Not really. Just because Linux took this long to mature to it's present state, doesn't mean every other kernel/OS needs this much time. See AtheOS for an example. The guy has worked on this system for only 5 years, and in some ways it's already more advanced than Linux.
Furthermore, the user land apps have significantly improved since '91, so much of the important infrastructure needed for widespread adoption is already done.
I don't think the embedded market will be very interested in a full size motherboard. They're more attracted to the smaller single board computers.
I wasn't referrring to this specific MB. POP is a reference implementation for using PPC chips. All the specs are freely available. If you didn't have to do practically any design, only a few modifications to adapt to a new environment, wouldn't you take the opportunity? It would sure save alot on R&D.
I wonder what the real power savings are, does anyone have hard numbers? 10%? 20%?
Let's calculate:
AMD/Intel chip ~ 40-70 Watts ~ 55 W avg.
G4 chip ~ 20-25 W
G3 chip ~ 10 W
PPC chips consume about 1/2 to 1/6 the power of Intel/AMD chips. That's why they're popular in embedded markets.
Yes, if it provides significant advantage over everything else available. That's how Linux became popular when people were asking 'Do you think any other "upstart" operating system could gain the popularity and momentum of Windows?'
If they're comparable in price to an intel I could see Linux folks using them for servers vs. Intel. But if the PPC is a lot more expensive (20%) I don't see the value in this.
They're not comparable to Intel/AMD in price. However, servers == long running time, long running time * power consumed per unit time == power used. PowerPC's consume much less power and hence save you money. If you could make up that 20% in a year of running, wouldn't it be worth it?
If MacOS still ran on something other than Apple's machines like it did in the mid 90s that'd be a reason to get one, but at the moment I'm not seeing it.
Uses:
Running a cool linux machine, server farms and clusters (lots of power saved), embedded systems (low power a must), etc. The world is larger than your needs you know.
Of course, the problem is that most people who like premium computers want lots of slots, so that doesn't happen.
I personally think that most people don't really care because they don't know snit about this stuff. They just listen to what the salesman says (I used to be one;-). If you give them an iMac sized computer for just as cheap as a pc, I say they'd go for that. And it could be done too. I've been working on this for the past few days, and it's totally possible. 26cm x 26cm x 8cm enclosure, Dolby Digital 5.1 and S/PDIF sound, DV-I, S-video and VGA out, 1GHz+ processor, up to 2GB of RAM, ordinary DVD, ordinary HD, all packed into that small enclosure (including adequate ventilation and power supply) if you could build your own motherboard. An N-Force-based board can totally do it.
So what you're saying is that we shouldn't use an evolutionary approach to improving our ability to communicate, we should instead stick with a standard that works properly for only 1 language, sort of works ok for maybe a couple dozen more, and is completely unusable for something in the area of a dozen dozen.
No, what we shouldn't do is lock people into a proprietary format that changes on a whim, breeds viruses and overall damages the computer industry as a whole. Is that sufficient reason? I'm all for a format that can handle any language, but the answer is not Word.docs. Unless of course the question is, "what is not the format everyone should adopt?";-)
No, that's not true, because closed source programs do not incorporate the kernel, they merely talk to it.
Well, by that reasoning: closed-source programs don't incorporate GPL'd shared libraries (like libc), they just talk to it. My example is a GPL violation though.
The question of GPL compliance can only be determined when the product comes out.
Because they don't know any better. "Ignorance is blis", as they say. But even people who have limited experience with computers curse Windows all the time. They realize that it doesn't have to be this way, and they're right. Linux won't fill that slot (yet), but someday something will.
And exactly how much time and energy have you expended in trying to understand it? 5min? Think of linguists trying to decipher a new language. It takes YEARS of devoted effort to understand something alien to you. Same here. It's not impossible.
I don't think it should be seen that way. If I want something from you (food, job) I will make sure you get your money's worth/make it worth your while. That's not a hand up or out. I'm giving you something you want/need for something I want/need. That's the way it is and should be.
If an exchange between two parties is voluntary, it will not take place unless both believe they will benefit from it. Most economic fallacies derive from the neglect of this simple insight, from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another.
The reason they use rats is because our genetic makeups are very similar (we share approximately 95% of our genes with mice I believe). Thus testing goes mice first (since their metabolic rates are so high they facilitate rapid testing), then chimps (which share 98-99% of their genes with humans-this step is sometimes skipped), then humans.
I hope that one day you won't be able to get things the way you want and that you'll need someone to help you. Then, I'll be glad to let you alone with your "smart ideas".
I hope so too. If I ever get into such a situation though, it will be my fault, and I will accept the consequences. However, I will never need someone else's help. Bold words, you may say, but I know people who have become successful men from eating off of a dirt floor and they did it on their own. They are proud, and they do not believe in charity. They have been those people on the bottom, the ones "needing help", they know what it was like and they got themselves out. So please don't don't talk to me about what can and cannot be done.
Ohhh, I see, you live in some bizarre fantasy land where everyone comes out fine if they work hard.
I didn't say work hard. I meant work smart and hard when I was speaking about good workers.
Let me clue you in to something; the real world doesn't work that way
So sure are you?
You think someone working 60 hours a week scrubbing floors for minimum wage is "lazy" just because they're falling behind in their bills?
No, but apparently you're assuming I am.
What about those places in the country where jobs just aren't to be found, no matter how hard you look?
Then obviously you're in the wrong part of the country. Don't go blaming external circumstances when you're perfectly capable of changing them, in this case, by changing your location.
And we're supposed to let them live in unspeakable poverty to fulfill some idiotic notion of social darwinism that has no basis in real life?
You fail to realize that they are in that situation by a sequence of their own decisions in life. Their choices lead to their situation and nothing else. It's as simple as that. They can learn from their mistakes or not. If they do, they'll get themselves out. If not, well they'll stay right where they are.
As to no basis in "real life": Darwinian evolution has been the basis of all "real life" from the first amoeba to present day. Only your proposed social environment where we feed the "darwinian weak" is artifical in nature. So in actuality, it seems you are the one proposing a solution that has no basis in "real life".
The hardest working people tend to be the poorest, and don't think sitting behind a desk for 60 hours a week is anything compared to scrubbing floors or digging ditches.
Hard work doesn't necessarily get you anything. I can see you understand that because as you say, this is the real world. But you have to understand that anyone living a shitty life got themselves there, and if they really want out, they had better smarten up. Sounds rough, but let me clue you in: this is the real world. Life is Darwinism. You get places by using your head, and applying it with hard work. Your mind is your greatest asset, so you use it. Human beings must be the most idiotic creatures in existence because no other animal would refuse to use it's greatest advantage as most people refuse to think and apply their minds.
Furthermore, you don't deserve anything you don't earn, so if you want it, you had better want to earn it. Your choices define what your future will be: Smart choices == good future. You are responsible for yourself. It's as plain and simple as that.
And so you get our modern world where people think they deserve happiness and compensation for doing nothing, and lazy, poor workers are rewarded at the expense of the good ones. Ever heard of behavioural reinforcement? You continuously help people, and you foster a dependency on you. Now, these people can't do anything for themselves. Nice job. Next time, let people make their own mistakes and learn their lessons. If they continuously find themselves in the same situation, then they aren't learning and they don't deserve pity.
[...] There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress.
It's not part of the original law, it's a practice a number of people adopted. So, strictly speaking, the previous poster is correct.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really. Just because Linux took this long to mature to it's present state, doesn't mean every other kernel/OS needs this much time. See AtheOS for an example. The guy has worked on this system for only 5 years, and in some ways it's already more advanced than Linux.
Furthermore, the user land apps have significantly improved since '91, so much of the important infrastructure needed for widespread adoption is already done.
I don't think the embedded market will be very interested in a full size motherboard. They're more attracted to the smaller single board computers.
I wasn't referrring to this specific MB. POP is a reference implementation for using PPC chips. All the specs are freely available. If you didn't have to do practically any design, only a few modifications to adapt to a new environment, wouldn't you take the opportunity? It would sure save alot on R&D.
I wonder what the real power savings are, does anyone have hard numbers? 10%? 20%?
Let's calculate:
AMD/Intel chip ~ 40-70 Watts ~ 55 W avg.
G4 chip ~ 20-25 W
G3 chip ~ 10 W
PPC chips consume about 1/2 to 1/6 the power of Intel/AMD chips. That's why they're popular in embedded markets.
Yes, if it provides significant advantage over everything else available. That's how Linux became popular when people were asking 'Do you think any other "upstart" operating system could gain the popularity and momentum of Windows?'
If they're comparable in price to an intel I could see Linux folks using them for servers vs. Intel. But if the PPC is a lot more expensive (20%) I don't see the value in this.
They're not comparable to Intel/AMD in price. However, servers == long running time, long running time * power consumed per unit time == power used. PowerPC's consume much less power and hence save you money. If you could make up that 20% in a year of running, wouldn't it be worth it?
If MacOS still ran on something other than Apple's machines like it did in the mid 90s that'd be a reason to get one, but at the moment I'm not seeing it.
Uses:
Running a cool linux machine, server farms and clusters (lots of power saved), embedded systems (low power a must), etc. The world is larger than your needs you know.
Of course, the problem is that most people who like premium computers want lots of slots, so that doesn't happen.
;-). If you give them an iMac sized computer for just as cheap as a pc, I say they'd go for that. And it could be done too. I've been working on this for the past few days, and it's totally possible. 26cm x 26cm x 8cm enclosure, Dolby Digital 5.1 and S/PDIF sound, DV-I, S-video and VGA out, 1GHz+ processor, up to 2GB of RAM, ordinary DVD, ordinary HD, all packed into that small enclosure (including adequate ventilation and power supply) if you could build your own motherboard. An N-Force-based board can totally do it.
I personally think that most people don't really care because they don't know snit about this stuff. They just listen to what the salesman says (I used to be one
It's just not infringement if you get around their block.
That's what the DMCA is for.
So what you're saying is that we shouldn't use an evolutionary approach to improving our ability to communicate, we should instead stick with a standard that works properly for only 1 language, sort of works ok for maybe a couple dozen more, and is completely unusable for something in the area of a dozen dozen.
.docs. Unless of course the question is, "what is not the format everyone should adopt?" ;-)
No, what we shouldn't do is lock people into a proprietary format that changes on a whim, breeds viruses and overall damages the computer industry as a whole. Is that sufficient reason? I'm all for a format that can handle any language, but the answer is not Word
Oh, you mean besides the fact that EVERYONE can read and write text?
So I picked the bad library, my mistake. I just mentioned libc as an example (admittedly a wrong one). The reasoning still stands though.
No, that's not true, because closed source programs do not incorporate the kernel, they merely talk to it.
Well, by that reasoning: closed-source programs don't incorporate GPL'd shared libraries (like libc), they just talk to it. My example is a GPL violation though.
The question of GPL compliance can only be determined when the product comes out.
Because they don't know any better. "Ignorance is blis", as they say. But even people who have limited experience with computers curse Windows all the time. They realize that it doesn't have to be this way, and they're right. Linux won't fill that slot (yet), but someday something will.
And exactly how much time and energy have you expended in trying to understand it? 5min? Think of linguists trying to decipher a new language. It takes YEARS of devoted effort to understand something alien to you. Same here. It's not impossible.
That all depends on your definition of "enough". It's certainly not enough for me or most of the other people I've spoken with.
That could be more due to static discharge than rough handling.
Thinkgeek has a nice MP3 player for only $330. That player stores 20 Gigs worth of MP3s.
Ya, a nice 20 GB that needs to be transferred over USB. Microdrives operate on a faster bus... and are much smaller if you hadn't noticed.
The reason they use rats is because our genetic makeups are very similar (we share approximately 95% of our genes with mice I believe). Thus testing goes mice first (since their metabolic rates are so high they facilitate rapid testing), then chimps (which share 98-99% of their genes with humans-this step is sometimes skipped), then humans.
I doubt it, but time will tell I suppose.
Capitalism has a shelve life of 250 years. Unforunately, we are way past due for a revolution.
Revolt to what system?
Daniel is a male name, Danielle is female. Why do you think Mosfet is a woman? (Besides the weird image banners)
I hope that one day you won't be able to get things the way you want and that you'll need someone to help you. Then, I'll be glad to let you alone with your "smart ideas".
I hope so too. If I ever get into such a situation though, it will be my fault, and I will accept the consequences. However, I will never need someone else's help. Bold words, you may say, but I know people who have become successful men from eating off of a dirt floor and they did it on their own. They are proud, and they do not believe in charity. They have been those people on the bottom, the ones "needing help", they know what it was like and they got themselves out. So please don't don't talk to me about what can and cannot be done.
Ohhh, I see, you live in some bizarre fantasy land where everyone comes out fine if they work hard.
I didn't say work hard. I meant work smart and hard when I was speaking about good workers.
Let me clue you in to something; the real world doesn't work that way
So sure are you?
You think someone working 60 hours a week scrubbing floors for minimum wage is "lazy" just because they're falling behind in their bills?
No, but apparently you're assuming I am.
What about those places in the country where jobs just aren't to be found, no matter how hard you look?
Then obviously you're in the wrong part of the country. Don't go blaming external circumstances when you're perfectly capable of changing them, in this case, by changing your location.
And we're supposed to let them live in unspeakable poverty to fulfill some idiotic notion of social darwinism that has no basis in real life?
You fail to realize that they are in that situation by a sequence of their own decisions in life. Their choices lead to their situation and nothing else. It's as simple as that. They can learn from their mistakes or not. If they do, they'll get themselves out. If not, well they'll stay right where they are.
As to no basis in "real life": Darwinian evolution has been the basis of all "real life" from the first amoeba to present day. Only your proposed social environment where we feed the "darwinian weak" is artifical in nature. So in actuality, it seems you are the one proposing a solution that has no basis in "real life".
The hardest working people tend to be the poorest, and don't think sitting behind a desk for 60 hours a week is anything compared to scrubbing floors or digging ditches.
Hard work doesn't necessarily get you anything. I can see you understand that because as you say, this is the real world. But you have to understand that anyone living a shitty life got themselves there, and if they really want out, they had better smarten up. Sounds rough, but let me clue you in: this is the real world. Life is Darwinism. You get places by using your head, and applying it with hard work. Your mind is your greatest asset, so you use it. Human beings must be the most idiotic creatures in existence because no other animal would refuse to use it's greatest advantage as most people refuse to think and apply their minds.
Furthermore, you don't deserve anything you don't earn, so if you want it, you had better want to earn it. Your choices define what your future will be: Smart choices == good future. You are responsible for yourself. It's as plain and simple as that.
And so you get our modern world where people think they deserve happiness and compensation for doing nothing, and lazy, poor workers are rewarded at the expense of the good ones. Ever heard of behavioural reinforcement? You continuously help people, and you foster a dependency on you. Now, these people can't do anything for themselves. Nice job. Next time, let people make their own mistakes and learn their lessons. If they continuously find themselves in the same situation, then they aren't learning and they don't deserve pity.
Let's emphasize the important part:
[...] There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress.
It's not part of the original law, it's a practice a number of people adopted. So, strictly speaking, the previous poster is correct.
Get out of your Ayn Rand hellhole and join us, us in the older generation with true socialist, egalitarian ideals.
If you call socialism egalitarian, you can keep it for yourself. I'll keep capitalism and my freedom thank you.