this fundamental error, to end routinely in disaster. It's as though the automotive industry had a large ongoing research program searching for the perpetual-motion engine.
The error is that control interfaces must not be intelligent. Briefly, intelligent user interfaces should be limited to applications in which the user does not expect to control the behavior of the product. If the product is used as a tool, its interface should be as unintelligent as possible. Stupid is predictable; predictable is learnable; learnable is usable.
I was reminded of this lesson by a brief perusal of Wolfram Alpha, the hype machine's latest gift. Briefly: there is actually a useful tool inside Wolfram Alpha, which hopefully will be exposed someday. Unfortunately, this would require Stephen Wolfram to amputate what he thinks is the beautiful part of the system, and leave what he thinks is the boring part.
WA is two things: a set of specialized, hand-built databases and data visualization apps, each of which would be cool, the set of which almost deserves the hype; and an intelligent UI, which translates an unstructured natural-language query into a call to one of these tools. The apps are useful and fine and good. The natural-language UI is a monstrous encumbrance, which needs to be taken out back and shot. It won't be.
et's examine this difference between Google and WA. Basically, Google is the exception: the UI that is not a control interface. Because Google's search interface is not a control interface, it should be an intelligent interface, as of course it is.
Google is not a control interface because intrinsic to the state of performing a full-text search is the assumption that the results are to some extent random. Let's say I've heard of some blog called "Unqualified Reservations" and I type it into Google.
Am I sure that the first result will be the blog itself? I suppose I'm about 95% sure. Do I have any idea what will come next? Of course not. Will I automatically click on the first result? Certainly not. I will look first. Because for all I know, the million lines of code that parsed my query could be having a bad hair day, and send me to Jim Henley instead.
Google is not a control interface, because no predictable mapping exists between control input and system behavior, and none can be expected. A screwdriver is a control interface because if I am screwing in a screw and I turn the handle clockwise, I expect the screw to want to go in. If the screw is reverse threaded, it will want to come out instead, confusing me dreadfully. Fortunately, this mapping is not random; it is predictable. (Yes, Aspies, by "random" I mean "arbitrary.")
But if you are an actual flow user who actually needs to get something done, WA could give you an alternative, manual interface for selecting your tool. You might perform the discovery task by browsing, say, a good old-fashioned menu. For example, the Nutrition Facts tool might come with its own URL, which you could bookmark and navigate to directly. There might even be a special form for entering your recipe. Yes, I know none of this is very high-tech. (Obviously the coolest thing would be a true command line - but the command line is truly not for all.)
A more intriguing question is whether the Graffiti approach can be applied to full-text search. Many modern search engines, notably the hideous, awfully-named Bing, are actually multiple applications under the hood - just like WA. If Bing figures out that you are searching for a product, it will show you
They should've just tried to set the evil bit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_bit
We would probably be seeing a much more streamlined and pure "operating system",
While this is a ideal goal, it's never a good idea in practice. It's like selling a car engine to customers and expecting them to shop for seats etc. Consumers expect a minimum level of functionality from a OS they purchase.
If you're going to gloat about law school, let me tell you that I have a Masters in Computer Science, I have messed with the internals of Linux, written a kernel driver for Linux that mounts .tar files as a read only directory and I know how OSes work and integrate with other software.
What you want is Slackware, or Linux From Scratch. Go get it instead of trying to ram such a thing down all our collective throats. (PS I ran gentoo for a year when I had a lot of free time and didn't end up too happy with it at the end).
And the ZDNET blog you referenced had completely substantiated speculation? Just read it again once.
Um, troll? I am being deadly serious here.
Read the news please, our president recently attempted to (and failed) to get drone tech from you guys, but you wouldn't share. Come on, if you want to defeat them, then please help us, instead of ignoring us.
Because everyone knows that what happened earlier was that all the technology given earlier was used more to rattle sabers with India instead of using them against the terrorists that your intelligence,military and government raised in the first place.
The problem is, unlike you lucky folks with you spy satellites, we have to rely on such open techs as Google Earth. If only you guys would share the info and the tech with us.
Instead, your military insists it wants to hunt the terrorist itself in our territory, which seeing your track record, we simply cannot allow.
And the terrorist roam free as a result, blowing bombs with impunity, at least once a week.
Looks like a self made problem. The Pakistani military, intelligence and government sponsored terrorism and trained and armed them to create big trouble in Afghanistan and India. It succeeded. Now when the chickens come home to roost, you're blaming others. The US gives billions in military and other aid to Pakistan, every year anyway. Stop whining, the terrorist problem you're facing now(and you and your country no doubt cheered in glee when India or Kashmir was/is attacked by pakistani made terrorists) is entirely of your making. As you sow so shall you reap.
signature: muslims!=terrorists
That might be true, but there seems to be something about the culture which seems to raise terrorists very easily compared to other cultures. Is it because the culture prohibits all contact with members of other sex except in marriage, resulting in testosterone fueled violence or is it the strict adherence to some questionable material in the holy book? I don't know, but all I know is, the tendency and problem does exist and you can't brush it under the carpet with inane platitudes like the one in your sig.
Google maps on iPhone.
ah!
Clippy:
Looks like you're submitting an App to Apple for approval. Do you want to:
1) Pray to Steve to get it approved
2) Duplicate functionality of ipod software to get it rejected
3) Charge $1000 for it and become the new "I am rich" app
A consumer spinoff, Siri, is coming to the iPhone later this year.
Will Apple approve it? Or will it meet the fate of VoiceCentral for duplicating the (future) feaures of the iPhone?
http://www.riverturn.com/blog/?p=455
LOL. Irrational hating?
The Infoworld article that you cited said this about Windows 7:
Even on a quad-core CPU, its 19 percent ***SLOWER*** than XP. At DATABASE tasks - tasks that require litte or no graphics (and presumably aren't using Aero)..
You can only say it "takes advantage" of multiple cores because it gets *less slower than XP* as you add more CPU cores. THIS IS NOT PROGRESS.
Hating? Yes.
Irrational? Hardly.
Perhaps you missed this part(remember that your original gripe was that Windows 7 doesn't scale well with Intel's coming 8 and 16 and a kajillion no. of cores)
But it's not all bad news with Windows 7. Microsoft's new OS has a clear multicore scalability advantage over both Windows XP and Windows Vista, especially on less I/O-bound tasks like our multiprocess database workload. (We can thank SQL Server 2008 for that one.) In fact, with its second-generation multicore tweaking (good-bye, global lock!), Windows 7 is poised to overtake XP even earlier than Windows Vista -- perhaps at 16 or 24 cores.
And progress is not just measured in raw speed. Or else we would all be running DOS and Minix.
IE8 on XP does not have sandboxing. More details here http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2006/02/09/528963.aspx
Only IE7 and IE8 on Vista/7 support it and it has mitigated a lot of web based attacks on browsers(including the Flash vulnerability discussed recently that affected Windows/Linux/OS X). I was told by someone here that Firefox/Ubuntu will have it with the next release of Ubuntu in Oct 2009, but don't quote me on that.
The other reasons are the integrated search on start menu, better looking and functioning UI. One of the main reasons is that there's no real reason to stick to a 7 year OS that may not be well supported by MS in the future with functionality(USB 3.0, IE9) and security patches. So unless you absolutely need XP, there's no real to avoid 7 if you get it with a new PC. And there's always XP mode in some versions of 7.
Well, the law that MS was prosecuted under is generally known as 'anti-trust regulation'. Google(or Bing?!) that if you if wish to see what I am talking about.
My other points still stand though.
Fast-forward about 10 years, and we get "Windows 7" - a 20GB "operating system" that requires a 128MB video card, with handwriting recognition, media center, Aero etc. etc. etc.
If you RTFA you will understand that the whole point of this Slashdot article that we are supposed to be commenting about is that 'Windows 7 runs well on netbooks'(even with aero enabled). In case you didn't know, netbooks contain the most smallest, cheapest and slowest hardware available for sale in the market, which are slower than mainstream desktops sold 3 years ago.
So, including 'handwriting recognition, media center, Aero etc. etc. etc. ' doesn't hurt the people who don't need them and immensely helps people who need them.
Now, before you continue slamming the 20gb OS(more like 10GB install size for the x64 version), you might want to read this --> http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000020.html
Please, don't hold us the rest of us back just because you want to run the latest OS on your 486.
I'll do that.
http://apcmag.com/interview_with_con_kolivas_part_1_computing_is_boring.htm
http://apcmag.com/why_i_quit_kernel_developer_con_kolivas.htm
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/01/1853228&from=rss
vhttp://linux.slashdot.org/linux/07/09/14/156234.shtml
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/18/131240
From my own post here http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=301061&cid=20655809
Re:No you can not (Score:4, Informative)
by recoiledsnake (879048)
on Tuesday September 18 2007, @01:35PM (#20655809)
That is a gross over-simplication of what happened and almost qualifies as revisionist history and brushing things under the carpet. Let me summarize my understanding of what happened and someone please correct me if I am wrong.
Con Kolivas had been shouting from rooftops about slow desktop performance and was submitting feedback and bug reports. One of the kernel devs apparently said "I do not notice the issue on my quadcore machine with 4GB RAM". Rightly or wrongly, this lead Con to believe that the kernel devs do not care about desktop performance and only give priority to issues that big corporates complain about.
In the true open source style, he took upon himself to learn kernel programming and released a whole set of -CK patches and various versions of benchmarking tools and schedulers. On the other side, Ingo Molnar was the maintainer of the scheduler portion of the kernel and maintained that the O(1) scheduler(and the one before it?) is good enough and has no problems. Con conclusively started proving this wrong with his benchmarks. At this point, everyone assumed the -CK branch would be merged into the kernel at some point and Linus says he had been considering it.
At some point, Ingo starts making his own scheduler, which later evolved into the Completely Fair Scheduler. A number of posts claim that it was kind of rip off of the ideas behind Con's scheduler with which it was in a race to get included in the kernel. Then Linus decides to include CFS into the kernel instead of Con's scheduler. The reason he gave was that Con thought SD was perfect and that he ignored and flamed the users on the CK mailing list and that he(Linus) was far more comfortable working with Ingo since he knew him well. He also admitted that he might have formed this opinion on a single incident on the mailing list and he didn't have the time to follow the CK mailing list.
Some people on Con's side in the LKML tried to explain this by saying that the single incident was in response to a troll who submitted faulty bug reports and ignored the reasons for why they were rejected and that Linus was playing favorites. Con couldn't take the non-inclusion of -CK and plugsched(which would have given users a clean way of using a custom scheduler) and quit kernel development totally.
The latest twist in the story was reported on Slashdot here [slashdot.org]. The gist of it was that another hacker(Roman Zippel) was trying work on CFS. He had asked questions about what some parts of the code did, and also made some patches that considerably simplified the code and mathematically proved his patches made things better. In response, Ingo came out with a big patch that ripped out the code that was questioned and included Roman's Zippel's ideas(another rip off?) with hardly any discussion and a tangential acknowledgement of including his changes. Roman complained that talking in patches without explanation is detrimental to collaborative OSS development. /quote
Because performance is not the only thing that defines a new OS. If that were so, we would all be running DOS or Minix. The latest Ubuntu is slower than the oldest Ubuntu(on the same hardware) but is still an upgrade. Same with OS X vs. OS 9. People don't notice it because usually they're using faster hardware with the latest version. But Windows 7 adds a lot of security, reliability and UI features while almost remaining at par with a 7 year old OS on the same hardware. That is the real news here.
All this astroturfed media about how great Win7 is and how it is going to kick butt on netbooks. Funny.
That maybe funny to you but not to me.
There seems to be some slashdotters too who report Win7 RC working as well or better than Linux on their netbooks. Maybe you think all of them are astroturfers too. I do not have a netbook to test, and I guess you don't too. But, can you point me to what you think is a objective comparison by someone(not a M$ hater in his basement railing against MS) who has actually used Windows 7 and a version of Linux on their netbook? Or do you think MS and media has buried all mentions of how bad Windowss 7 is on netbooks all over the internet?
This was supposed to be in quotes in the bottom half of my comment. Need more coffee.
This is what happens when you don't have any competition. Its not an operating system, its a bloated behemoth born of a monopoly that wants to kill competition in every software market it can.
Microsoft should have been split up in 2000.
You can't create competition through regulation
Because they essentially have no competition.
MS isn't improving the performance or security of their operating system.
Instead, they are simply cramming more products in and calling the monstrosity an "operating system" - in an effort to expand into more markets.
Huh? MS just fixed and tweaked what was wrong with Vista without promising or adding a bajillion new features. Security is a lot better, with many exploits for XP that are coming out not working on Vista or 7.
Intel and AMD have been making dual-core CPUs for more than FOUR YEARS.
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20050418comp.htm
Intel has announced 8-core CPUs.
And yet the "new" (its basically a rebranded Vista) Windows 7 will barely take advantage of any of them other than the first..
http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=1612
Why link to outdated speculation? Check these real tests and benchmarks out instead. http://www.infoworld.com/t/platforms/generation-gap-windows-multicore-273
Even Slashdot linked to it. http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09%2F01%2F22%2F1554224&from=rss
This is what happens when you don't have any competition. Its not an operating system, its a bloated behemoth born of a monopoly that wants to kill competition in every software market it can.
Microsoft should have been split up in 2000.
You can't create competition through regulation.
Err, you want MS to be split up because of regulation and then say you can't create competition through regulation. Cognitive dissonance?
Are you sure you didn't mean to post this comment when Vista launched? If not, all I can say is this --> http://linux.slashdot.org/story/09/07/25/1757253/Linus-Calls-MicrosoftHatred-a-Disease
If your sole objective was to irrationally hate on Microsoft and gather Slashdot karma, Congratulations, you've been modded up already.
1. Microsoft is no startup
2. Google has yet to prove their mettle in OSes.
3. Android is 'meh' compared to iPhone as of now
4. OS development and refining takes a loooooong time(even if Google uses Linux as a base). Windows 1.0 came out in 1985. Linus posted first code for Linux back in 1991(which had it's design roots in Unix)
5. You think many consumers will wait for Chrome OS till after the middle next year when they want to buy a $300 netbook now?
6. If vendors don't ship netbooks now and instead wait, other vendors will eat their lunch
7. Same as #6 with device driver writers
MS might be pressured to reduce prices sooner or later though.
See http://blogs.adobe.com/penguin.swf/2007/05/welcome_to_the_jungle.html
It's fun to bash Adobe, but they have real problems on their hand. Even Google had trouble picking/developing a graphic toolkit for the Linux version of Chrome.
It's Linux's problem too. http://blogs.adobe.com/penguin.swf/2007/05/welcome_to_the_jungle.html
Also, if the video drivers do not support acceleration, what do you expect Adobe to do? Develop graphic drivers and install them with flash?
Well, you don't need to try too hard if you have older Dell or HP equipment. See what I mean?
You do realise that your own link contains download links for the 64bit Vista and Win2008 drivers?
Oh Cmon, Give him/her a break, (s)he just suffers from this ---> http://linux.slashdot.org/story/09/07/25/1757253/Linus-Calls-MicrosoftHatred-a-Disease
Evidence? http://slashdot.org/~morgan_greywolf/journal/219467
http://slashdot.org/~morgan_greywolf/journal/226315
Um, I just went through the article and XP was faster in basically every bench mark.
What feature does 7 provide you that is a huge benefit over XP, especially on a netbook?
Sandboxed IE, per application volume control, increased security(many of the security holes affecting XP over the past few weeks don't affect vista/7 or throw a UAC dialog) etc etc.
Bullcrap. SMS is sent during the status messages exchange from the tower to the phone(that's why the small 140 char limit). Your idiotic plan is worse than trying to make the Arctic ocean hot by a Cox customer pissing on it for a week.
One cell phone a mile away from a tower can block the tower from all the other cellphones? I call pure unadulterated BS. This sounds like old wives' tales(esp. coming from a AC) like the tales the G4 and G5 are better than their Intel equivalents. Will not stop it from getting modded up though, as it already is.