Anyway, I like the point about "stop using more transisters to make it go faster" bit. What a hoot. That't exactly the point of building a cluster. More chips, more transistors, more FLOPS.
That's exactly why he likes designs that don't use more transistors per cpu. The heat and power consumption of a P3-P4 class chip may not seem all that bad when you have one in your PC, but when you have 100s of them racked up it can become a very serious problem.
According to the story, they are using the Crusoe chips because they don't require active cooling, unlike Intel or AMD chips.
Obviously you are not familiar with the ARM family of processors - they are very similar to the Crusoes, and in particular they don't require any active cooling either.
I've got to wonder why they are using Crusoes. It's a good chip for the application, don't get me wrong... but the last I heard the main advantage it has over StrongARM is x86 compatibility, which shouldn't be an issue here.
So if you buy it, they will get rid of every ad on every web page I visit? Now that is worth paying for. Otherwise, forget it.
Sure, turn off image loading and window creation and you'll get about 99% of them. You can do that without paying for it too. It's not all that horribly difficult to turn the ads off if you're technical at all anyway, of course, but paying a few bucks for the browser is completely reasonable when it's been consistently the best browser out there since 3.12, and upgrades are usually free.
Any reason you went with the.us domain instead of the old faithful.com?
I'm not him, but I can think of several good reasons, starting with the fact that practically all the useful.com namespace is either in use or being squatted, by Network Associates if by no one else.
onsidering that one can't get back to the real/. homepage from any particular server, it seems like quite a bad interface design. It started right after/. came back from its 2 hour hiatus earlier. Perhaps some bad code went in?
Actually it's been doing that on and off for several weeks now. No idea what the problem is.
They already have a "Linux compatibility layer" on their x86 solaris --
it is basically a load-time translator which understands Linux's ELF and translates linux system and library calls into their solaris equivalent. This works because they're both on x86.
I don't know how they plan to do this on SPARC, without a recompile of the app for SPARC.
Read the article. They're improving compatibility for native compilation, so the source code needs less work. While binary compatibility is not a bad thing, it's much more limited. Linux hasn't had much use for ELF lately, for example. Binary translation ages. Source code doesn't.
That server should be just fine, since they waited until it was quite dry to turn it back on. I'd certainly take it apart and inspect it thoroughly for corrosion, but the water really isn't usually a problem, as long as there is no electricity involved until after it's dried. Saltwater complicates things a bit, but if it's just rainwater I really doubt any damage was done.
They could only be planning an obfuscation, not a proper defense. The fact is, not for the first time, they lied shamelessly, they were called on it, and they don't want to admit it.
You don't break 'a lot' of applications. Very few have any problem with this, and the ones that do hardly 'break'. For instance, edonkey uses mshtml.dll to display an add banner, in it's absence, you just don't get the ad banners. Big whee.
My browser is registered with the system, any application that wants to bring it up can, easily. This is more than enough 'integration' for me, thanks.
Yes, unfortunately you do need a licensed copy of 95 to legally make later versions work they way I and many others want it to work - but for MS that is not a problem, being that they own the copyright they could make it available in any way they want. They could come out with XP light in a week if they wanted it, without the integration. That's the whole point, though, they want to shove this 'integration' down the throats of everyone that uses their OS, in order to control the internet. This is why they were convicted in the first place, and any 'remedy' that leaves them free to continue doing what they were convicted for is nothing more than a farce.
There's no need to go to the NYT for this story (or any of the other stories linked here that I can remember.) NYT doesn't have a monopoly on reprinting Reuters feeds. Try Yahoo for instance.
If 'the DUL' or, rather, someone utilising the DUL, is preventing him from emailing a second person, that must mean that Taco is using a dialup and has no smtp server of his own to access? That seems more than a bit improbable.
Apparently most of their work has been in localisation. I understand it works better than straight openoffice for Finnish and other languages used in the area, it can spellcheck Finnish documents and so forth.
Under the GPL they can charge, not just for the updates, but for the main package as well if they want to.
Why do people persist in spreading this myth that the GPL forbids charging for programs? It does not, in fact, any license which does is NOT considered Free by the FSF and is not GPL compatible.
Their obligation here is to make the source available to anyone they distribute the binary to. Period. They can charge as much or as little as they want for the binary, and be fine with the GPL, as long as the source is there too.
Back to boot viruses - I have to admit that I don't know whether or not INT13-style facilities (raw disk access) are available to the admin users.
I don't either. I do know of cases where boot viruses took down NT boxes, but I'm not sure which method they used to infect, since I didn't get the chance to examine the machines personally before the evidence was disturbed/destroyed. They may well have gotten in through a floppy boot.
So how exactly does the boot virus end up on the boot sector? NT doesn't let just anyone write to the raw spindles - it has this neat new feature called "access control" and actually enforces it. You can't just call INT 13 and write your data whenever, wherever.
Access control in NT is rarely enforced actually, since the common practice is to run everything as admin anyway.
The other way it can get it in is if an infected floppy is left in a drive on reboot. Then the boot sector of the floppy, containing the virus, is read directly into memory and executed as a bootloader, at which time it can do whatever it wants.
Strange, NT doesn't run on DOS. What imaginary version of NT are you running that can be brought down by a DOS boot virus?
Doesn't matter. Boot viruses load before the OS does anyway. Although in one way it makes sense to speak of a 'dos boot virus' since most of them were written on, compiled on, and intended to infect, DOS machines, in another way it makes no sense at all, a boot virus is a boot virus is a boot virus. There is really no DOS involved, because of course the boot virus does indeed load on boot, pre-empting the OS (whatever OS it happens to be) and taking direct control of the hardware.
So, yes, a 15 year old 'DOS' boot virus can and will take down an NT machine. Or for that matter Linux, OS/2, Darwin, etc.
Why not use Dawin and X instead of Linux? This way you'd have an open source free as in freedom system with full hardware support.
Not true. Darwin's license isn't quite Free, regardless of whether it's "open."
But beyond that, Darwin is built on NeXT/MACH, which is a hell of a lot of overhead your X11R6 system won't get any good out of whatsoever over a lean mean PPC Linux kernel. The only hardware it wouldn't support was the modem, and on most ibooks everything works.
The question isn't why Linux, the answer is obviously that he was a Linux user. The question is why the iBook. Nice hardware at a nice price. PPC architecture has less heat and less electrical usage - bigger pluses on a laptop than on a desktop. The screens are nice, the keyboards are nice, the little track-mice are very nice except for only having one button, and that can be worked around easily enough.
Darwin's Mach heritage is one. Mach is about the slowest kernel known to man. I wonder how much it would cost them to port to a decent kernel, like L7? Apparently too much. Apple would probably rather sell lots of new G4s anyway. Remember, they're a hardware company.
The display-pdf layer is another. It's a great idea, don't get me wrong, but it does soak up a lot of CPU.
Anyway, the slashline itself was either stupid as hell or a sort of troll - despite the headline, the article wasn't saying that the new Macs are slow at web browsing, but that they're slow at running MSIE and MS blames Apple. There are plenty of other, better browsers out for Mac users though, so it's a non-issue. IE running slow? Get a real browser. Doh!
Oh yeah, the next version, several have pointed out that, logically, it should be XI - I'll go out on a limb and predict they go back to good old regular arabic numerals and write it 11.
The reason Opera is a non-starter for me is that it's an MDI application. I don't want all my browser windows in one big "box." That it's adware doesn't help things much either (though I could more than likely filter the ads at the proxy server).
I really like the MDI interface, personally. I'm not a fan of them generally, but for web browsing it makes sense. Anyway, if you don't like it, turn it off, it's configurable. And yes, you can block the ads at the proxy or just *gasp* get a registration number.
I'd rather pay a couple of bucks for a program that works well than use a 'free' one that just doesn't perform adequately. IE is sadly inadequate, Mozilla is greatly improved, but still not quite ready IMOP. But whatever floats your boat. As long as you aren't using Exploder, I could care less.
Opera cured that problem quite effectively. Since I started using it as my main browser, I can't remember finding a page where back wouldn't work properly. It ignores scripts that try to take it over, and it tracks documents-in-frames properly too, you can go forward and back independently in different frames on framed pages.
Slashdot Mirror
That's exactly why he likes designs that don't use more transistors per cpu. The heat and power consumption of a P3-P4 class chip may not seem all that bad when you have one in your PC, but when you have 100s of them racked up it can become a very serious problem.
Obviously you are not familiar with the ARM family of processors - they are very similar to the Crusoes, and in particular they don't require any active cooling either.
I've got to wonder why they are using Crusoes. It's a good chip for the application, don't get me wrong... but the last I heard the main advantage it has over StrongARM is x86 compatibility, which shouldn't be an issue here.
Thanks for the link, that explained a lot. I'll be looking for the moron that moderated you redundant in metamod.
Sure, turn off image loading and window creation and you'll get about 99% of them. You can do that without paying for it too. It's not all that horribly difficult to turn the ads off if you're technical at all anyway, of course, but paying a few bucks for the browser is completely reasonable when it's been consistently the best browser out there since 3.12, and upgrades are usually free.
So many, indeed, that Mozilla is copying it. Imitation is the sincerist form of flattery.
I'm not him, but I can think of several good reasons, starting with the fact that practically all the useful .com namespace is either in use or being squatted, by Network Associates if by no one else.
Actually it's been doing that on and off for several weeks now. No idea what the problem is.
Read the article. They're improving compatibility for native compilation, so the source code needs less work. While binary compatibility is not a bad thing, it's much more limited. Linux hasn't had much use for ELF lately, for example. Binary translation ages. Source code doesn't.
And free software, in general, has a huge efficiency advantage. So it gives us poor smart people help in pursuing wealth as well.
That server should be just fine, since they waited until it was quite dry to turn it back on. I'd certainly take it apart and inspect it thoroughly for corrosion, but the water really isn't usually a problem, as long as there is no electricity involved until after it's dried. Saltwater complicates things a bit, but if it's just rainwater I really doubt any damage was done.
They could only be planning an obfuscation, not a proper defense. The fact is, not for the first time, they lied shamelessly, they were called on it, and they don't want to admit it.
You don't break 'a lot' of applications. Very few have any problem with this, and the ones that do hardly 'break'. For instance, edonkey uses mshtml.dll to display an add banner, in it's absence, you just don't get the ad banners. Big whee.
My browser is registered with the system, any application that wants to bring it up can, easily. This is more than enough 'integration' for me, thanks.
Yes, unfortunately you do need a licensed copy of 95 to legally make later versions work they way I and many others want it to work - but for MS that is not a problem, being that they own the copyright they could make it available in any way they want. They could come out with XP light in a week if they wanted it, without the integration. That's the whole point, though, they want to shove this 'integration' down the throats of everyone that uses their OS, in order to control the internet. This is why they were convicted in the first place, and any 'remedy' that leaves them free to continue doing what they were convicted for is nothing more than a farce.
There's no need to go to the NYT for this story (or any of the other stories linked here that I can remember.) NYT doesn't have a monopoly on reprinting Reuters feeds. Try Yahoo for instance.
If 'the DUL' or, rather, someone utilising the DUL, is preventing him from emailing a second person, that must mean that Taco is using a dialup and has no smtp server of his own to access? That seems more than a bit improbable.
Apparently most of their work has been in localisation. I understand it works better than straight openoffice for Finnish and other languages used in the area, it can spellcheck Finnish documents and so forth.
Under the GPL they can charge, not just for the updates, but for the main package as well if they want to.
Why do people persist in spreading this myth that the GPL forbids charging for programs? It does not, in fact, any license which does is NOT considered Free by the FSF and is not GPL compatible.
Their obligation here is to make the source available to anyone they distribute the binary to. Period. They can charge as much or as little as they want for the binary, and be fine with the GPL, as long as the source is there too.
I don't either. I do know of cases where boot viruses took down NT boxes, but I'm not sure which method they used to infect, since I didn't get the chance to examine the machines personally before the evidence was disturbed/destroyed. They may well have gotten in through a floppy boot.
I know the moron journalist said it was, but trust me, it's not. It's an AS400 Minicomputer. Mainframes are much larger and more expensive.
Access control in NT is rarely enforced actually, since the common practice is to run everything as admin anyway.
The other way it can get it in is if an infected floppy is left in a drive on reboot. Then the boot sector of the floppy, containing the virus, is read directly into memory and executed as a bootloader, at which time it can do whatever it wants.
Doesn't matter. Boot viruses load before the OS does anyway. Although in one way it makes sense to speak of a 'dos boot virus' since most of them were written on, compiled on, and intended to infect, DOS machines, in another way it makes no sense at all, a boot virus is a boot virus is a boot virus. There is really no DOS involved, because of course the boot virus does indeed load on boot, pre-empting the OS (whatever OS it happens to be) and taking direct control of the hardware.
So, yes, a 15 year old 'DOS' boot virus can and will take down an NT machine. Or for that matter Linux, OS/2, Darwin, etc.
Not true. Darwin's license isn't quite Free, regardless of whether it's "open."
But beyond that, Darwin is built on NeXT/MACH, which is a hell of a lot of overhead your X11R6 system won't get any good out of whatsoever over a lean mean PPC Linux kernel. The only hardware it wouldn't support was the modem, and on most ibooks everything works.
The question isn't why Linux, the answer is obviously that he was a Linux user. The question is why the iBook. Nice hardware at a nice price. PPC architecture has less heat and less electrical usage - bigger pluses on a laptop than on a desktop. The screens are nice, the keyboards are nice, the little track-mice are very nice except for only having one button, and that can be worked around easily enough.
The speed problems have several likely sources.
Darwin's Mach heritage is one. Mach is about the slowest kernel known to man. I wonder how much it would cost them to port to a decent kernel, like L7? Apparently too much. Apple would probably rather sell lots of new G4s anyway. Remember, they're a hardware company.
The display-pdf layer is another. It's a great idea, don't get me wrong, but it does soak up a lot of CPU.
Anyway, the slashline itself was either stupid as hell or a sort of troll - despite the headline, the article wasn't saying that the new Macs are slow at web browsing, but that they're slow at running MSIE and MS blames Apple. There are plenty of other, better browsers out for Mac users though, so it's a non-issue. IE running slow? Get a real browser. Doh!
Oh yeah, the next version, several have pointed out that, logically, it should be XI - I'll go out on a limb and predict they go back to good old regular arabic numerals and write it 11.
I really like the MDI interface, personally. I'm not a fan of them generally, but for web browsing it makes sense. Anyway, if you don't like it, turn it off, it's configurable. And yes, you can block the ads at the proxy or just *gasp* get a registration number.
I'd rather pay a couple of bucks for a program that works well than use a 'free' one that just doesn't perform adequately. IE is sadly inadequate, Mozilla is greatly improved, but still not quite ready IMOP. But whatever floats your boat. As long as you aren't using Exploder, I could care less.
Ummm sure you did. It works fine. Back under your rock, troll.
Opera cured that problem quite effectively. Since I started using it as my main browser, I can't remember finding a page where back wouldn't work properly. It ignores scripts that try to take it over, and it tracks documents-in-frames properly too, you can go forward and back independently in different frames on framed pages.