I took four years of Latin in high school, and I can tell you I learned more about the English language in Latin class, than I ever did in English class.
This is a little off-topic, but I have to ask: how did Amazon get to where they are? I can't stand using their site. Their search function is terrible, and their prices are no better than any other online retailers. Every once in a while, I'll find something that only Amazon is selling, but that's really unusual. Anyone else out there feel the same?
My problem with Ctrl-Alt-Del, especially in the DOS days, was that it was handled by software. If the currently running program wasn't using the DOS input routines or checking for the sequence, itself, it simply wouldn't work, and you'd have to power-cycle your computer to reset it.
If they had actually wired up those keys to send a hard reset to the CPU, it would have been fine.
But if you can replace the transistors in RAM memory with light based technology, then why not the entire CPU?
Theoretically, you could, and an optical CPU would almost certainly be faster and cooler than an electronic CPU. Unlike what the article says, though, it would definitely not be smaller. There's a lower limit to how small you can make something, and still have light pass through it, and for integrated circuits, we've exceeded that limit by around an order of magnitude.
Because it doesn't take long to get past the whitespace syntax and get on with programming.
Agreed. I really don't understand why everyone complains about whitespace, when Python's almost religious insistence on counting from 0 is much more difficult to get used to. I mean, i get why range(8) counts from 0 to 7, but range(1,8) counts from 1 to 7? That makes no sense at all.
That's a great idea, because it will kill the whole 'Internet of Things' idiocy overnight. No-one will risk attaching anything to their network if they can't verify it's secure.
Well, that's one potential side-effect - and not necessarily a bad one, in my opinion. Either they learn how to manage their devices, or don't connect them to the Internet.
but it isn't as simple as just blocking a few IPs.
And this is why people need to be fined, if a device on their home network is found to be part of a botnet. Individuals need to be responsible for their networks, because the authorities are virtually powerless against botnets, Unless it costs them money, people just won't care.
I'm not 100% sure, either, but based on what I'm reading, this exploit requires some type of local access to use directly. While it's not as bad as all the hype, it's still not great, and can still be exploited remotely; it just takes an extra step.
Say you're running a web server, and Apache has a buffer overflow vulnerability. A hacker can break in and, normally, only has access to whatever the "apache" user has access to. If the hacker knows about dirty cow, he can now give himself root access.
So fine the people who own the devices. Start with a small fine, like $10, then double it for each repeat offense. Eventually, the word will get out, people will stop buying products from that vendor, and sales will suffer. They won't have any choice but to make their products secure.
Meanwhile, in the real world, most systems are not CPU bound but IO bound.
Seriously. According to IBM's literature, entry-level pSeries systems do 96GBps per socket. I don't know of any Intel-based systems that can even touch that, in the price range they're talking about.
I wonder if their process synchronization/IPC is faster, too.
My guess is that Intel will never produce SAS drives. Unlike SATA, SAS is big-endian, and Intel has made it very clear, over the years, they don't approve of that.
With a multiuser, multitasking OS you can have 25 different unrelated processes running on something with 25 cores.
In practice, most jobs running on a computer have some relation to each other, and the more jobs you have - and this CPU clearly expects to be able to run a lot of jobs - the more likely that will be. (Where I work, we actually have an application that gets slower when you add more cores.) Like most CPUs with high core counts, this one looks like it'll be great at compute-intensive tasks, but as soon as you try to do I/O, it'll slow to a crawl. Given the number of terabytes people are trying to process these days, I'm thinking this CPU's applications are limited
I used to be, too, but Fedora hasn't been really good since 14 or 15; they ruined it when they upgraded to Gnome 3. I prefer KDE but Fedora 14 was so good, I didn't care it was easier to use it with Gnome. (It would be nice if they'd support KDE better.)
No, I'd say 14 or 15. I'm pretty sure it was 16 where they started using Gnome 3, and that's when everything fell apart. Things still haven't completely recovered.
Snaps help solve that - your program can be made into a snap with the versions of libraries it needs, while the rest of your system marches forward
That sounds a lot like the "winsxs" folder, which is currently eating up 25% of the total space on my Windows machine, for no good reason. Having the same "feature" on Linux really doesn't thrill me.
For as long as I can remember, the Open Source community has been staunch in their attitude of FOSS only while also screaming bloody murder that FOSS must and will go fully mainstream.
To be more accurate, you remember OSS software folks being combative, and the reason you remember that is because closed-source software people have fought us every step of the way. We don't have a choice but to be combative, because it's the only way to hold our ground.
Slashdot Mirror
I took four years of Latin in high school, and I can tell you I learned more about the English language in Latin class, than I ever did in English class.
This is a little off-topic, but I have to ask: how did Amazon get to where they are? I can't stand using their site. Their search function is terrible, and their prices are no better than any other online retailers. Every once in a while, I'll find something that only Amazon is selling, but that's really unusual. Anyone else out there feel the same?
Even if that's true (and I'm pretty sure it isn't), it happened all the time, and it's exactly one of the things a hard reset would fix.
My problem with Ctrl-Alt-Del, especially in the DOS days, was that it was handled by software. If the currently running program wasn't using the DOS input routines or checking for the sequence, itself, it simply wouldn't work, and you'd have to power-cycle your computer to reset it.
If they had actually wired up those keys to send a hard reset to the CPU, it would have been fine.
Ummm... I logged out of Facebook. How is that not an expectation of privacy?
Theoretically, you could, and an optical CPU would almost certainly be faster and cooler than an electronic CPU. Unlike what the article says, though, it would definitely not be smaller. There's a lower limit to how small you can make something, and still have light pass through it, and for integrated circuits, we've exceeded that limit by around an order of magnitude.
Agreed. I really don't understand why everyone complains about whitespace, when Python's almost religious insistence on counting from 0 is much more difficult to get used to. I mean, i get why range(8) counts from 0 to 7, but range(1,8) counts from 1 to 7? That makes no sense at all.
Well, that's one potential side-effect - and not necessarily a bad one, in my opinion. Either they learn how to manage their devices, or don't connect them to the Internet.
And this is why people need to be fined, if a device on their home network is found to be part of a botnet. Individuals need to be responsible for their networks, because the authorities are virtually powerless against botnets, Unless it costs them money, people just won't care.
I'm not 100% sure, either, but based on what I'm reading, this exploit requires some type of local access to use directly. While it's not as bad as all the hype, it's still not great, and can still be exploited remotely; it just takes an extra step.
Say you're running a web server, and Apache has a buffer overflow vulnerability. A hacker can break in and, normally, only has access to whatever the "apache" user has access to. If the hacker knows about dirty cow, he can now give himself root access.
I'll wait for Kubuntu, thanks. The latest versions of Unity and Gnome are awful.
So fine the people who own the devices. Start with a small fine, like $10, then double it for each repeat offense. Eventually, the word will get out, people will stop buying products from that vendor, and sales will suffer. They won't have any choice but to make their products secure.
Seriously. According to IBM's literature, entry-level pSeries systems do 96GBps per socket. I don't know of any Intel-based systems that can even touch that, in the price range they're talking about.
I wonder if their process synchronization/IPC is faster, too.
My guess is that Intel will never produce SAS drives. Unlike SATA, SAS is big-endian, and Intel has made it very clear, over the years, they don't approve of that.
In practice, most jobs running on a computer have some relation to each other, and the more jobs you have - and this CPU clearly expects to be able to run a lot of jobs - the more likely that will be. (Where I work, we actually have an application that gets slower when you add more cores.) Like most CPUs with high core counts, this one looks like it'll be great at compute-intensive tasks, but as soon as you try to do I/O, it'll slow to a crawl. Given the number of terabytes people are trying to process these days, I'm thinking this CPU's applications are limited
No one has ever said "linux is completely safe". It's just safer than most of the alternatives.
I'm sure you meant that as a joke, but it's more correct than you know: https://www.infoq.com/news/201...
Seriously. I'm a Charter customer, and while they're not perfect, I'm much happier with them than I ever was with Comcast.
I used to be, too, but Fedora hasn't been really good since 14 or 15; they ruined it when they upgraded to Gnome 3. I prefer KDE but Fedora 14 was so good, I didn't care it was easier to use it with Gnome. (It would be nice if they'd support KDE better.)
I like KDE, myself, but the Fedora project only really supports Gnome well, especially when it comes to system settings.
No, I'd say 14 or 15. I'm pretty sure it was 16 where they started using Gnome 3, and that's when everything fell apart. Things still haven't completely recovered.
That sounds a lot like the "winsxs" folder, which is currently eating up 25% of the total space on my Windows machine, for no good reason. Having the same "feature" on Linux really doesn't thrill me.
Did you happen to notice it's called the "Gotthard" (got hard) tunnel?
If you have enough money, you can pay someone to build you an 8" floppy drive, from scratch.
To be more accurate, you remember OSS software folks being combative, and the reason you remember that is because closed-source software people have fought us every step of the way. We don't have a choice but to be combative, because it's the only way to hold our ground.