But assuming the open source model is as viable as we believe here in slashdotville, the open source movement will expand to include hardware engineers. It wouldn't be trivial to build an open-source car, but then it isn't trivial to build an open-source OS either, and that seems to be going quite well.
I disagree. If you put work into the design and manufacture of a "good" (in the economic sense) and want to make money back from that effort, you need to worry about how hard it is for someone else to steal that effort and simply copy your good.
Now, this is always possible, and companies use laws etc. to try and protect their goods.
What is becoming interesting now is that certain types of goods, that we call software, are becoming extremely easy to copy by the average joe. The point of their presentation is to observer that eventually fabbers will mean that hardware has this problem too.
The usual method, which I have had sucess with, is to simply ignore the refresh rates, and specify in your favorite Distro's X configuration program that you have a 1200x1024 or whatever monitor.
Searching google suggest that people have some difficulties with the card on this laptop (not the screen per se) http://www.eecs.umich.edu/~steveh/inspiron/gw9300. html suggests a change to lilo.conf to initialise the adapter on boot.
Welcome to the world of making linux work on less than generic hardware. It's not as bad as that last snetence makes it sound actually, and is getting better all the time.
What you need to do is search ont he web and find people who have already done it and posted their results. And if you find anyhting new, post it yourself. I'd do it for mine, except for my laptop I can't better the work of Graham Williams!
Following of the links on the previous story led to the MIT hack web page; with the MIT link here it's now clear then that the vancouver students were merely hanging a suitable target for their railgun experiments; I imagine they've already got a series of devices mounted.
Jerry Pournelle http://www.jerrypournelle.com invented a space weapons system called THOR in the 60s.
It is basically a 20 ft metal rod in Earth Orbit with a small engine that has just enough power to take it out of orbit, some very simple guidance capability - small thins or moveable weights inside - and a small onboard computer.
All you do is determin the target, fire the rocket, and drop it onto your target. It will be going at about 12,000 feet per second on impact; that is sufficient kinetic energy to destroy most hard targets, with minimum collateral damage and of course no fall-out.
I think the problem with your plan is that the guys with Gravity on their side are bound to win.
I suspect the hardest bit of engineering was not pushing it over, but attaching the supporting cable to the bridge. It's not like they tied it to a lamp post, they ran cables under the bridge.
It is dicovered that certain models of the Acme "Gluon" door lock can be opened with wet spagetti.
This lock is used on lots of people's doors, and also on the door to the local army camps' armory, the local jail, and the town bank.
The lock makers, being responsible etc., want to tell people to change their locks, so they put an ad in the paper.
Now, the question here is, is it reasonable for them to quickly ring the camp, jail and bank, to tell them to change their locks straight away, and only then put the ad in the paper?
If yes, then the average joe has an insecure lock for a few dsays longer than strictly necessary, and has a risk of getting burgled if someone else discovers the spagetti trick.
If no, then there is a risk that the prisoners will escape, steal the guns, and rob the bank.
...but my company, Eicon Networks, make a PRI card that will do what you want and works under Linux. It's not really my area of expertise, but here's a link. You'd want to look at the Diva server PRI card for the dial-in side, and perhaps even at the S-class cards for the WAN links.
Any geeks visiting "London, England" as you so quaintly call it in the colonies, should definitely check out the Science Museum. They actually finished one of his Difference engines.
Try http://www.nmsi.ac.uk/on-line/treasure/objects/186 2-89.html
In one of the more delightful of life's little ironys, the only way they could make it precisely enough to work was to use computer controlled machining.;-)
Back on topic, a big Lig is Ulster Scots for a very foolish person or idiot.
Can you define the question better?
on
OS X on x86?
·
· Score: 3
It all depends on what you want, surely?
The OSXonIntel web page seems to take in part a disingenious approach. "We want it because BSD gives us the chance to ge at lots of open source sw and to stick it to Microsoft". Well, if that's all you want, then here's a hint: install BSD.;-)
To be fair, later they say they want it all. But surely there's almost no chance of getting it to run legacy Mac applications or carbon apps without recompiling? So does it come down to Quartz and Aqua? What use are they on their own? Open source stuff will be available, true, but it'll be written for console or against X. Again, you're back to "install BSD"
My motto is that OS is irrelevant; it's apps apps apps that count. Why else do you think I'm writing this on a Win2K box?
I guess one argument apple can use against OSX on intel is that Apple have a very clear understanding of the fundamental hardware, so they can optimize their OS better. A lot of work done on the Linux kernel, for example, seems to be getting this and that obscure piece of hardware to work.
I think that a better response is not to try and make OSX run on Intel, but to make Gnome or K, depending on preference, look so good that it has the same "wow!" factor that OSX has.
Re:2000 Nobel price in chemistry
on
Plastic Valley?
·
· Score: 2
This is not a cluster of Cray mainframes they are talking about!
Cray have announced that they will be selling a Beowulf cluster made up of a big pile of API networks' CS20s. These are 1U rack-mounted PCs using DEC Alphas running at 750MHz. You could build one of these yourself at home if you cared to - Cray are simply using their name to resell a cluster of alpha boxes.
Since the first world war and the development of arial bombardment, killing the civillians who elect the opposing legion's political masters seems to be the first and most basic way of doing that.;-(
....yes, the 2.4 kernel will do that happilly, but no, it probably won't help, and gak, many of us hate you for having so much bandwidth and yet wanting more.
Yes, I do know about subnetting. I didn't bother to put that in because I didn't want to be technically boring.
And indeed probably these are on two subnets, judging from the addresses.
What I guess I was trying to point out is that if I were the size of Microsoft I'd have them much more distributed, on different ISPs in different class C's.
Mind you, MS do a lot of interesting stuff behind the scenes, so they may have more going on we don't know about - there's an informative whitepaper on their web site....ah.
This is the power of Slashdot, trying to get at the MS knobase to find out how to turn someting off on one of our servers, not working. Bugger, I think, and refresh slashdot. there's the story!
I suppose it's vaguely relevant for people wishing to compare BIND favorably to the Win2K DNS server...
Ah, I see via a whois that all their DNS servers are on the same segment, that's a no-no.
Well, it's not so much an odd question as an odd place to ask it.;-)
OK, firstly, to answer the subsiduary question, "why are you going to AD"; one very likely reason for moving accross is that Exchange 2000 requires you to move to AD.
So it may be a choice has been made to go to Exchange 2K. I must say my own take is that Exchange 2000 offers some interesting features, particularly having the information store mounted like it were part of the file system, but that the pain of an AD move is keeping me away from it.
It'd be interesting if you could post your companies reasons....
On the whole I'd suggest not so much moving as creating a parallel AD network, establishing trusts, and moveing things over piece at a time.
Of course you could always hold off on the grounds that Whistler is imminent...
OK, a glimpse of OSX's new core isn't a bad attempt at a pun, but it's very innacurate. The post is about a couple of UI changes - very far from kernel changes which you imply.
Woo, now I've started slagging off the content of the posts. I knew I was being too nice all this time.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, since it's been obscufated, no it isn't very interesting ;-)
Anyone de-obscufed it?
What, there's only one shady looking store in NYC? ;-)
But assuming the open source model is as viable as we believe here in slashdotville, the open source movement will expand to include hardware engineers. It wouldn't be trivial to build an open-source car, but then it isn't trivial to build an open-source OS either, and that seems to be going quite well.
I disagree. If you put work into the design and manufacture of a "good" (in the economic sense) and want to make money back from that effort, you need to worry about how hard it is for someone else to steal that effort and simply copy your good.
Now, this is always possible, and companies use laws etc. to try and protect their goods.
What is becoming interesting now is that certain types of goods, that we call software, are becoming extremely easy to copy by the average joe. The point of their presentation is to observer that eventually fabbers will mean that hardware has this problem too.
The usual method, which I have had sucess with, is to simply ignore the refresh rates, and specify in your favorite Distro's X configuration program that you have a 1200x1024 or whatever monitor.
. html suggests a change to lilo.conf to initialise the adapter on boot.
Searching google suggest that people have some difficulties with the card on this laptop (not the screen per se) http://www.eecs.umich.edu/~steveh/inspiron/gw9300
Welcome to the world of making linux work on less than generic hardware. It's not as bad as that last snetence makes it sound actually, and is getting better all the time.
What you need to do is search ont he web and find people who have already done it and posted their results. And if you find anyhting new, post it yourself. I'd do it for mine, except for my laptop I can't better the work of Graham Williams!
Following of the links on the previous story led to the MIT hack web page; with the MIT link here it's now clear then that the vancouver students were merely hanging a suitable target for their railgun experiments; I imagine they've already got a series of devices mounted.
Jerry Pournelle http://www.jerrypournelle.com invented a space weapons system called THOR in the 60s.
It is basically a 20 ft metal rod in Earth Orbit with a small engine that has just enough power to take it out of orbit, some very simple guidance capability - small thins or moveable weights inside - and a small onboard computer.
All you do is determin the target, fire the rocket, and drop it onto your target. It will be going at about 12,000 feet per second on impact; that is sufficient kinetic energy to destroy most hard targets, with minimum collateral damage and of course no fall-out.
I think the problem with your plan is that the guys with Gravity on their side are bound to win.
I suspect the hardest bit of engineering was not pushing it over, but attaching the supporting cable to the bridge. It's not like they tied it to a lamp post, they ran cables under the bridge.
Let us work the analogy further...
It is dicovered that certain models of the Acme "Gluon" door lock can be opened with wet spagetti.
This lock is used on lots of people's doors, and also on the door to the local army camps' armory, the local jail, and the town bank.
The lock makers, being responsible etc., want to tell people to change their locks, so they put an ad in the paper.
Now, the question here is, is it reasonable for them to quickly ring the camp, jail and bank, to tell them to change their locks straight away, and only then put the ad in the paper?
If yes, then the average joe has an insecure lock for a few dsays longer than strictly necessary, and has a risk of getting burgled if someone else discovers the spagetti trick.
If no, then there is a risk that the prisoners will escape, steal the guns, and rob the bank.
Never supply a bad reference; when asked, simply reply "I feel unable to provide a reference for Consultant X".
That makes it pretty clear that something's badly wrong, and yet is completely unactionable.
I hope this isn't construed as advertising...
...but my company, Eicon Networks, make a PRI card that will do what you want and works under Linux. It's not really my area of expertise, but here's a link. You'd want to look at the Diva server PRI card for the dial-in side, and perhaps even at the S-class cards for the WAN links.
Ah, yes, artificial languages are very useful for this sort of thing. Thlingan 'Hol is what I use for passwords etc.
Any geeks visiting "London, England" as you so quaintly call it in the colonies, should definitely check out the Science Museum. They actually finished one of his Difference engines.6 2-89.html
;-)
Try http://www.nmsi.ac.uk/on-line/treasure/objects/18
In one of the more delightful of life's little ironys, the only way they could make it precisely enough to work was to use computer controlled machining.
Back on topic, a big Lig is Ulster Scots for a very foolish person or idiot.
It all depends on what you want, surely?
;-)
The OSXonIntel web page seems to take in part a disingenious approach. "We want it because BSD gives us the chance to ge at lots of open source sw and to stick it to Microsoft". Well, if that's all you want, then here's a hint: install BSD.
To be fair, later they say they want it all. But surely there's almost no chance of getting it to run legacy Mac applications or carbon apps without recompiling? So does it come down to Quartz and Aqua? What use are they on their own? Open source stuff will be available, true, but it'll be written for console or against X. Again, you're back to "install BSD"
My motto is that OS is irrelevant; it's apps apps apps that count. Why else do you think I'm writing this on a Win2K box?
I guess one argument apple can use against OSX on intel is that Apple have a very clear understanding of the fundamental hardware, so they can optimize their OS better. A lot of work done on the Linux kernel, for example, seems to be getting this and that obscure piece of hardware to work.
I think that a better response is not to try and make OSX run on Intel, but to make Gnome or K, depending on preference, look so good that it has the same "wow!" factor that OSX has.
Off-topic, but that's a very clever anti-spam ;-)
This is not a cluster of Cray mainframes they are talking about!
Cray have announced that they will be selling a Beowulf cluster made up of a big pile of API networks' CS20s. These are 1U rack-mounted PCs using DEC Alphas running at 750MHz. You could build one of these yourself at home if you cared to - Cray are simply using their name to resell a cluster of alpha boxes.
Since the first world war and the development of arial bombardment, killing the civillians who elect the opposing legion's political masters seems to be the first and most basic way of doing that. ;-(
If you can't remember if you're running BIND or not you probably shouldn't ;-)
...but that's a superb piece of engineering work on their part, don't you think? In fact, a superb piece of hacking. ;-)
....yes, the 2.4 kernel will do that happilly, but no, it probably won't help, and gak, many of us hate you for having so much bandwidth and yet wanting more.
I mean, it's 2001 fer hecks sake. Where are the rocket cars? The moon bases? Why doesn't everyone wear silver jumpsuits? Where's my laser ray?
And indeed probably these are on two subnets, judging from the addresses.
What I guess I was trying to point out is that if I were the size of Microsoft I'd have them much more distributed, on different ISPs in different class C's.
Mind you, MS do a lot of interesting stuff behind the scenes, so they may have more going on we don't know about - there's an informative whitepaper on their web site....ah.
This is the power of Slashdot, trying to get at the MS knobase to find out how to turn someting off on one of our servers, not working. Bugger, I think, and refresh slashdot. there's the story!
I suppose it's vaguely relevant for people wishing to compare BIND favorably to the Win2K DNS server...
Ah, I see via a whois that all their DNS servers are on the same segment, that's a no-no.
Anyhow, if any slashdotters feel they must, try http://207.46.230.218/
OK, firstly, to answer the subsiduary question, "why are you going to AD"; one very likely reason for moving accross is that Exchange 2000 requires you to move to AD.
So it may be a choice has been made to go to Exchange 2K. I must say my own take is that Exchange 2000 offers some interesting features, particularly having the information store mounted like it were part of the file system, but that the pain of an AD move is keeping me away from it. It'd be interesting if you could post your companies reasons....
On the whole I'd suggest not so much moving as creating a parallel AD network, establishing trusts, and moveing things over piece at a time.
Of course you could always hold off on the grounds that Whistler is imminent...
Woo, now I've started slagging off the content of the posts. I knew I was being too nice all this time.