The "oldest concept of how a machine would fly" is not necessarily the Wright brothers. Leonardo DaVinci had winged-machine designs. And "based on the actions of a bird's wings" is not the same as "designed after a bird's wings". The former sentence includes the dynamics of the flight.
Ridiculous compared to it's clock speed and what's possible. If the G5 can do 1.6GHz w/ a 10 stage pipeline, a 20 stage seems rather ridiculous for roughly the same speed. It's like bridges: bridges use to pack as much stone, steel and wood as reasonably possible into a bridge to make it strong, yet with better design you can use half the material yet make a stronger bridge. I don't think you'll find any civil engineers arguing that older bridges were designed better. In fact, they'd probably even call those designs ridiculous...
Honestly, I don't know why all the passengers don't just swarm hijackers. They could easily overcome them with sheer numbers. If it happened while I was on a plane, I cannot believe that I could just sit there.
Remember that groups with an interest here are at some point going to be queuing up to claim responsibility (the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine already have - CBS MarketWatch)
Substantiated claims? Ever heard of Jochen Liedtke and the L4 microkernel? He and many other researchers wrote the following papers if you'd care to read them:
If you'd like a breakdown, here it is: x86 sucks for context switch times for two main reasons, a)user/supervisor transition times are an order of magnitude slower than other architectures and b) a poorly designed TLB cache results in a flush whenever a context switch occurs(only if the address space changes of course). Any advantage the x86 architecture gains by having few registers is lost(and then some) by these other factors. This can be readily seen in operating systems and kernels that rely heavily on context switching such as microkernels.
For quick and dirty evidence: here. That's a link showing context switching times for Linux running on an 850 MHz PIII. The times typically hover around 12 microseconds. The papers I linked to above show achieved IPC times for L4 which are steady around 3 microseconds on much lower-end hardware. That's IPC, not just context switching, ie. context switch and copying data to another address space. The L4 teams have tweaked their implementation as fast as it can go on x86, and have achieved performance an order of magnitude higher than Linux(at least in this area). This demonstrates some pretty solid expertise. Given this, they say admit that x86 is very poor in this respect and a great hindrance in designing a good operating system. I believe some of the papers briefly discuss other architectures, but most of the focus is on the x86 platform because it's such a performance problem.
P.S. the fact that the x86 is register poor is not a good thing. Having two few registers to manipulate data is often a hindrance. Saving 3 times as many registers doesn't take that long anyhow.
Well the x86 architecture is poor to begin with when dealing with user/supervisor transitions. The absolute minimum spent is something like 50 cycles on a PIII. Typical RISC architectures have transition times on the order of 4 cycles. It's really pathetic and the source of alot of performance problems with microkernels. It's one of the main reasons why they haven't been widely adopted.
So essentially, you're saying that if you broke one of the Taliban's holy laws, and you went to the Middle East, you would totally expect to be persecuted or perhaps even stoned to death for breaking their law while you weren't even in their country? You would call that just? Dmitry did not break the law in the US, he broke it in Russia.
Most of the govt's current functions were added on after the fact. Roads? Sewage and water treatment? The only thing government started out with was law and law-enforcement. Everything else you see today was added later. Why would an OS by such a far-fetched idea?
Evidently it's not free enough that I can call the software that I use what I want (i.e. just "linux", not gnu/linux)
Dude, you can do whatever the hell you want. I honestly couldn't care less. But this is an issue of respect. It's akin to holding a door open for someone just walking in behind you. You don't have to do it, and no one will for ce you to do it, but it's pretty rude if you don't. Furthermore, if you truly believe in Free Software and want to help in the most trivial way(and yet, with all the argument over it, it doesn't seem so trivial does it?), the GNU argument I gave in my previous post is a pretty good one; do it to raise awareness. Or don't.
An interesting twist to the Linux vs GNU/Linux debate.
First of all, I don't see how this is at all significant. It's well known that RMS wanted to develop and adopt Hurd over the Linux kernel, simply because Hurd was built on a microkernel, which at the time was believed to be the better way to do it(and still is, though not with Mach). GNU was about building the best operating system with all Free Software, and Hurd had the superior architecture, so RMS was behind it. So were 80% of university professors(who were in love with the Mach architecture - which Hurd is based on). I don't see how this is damning evidence against RMS.
Even I'm against Linux(the kernel) as being the future of computing because, quite simply, it won't be(well, not against, but I think it will soon be eclipsed by a better architecture). I'm an ardent Open Source and Free Software supporter, but just because I support it, doesn't mean I agree with what all or any of the Free Software developers are doing out there. But then again, it's none of my business what they do with their Free time.;-)
Granted, GNU has played a large role, but evidently not enough of a large role for everybody to stop calling it "linux" and start calling it "gnu/linux"
Hmmm, let's see. GNU provided: compilers, libraries, linkers, editors, shells, utilities and various other tools AND the GPL and LGPL free software licenses(which if you have ever involved in anything to do with law, you know it's f*cking expensive). In short, the FSF did all the work that no one else wanted to do and provided us all with everything we need to write and release Free Software. Furthermore, we can be assured that the FSF will always pursue Free Software and infringers of the GPL. Linus provided: some code.
Now I dare you to try and tell me with a straight face that GNU didn't play a large role in Linux's past, present and future(and every other Free Software project).
Very good. Stallman does not want to change the kernel name, he wants to change the name people refer to when they talk about Linux the Operating System(once again, not Linux the kernel). All distros (except perhaps some of the ultra-slim custom embedded ones) use GNU for everything between the kernel and the everyday apps(libs, linker, compiler, etc.) and sometimes even the apps themselves. I think it's pretty fair to give credit where credit's due. Every distro owes the FSF alot(and also owes alot to all the other GPL developers).
Furthermore, the FSF is also a political organization that wishes to spread it's name and it's word. Prefixing 'Linux the Operating System' with 'GNU' helps spread the GNU name and philosophy to new areas and people who would never otherwise encounter it. Honestly, would it really be that hard when it could be of such benefit?
Nitpicking breeds nitpicking. No, logic doesn't always make sense. In fact, the dictionary definition of "logic" at http://www.m-w.com/ includes both "a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty", and "something that forces a decision apart from or in opposition to reason". It's the English langwidge, baybeee...
That's the most ridiculous def'n of logic I have ever heard, so much so, that I'm not even going to check your source(mainly because they are insufficient out of their context). Here are two sane def'ns:
Oxford dictionary of current English
logic n. science of reasoning; particular system or method of reasoning; chain of reasoning(regarded as sound or unsound), use of or ability in argument; inexorable force, compulsion
From dictionary.com
logic n.
1. The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.
2.
1. A system of reasoning: Aristotle's logic.
2. A mode of reasoning: By that logic, we should sell the company tomorrow.
3. The formal, guiding principles of a discipline, school, or science.
3. Valid reasoning: Your paper lacks the logic to prove your thesis.
4. The relationship between elements and between an element and the whole in a set of objects, individuals, principles, or events: There's a certain logic to the motion of rush-hour traffic.
5. Computer Science.
1. The nonarithmetic operations performed by a computer, such as sorting, comparing, and matching, that involve yes-no decisions.
2. Computer circuitry.
3. Graphic representation of computer circuitry.
Now, I don't see any references in there to logic being contrary to reason. One could make the argument that since the def'n for logic allows for the existence of unsound logic, that this could lead to your "logical conclusion which is contrary to reason". But I challenge you to come up with an example of such a situation(logic results in a conclusion contrary to reason). I do not think it is possible; since logic is a method/system/science of reasoning, every logical step must be reasonable. In the end your conclusions must also be reasonable(perhaps only in the context of your thought experiment, but still...). In the mean time...
In this case, the logic behind GNU/Linux may in fact make sense from a certain FSF perspective, just as Microsoft's decision to repeatedly screw its customers makes sense to Microsoft.
Of course. I don't think anybody does anything that doesn't make sense from their perspective(pretty broad statement, I know, but valid).
But neither approach necessarily make sense to those on the outside, nor even for the FSF or Microsoft's own long-term interests, because their "logic" is predicated on the way they see themselves, not the way others see them.
Perhaps. I would opt for the simpler explanation and just say that others simply don't understand what they're trying to accomplish(instead of your psychological perspective on their self-image, perhaps seeing themselves as America's saviours; something that probably applies to both FSF and MS).
If lumping the FSF and Microsoft together seems a bit harsh, there's actually a connection
There's always a connection between any two things, no matter how disparate(wow, I'm doing pretty good on the sweeping generalizations, no?).
Does the Colonel contact you whenever you are using his sauce inappropriately? "No you shouldn't use that on steak, just our fried chicken". No. When proprietary software companies stop trying to dictate how people should use their software, then this analogy might make sense on this point.
Does the Colonel take responsibility when his sauce doesn't taste right, or when it makes someone sick? Damn right he does. When proprietary software companies take responsibility for the sh*t they produce and compensate people when it doesn't work the way it should, then I may believe in proprietary software again.
Can you easily reproduce the recipe even if you had all the ingredients? Perhaps, but it may take a chem lab. All it takes to copy a program is "cp blah.exe blah-2.exe". As you can see, secret sauce and software are very different on this point.
I hope I have adequately demonstrated why your analogy is completely baseless and ridiculous. Thank you.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I didn't even say it. But every browser that I've accidentally hit the spacebar has scrolled a page down.
Funny moderation? It's true...
Yes. Is there a good reason not to have that way?
Performance will not be anywhere near sufficient, especially not for video. Mark my words.
The "oldest concept of how a machine would fly" is not necessarily the Wright brothers. Leonardo DaVinci had winged-machine designs. And "based on the actions of a bird's wings" is not the same as "designed after a bird's wings". The former sentence includes the dynamics of the flight.
Ridiculous compared to it's clock speed and what's possible. If the G5 can do 1.6GHz w/ a 10 stage pipeline, a 20 stage seems rather ridiculous for roughly the same speed. It's like bridges: bridges use to pack as much stone, steel and wood as reasonably possible into a bridge to make it strong, yet with better design you can use half the material yet make a stronger bridge. I don't think you'll find any civil engineers arguing that older bridges were designed better. In fact, they'd probably even call those designs ridiculous...
That's because the P4 has a ridiculous 20 stage pipeline. 10 is quite reasonable compared to that.
Frankly, if you were actually expecting to be given something back, you shouldn't have used the BSD license.
Honestly, I don't know why all the passengers don't just swarm hijackers. They could easily overcome them with sheer numbers. If it happened while I was on a plane, I cannot believe that I could just sit there.
Cancelling baseball was a good move. You do NOT want to give Americans bats right now.
Remember that groups with an interest here are at some point going to be queuing up to claim responsibility (the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine already have - CBS MarketWatch)
Whoever does won't be around for much longer.
He's the leader, he's the figurehead, he takes the blame for his "administration's" policies.
Substantiated claims? Ever heard of Jochen Liedtke and the L4 microkernel? He and many other researchers wrote the following papers if you'd care to read them:
The performance of microkernel based systems
Achieved IPC performance
Microkernels must and can be small
On Microkernel construction
Improved Address-Space Switching on Pentium Processors by Transparently Multiplexing User Address Spaces
If you'd like a breakdown, here it is: x86 sucks for context switch times for two main reasons, a)user/supervisor transition times are an order of magnitude slower than other architectures and b) a poorly designed TLB cache results in a flush whenever a context switch occurs(only if the address space changes of course). Any advantage the x86 architecture gains by having few registers is lost(and then some) by these other factors. This can be readily seen in operating systems and kernels that rely heavily on context switching such as microkernels.
For quick and dirty evidence: here. That's a link showing context switching times for Linux running on an 850 MHz PIII. The times typically hover around 12 microseconds. The papers I linked to above show achieved IPC times for L4 which are steady around 3 microseconds on much lower-end hardware. That's IPC, not just context switching, ie. context switch and copying data to another address space. The L4 teams have tweaked their implementation as fast as it can go on x86, and have achieved performance an order of magnitude higher than Linux(at least in this area). This demonstrates some pretty solid expertise. Given this, they say admit that x86 is very poor in this respect and a great hindrance in designing a good operating system. I believe some of the papers briefly discuss other architectures, but most of the focus is on the x86 platform because it's such a performance problem.
P.S. the fact that the x86 is register poor is not a good thing. Having two few registers to manipulate data is often a hindrance. Saving 3 times as many registers doesn't take that long anyhow.
Well the x86 architecture is poor to begin with when dealing with user/supervisor transitions. The absolute minimum spent is something like 50 cycles on a PIII. Typical RISC architectures have transition times on the order of 4 cycles. It's really pathetic and the source of alot of performance problems with microkernels. It's one of the main reasons why they haven't been widely adopted.
These protocols have been in use for thirty years and are openly published. What is there to hack?
Last new item was in August(two in fact). The last screenshot was June 28th.
So essentially, you're saying that if you broke one of the Taliban's holy laws, and you went to the Middle East, you would totally expect to be persecuted or perhaps even stoned to death for breaking their law while you weren't even in their country? You would call that just? Dmitry did not break the law in the US, he broke it in Russia.
Mozilla-like bugs such as "crashes repeatedly", "doesn't render web pages" and "none of the features seem to have been finished".
uh huh. And just how many of those do you think there really are?
Most of the govt's current functions were added on after the fact. Roads? Sewage and water treatment? The only thing government started out with was law and law-enforcement. Everything else you see today was added later. Why would an OS by such a far-fetched idea?
Well, GNU didn't need Linux, but it was certainly helped by Linux's popularity. That's undisputable.
Evidently it's not free enough that I can call the software that I use what I want (i.e. just "linux", not gnu/linux)
;-)
Dude, you can do whatever the hell you want. I honestly couldn't care less. But this is an issue of respect. It's akin to holding a door open for someone just walking in behind you. You don't have to do it, and no one will for ce you to do it, but it's pretty rude if you don't. Furthermore, if you truly believe in Free Software and want to help in the most trivial way(and yet, with all the argument over it, it doesn't seem so trivial does it?), the GNU argument I gave in my previous post is a pretty good one; do it to raise awareness. Or don't.
An interesting twist to the Linux vs GNU/Linux debate.
First of all, I don't see how this is at all significant. It's well known that RMS wanted to develop and adopt Hurd over the Linux kernel, simply because Hurd was built on a microkernel, which at the time was believed to be the better way to do it(and still is, though not with Mach). GNU was about building the best operating system with all Free Software, and Hurd had the superior architecture, so RMS was behind it. So were 80% of university professors(who were in love with the Mach architecture - which Hurd is based on). I don't see how this is damning evidence against RMS.
Even I'm against Linux(the kernel) as being the future of computing because, quite simply, it won't be(well, not against, but I think it will soon be eclipsed by a better architecture). I'm an ardent Open Source and Free Software supporter, but just because I support it, doesn't mean I agree with what all or any of the Free Software developers are doing out there. But then again, it's none of my business what they do with their Free time.
Granted, GNU has played a large role, but evidently not enough of a large role for everybody to stop calling it "linux" and start calling it "gnu/linux"
Hmmm, let's see. GNU provided: compilers, libraries, linkers, editors, shells, utilities and various other tools AND the GPL and LGPL free software licenses(which if you have ever involved in anything to do with law, you know it's f*cking expensive). In short, the FSF did all the work that no one else wanted to do and provided us all with everything we need to write and release Free Software. Furthermore, we can be assured that the FSF will always pursue Free Software and infringers of the GPL. Linus provided: some code.
Now I dare you to try and tell me with a straight face that GNU didn't play a large role in Linux's past, present and future(and every other Free Software project).
The Kernel is called Linux
Very good. Stallman does not want to change the kernel name, he wants to change the name people refer to when they talk about Linux the Operating System(once again, not Linux the kernel). All distros (except perhaps some of the ultra-slim custom embedded ones) use GNU for everything between the kernel and the everyday apps(libs, linker, compiler, etc.) and sometimes even the apps themselves. I think it's pretty fair to give credit where credit's due. Every distro owes the FSF alot(and also owes alot to all the other GPL developers).
Furthermore, the FSF is also a political organization that wishes to spread it's name and it's word. Prefixing 'Linux the Operating System' with 'GNU' helps spread the GNU name and philosophy to new areas and people who would never otherwise encounter it. Honestly, would it really be that hard when it could be of such benefit?
That's the most ridiculous def'n of logic I have ever heard, so much so, that I'm not even going to check your source(mainly because they are insufficient out of their context). Here are two sane def'ns:
Now, I don't see any references in there to logic being contrary to reason. One could make the argument that since the def'n for logic allows for the existence of unsound logic, that this could lead to your "logical conclusion which is contrary to reason". But I challenge you to come up with an example of such a situation(logic results in a conclusion contrary to reason). I do not think it is possible; since logic is a method/system/science of reasoning, every logical step must be reasonable. In the end your conclusions must also be reasonable(perhaps only in the context of your thought experiment, but still...). In the mean time...
In this case, the logic behind GNU/Linux may in fact make sense from a certain FSF perspective, just as Microsoft's decision to repeatedly screw its customers makes sense to Microsoft.
Of course. I don't think anybody does anything that doesn't make sense from their perspective(pretty broad statement, I know, but valid).
But neither approach necessarily make sense to those on the outside, nor even for the FSF or Microsoft's own long-term interests, because their "logic" is predicated on the way they see themselves, not the way others see them.
Perhaps. I would opt for the simpler explanation and just say that others simply don't understand what they're trying to accomplish(instead of your psychological perspective on their self-image, perhaps seeing themselves as America's saviours; something that probably applies to both FSF and MS).
If lumping the FSF and Microsoft together seems a bit harsh, there's actually a connection
There's always a connection between any two things, no matter how disparate(wow, I'm doing pretty good on the sweeping generalizations, no?).
Does the Colonel contact you whenever you are using his sauce inappropriately? "No you shouldn't use that on steak, just our fried chicken". No. When proprietary software companies stop trying to dictate how people should use their software, then this analogy might make sense on this point.
Does the Colonel take responsibility when his sauce doesn't taste right, or when it makes someone sick? Damn right he does. When proprietary software companies take responsibility for the sh*t they produce and compensate people when it doesn't work the way it should, then I may believe in proprietary software again.
Can you easily reproduce the recipe even if you had all the ingredients? Perhaps, but it may take a chem lab. All it takes to copy a program is "cp blah.exe blah-2.exe". As you can see, secret sauce and software are very different on this point.
I hope I have adequately demonstrated why your analogy is completely baseless and ridiculous. Thank you.