Dude, are you new to Slashdot or something? 'Monopoly' has nothing to do with marketshare. It is fair game to use on any company which is really trendy to hate (i.e. any company which is actually successful). For example, everybody knows that all five (!) major record companies are monopolies, since they put only one good song per album. Similarly, Intel is a monopoly, since they make better products than Via, Transmeta, and AMD. Lastly, the cable companies are all monopolies, since they deliver high bandwidth data at affordable prices. Got it now?
The only solution to this is to have the government impose restrictions. Like the article submitter said, the government should choose what cable companies you should be allowed and not allowed to subscribe to, by putting caps on the marketshare of each company. The government always knows what's best for us. We're not smart enough to make decisions for ourselves, and the only solution is a massive, overreaching government beauracracy to control every aspect of our spending decisions (which, as we all know, are much more friendly and efficient than all of those evil, big, bad corporations).
Without Microsoft's monopoly, there would be many, many companies competing to be the best, and doing everything and anything required to get their.
Not really. Without Microsoft, it would be Scott McNealy's head in the borg suit, and everybody would be complaining how slow Sparc's are, how much they hate Java, and how difficult it is to delete a file named "-l". At least Microsoft controls just the software, and not the hardware. It could have been a lot worse.
4. Microsoft have benefitted the US economy. It really has. Compared with the UK, for instance, the strength of the US IT industry is vast - and much of this strength is due to Microsoft.
Indeed, the collapse of NASDAQ coincides almost exactly with Jackson's ruling (more precisely, with the growing sentiment up to the ruling that Microsoft and the government would not be able to settle). Almost everybody predicted that the economy and market would collapse if the ruling was against Microsoft. And it did.
Isn't it time the DOJ and Jackson took the fall for the faltering economy, instead of Greenspan?
Dude... music is enormously expensive to record, and by not paying for music you asked for this. I have been warning people since the advent of Napster that not paying for music, would result in other ways of companies to make money which are much more intrusive than simply paying for pure music (such as advertsting).
And if you circumvent this, they will just put in more advertising, but integral to the music. The Boston Symphony will be required to modify the last few bars of Beethoven's Ninth to include the Coca-Cola jingle. Backstreet Boys will be comissioned by AT&T to sing about the wonders of 1-800-CALL-ATT in every song. Etc. Etc. Etc.
Why don't you just pay the artists so it doesn't have to come to this? I would much rather have pure music, than music diluted by advertsting.
There are few things funnier than watching clueless Slashdot morons praising Orrin Hatch because of his stance against the record companies.
Please understand: Orrin Hatch hates the record companies not because of some anti-copyright fluff, but because the record companies refused to be legislated on morals. Hatch is one of the main enemies of the entertainment industry, because he wants them to clean up their act (with regard to violence in movies, explicit lyrics in music, etc.) His agenda is not to free music, but to bury the entertainment industry, since it won't let the government regulate its content. This is just his first step into making music into the public domain so it can be legislating by government (instead of the private industry it is today).
And don't forget... Hilary Rosen, yes, Hilary ROsen, won an award from the ACLU for her support of the First Amendment while fighting against the PMRC and the type of agenda which Hatch advocates today (content regulation of the entertainment industry).
That all is for Napster to figure out. The court said that it is Napster's responsibility to limit access to copyrighted materials on the system.
If Napster cannot figure out how to do this, then it will need to completely halt trading of files. That's the point.
One method is to have an 'inclusion' policy: only permit a work to be traded if it is on a list of approved works (as oppposed to 'exclusion' which most Slashdotters think about: permitting use of a file UNLESS it is on a list). A simple file name check and data checksum match would be pretty hard to break in this case.
My question is what is going to replace napster when it goes to pay only?
Well, theoretically, 99% of Slashdotters said that they would be happy with a pay Napster service, and used Napster not because it was free, but because of convenience.
Now we'll see if that was just talk, or if they were just trying to get something for nothing.
No, that is not the status quo. Napster didn't stop piracy of Metallica's copyrighted work; they merely banned a few users who had done it. However, an unbanned user today could still go an pirate Metallica's work with Napster. What your paragraph says is that if notified by the copyright holders, it must halt transmission of that particular work.
Note that this will be extremely difficult for Napster to do; if Metallica says that they don't want any of their work traded, it will be Napster's responsibility to identify the work: if the filename contains the string 'Metallica', does it mean that Metallica owns it? If it does NOT contain that string does that mean that Metallica doesn't own it? No and no.
Since Napster does not have the technology to identify who owns what work, their only choice will be to shut down the whole operation since there is no way to tell who owns what (which is essentially what the preliminary injunction did; this one is doing the same thing, but giving more rationale for it).
This is indeed the bottom line. Even if you outsource the manufacture, you still need to pay several million dollars to manufacture each stepping to test it. A production CPU will only go through a half a dozen steppings before it's a product, so you have to be very careful on each one. Software programming (and, particularly, open source programming) is 'hacking'; you just recompile and program until it works. With hardware you can't do that, because you can only 'compile' it a couple of times.
Intel delivered this kind of crippled hardware before and got a big market share compared to slightly more expensive and considerably more usable processors.
XScale is nothing but the next generation StrongARM processor, which was developed by DEC at least five years ago.
It's funny how when DEC had it, everybody thought the StrongARM was the best thing since sliced bread. That Netwinder machine shipped with Linux and was at the top of ever geek's wantlist. ALl without FP. Suddenly Intel bought it, and now it's poison. It is obvious that your agenda is not based on technical merit; you are merely out to debase Intel's brand name, and don't care about the atcual quality of the products.
FYI, XScale is 17 times faster, and uses 1/3 the power of, the Dragonball processor which is shipped in Palm's (which also doesn't do floating point). The Dragonball has much higher marketshare, at least in the PDA market. So why don't you go around spending your time debasing the Dragonball?
Let's not let them get away with it again: if it doesn't do floating point, don't waste your time porting stuff that is more easily expressed using floating point to it.
Better yet: Don't waste your time being an Intel hater.
PPC isn't even really a 'braniac' chip. The HPPA chips are the real brainiacs, and they out-perform x86 chips at numerical simulations even with a 4:1 clock ratio. Look at the SPEC/FP. Until recently HPPA were the only systems to come anywhere near Alpha performance (they beat it occasionally).
This is incorrect. The 1.5 GHz Pentium 4 gets a SPECfp2000 score of 549, handily beating the fastest HPPA (PA-8600 at 552 MHz) which scores only 400. The only chip faster than P4 at FP is the 833 MHz Alpha which scores a barely better 571 (and the P4 still beats the fastest Alpha at SPECfp2000 - and is 1/4 the price to boot!).
Well, a lot of the 36 bit machines were 6x6bit, so you would fit 6 characters into one word (DEC had a 6 bit ASCII type endoding system). Some of these OS'es had six character filename limits (i.e., so it could fit in one word). There are still some vestiges of this around today (e.g., DECnet still has a 6 character hostname limit), which I'm not sure if they're related to 36-bitness.
The only DEC machines NetBSD will work on are VAX'es, MIPS'es, Alpha's, and Intel's. Ultrix only ran on VAX'es and MIPS'es. Neither works on any of the 16 bit or 36 bit DEC machines.
What you have to understand is that the culture of the 36 bit machines was very mainframe, and nobody who is interested in them is interested in anything to do with Unix.
The whole point of collecting exotic hardware is to be able to run exotic software (i.e. anything BESIDES Unix - especially a mass-consumed, homogenized Unix like NetBSD).
Also, the machines are extremely large, expensive, and costly to operate; there are very, very few installations of these machines by hobbyists (and few/none elsewhere), thereby severely limiting the potential audience for it.
May I ask what you mean by "real OS". Could it be Windows 95?
No, I was thinking along the lines of ITS or TOPS-10. I guess you are really new to copmputers since (a) you don't know the native software of a PDP-10 and (b) you aren't aware of any OS'es besides Linux and Windows 95.
Well, there's somewhat of a hierarchy for 'hating'. The top of the ladder is PDP-10/DECsystem-20 people who hate VMS. Then VMS people hate Unix. In turn, Unix people hate Linux. At the bottom of the food chain, Linux people hate Windows.
At least some PDP-10 types bypass VMS hating and go directly to Unix hating. For example, Mark Crispin (the author of Pine) is probably the most militant Unix hater in the world, but seems to like TOPS-10/20 as well as VMS.
Actually, both VMS (up to the current version, 7.2), and FreeBSD (believe it or not!) support CTRL-T today, as you describe. Yes, it is very useful for seeing if a program is hung.
Of course, Linux and Windows do not support this feature (big surprise).
I suspect that the feature has gone out of fashion as CPU speed has gotten faster and there is generally less of a need to wait for batch jobs. That's no excuse not to support it, of course.
Re:pdp-10 ran UNIX therefore...
on
PDP-10 Revival
·
· Score: 1
What version of Unix ran on the -10? To my knowledge, one never did. (it certainly would have been a waste of an excellent machine).
The PDP-10 was most definitely a mainframe, or at least it was by far the largest computer that DEC made, and it was made expressly to compete with IBM in that space. It has nothing to do with the PDP-11 or -8, which were mini's.
PDP-10 fans (e.g. TOPS-10) are possibly the most intense Unix haters around (with possible exception of VMS). Will it have a real OS, or be stuck with Linux?
Well, Google is powered by something like 5,000 Celeron's.
Maybe we should blame Linux for this crisis. If it weren't for Linux, Google would have used a smaller number of more expensive, more powerful servers - NorthernLight, for example, is a larger search engine than Google, but has sixteen machines (powered by Alpha/VMS)
Well, the Athlon uses twice as much power as the Pentium III (60 Watts vs. 30 Watts). If AMD ever achieves 33% marketshare, they will be more to blame than Intel.
This might be complete UL, but I have heard that Windows 95 & 98's default screen color of cyan uses much more power through the monitor than some other colors (e.g. a primary color black). I had heard the cost of Microsoft making this decision was in the millions of gallons worth of water for hydroelectric power. Interestingly, Windows 2000 uses a different default color. Of course, they could have done worse, and used white (don't some Sun systems use White??)
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, are you new to Slashdot or something? 'Monopoly' has nothing to do with marketshare. It is fair game to use on any company which is really trendy to hate (i.e. any company which is actually successful). For example, everybody knows that all five (!) major record companies are monopolies, since they put only one good song per album. Similarly, Intel is a monopoly, since they make better products than Via, Transmeta, and AMD. Lastly, the cable companies are all monopolies, since they deliver high bandwidth data at affordable prices. Got it now?
The only solution to this is to have the government impose restrictions. Like the article submitter said, the government should choose what cable companies you should be allowed and not allowed to subscribe to, by putting caps on the marketshare of each company. The government always knows what's best for us. We're not smart enough to make decisions for ourselves, and the only solution is a massive, overreaching government beauracracy to control every aspect of our spending decisions (which, as we all know, are much more friendly and efficient than all of those evil, big, bad corporations).
Without Microsoft's monopoly, there would be many, many companies competing to be the best, and doing everything and anything required to get their.
Not really. Without Microsoft, it would be Scott McNealy's head in the borg suit, and everybody would be complaining how slow Sparc's are, how much they hate Java, and how difficult it is to delete a file named "-l". At least Microsoft controls just the software, and not the hardware. It could have been a lot worse.
4. Microsoft have benefitted the US economy. It really has. Compared with the UK, for instance, the strength of the US IT industry is vast - and much of this strength is due to Microsoft.
Indeed, the collapse of NASDAQ coincides almost exactly with Jackson's ruling (more precisely, with the growing sentiment up to the ruling that Microsoft and the government would not be able to settle). Almost everybody predicted that the economy and market would collapse if the ruling was against Microsoft. And it did.
Isn't it time the DOJ and Jackson took the fall for the faltering economy, instead of Greenspan?
Bloated == Has More Features
Get a computer magazine from ten years ago, and look at the ads. The biggest feature in word processing software of the day was search and replace.
Ten years later, the same program will do every part of the document development for you.
It's called progress.
The closest thing to this processor is a 480 MHz UltraSparc II (the one in this machine is 500 MHz). We'll look at that.
SPECint2000
-----------
1.5 GHz Pentium 4 - 524
833 MHz Alpha 21264 - 518
1.2 GHz Athlon - 443
1 GHz Pentium III - 438
480 MHz UltraSparc II - 225
SPECfp2000
----------
833 MHz Alpha 21264 - 590
1.5 GHz Pentium 4 - 549
1.2 GHz Athlon - 359
1 GHz Pentium III - 327
480 MHz UltraSparc II - 274
ABC is owned by Disney(who owns many record companies) for example.
This is incorrect. Disney does not own any record companies. The only US company which owns any record companies is AOL-TW, which owns Warner Bros.
Dude ... music is enormously expensive to record, and by not paying for music you asked for this. I have been warning people since the advent of Napster that not paying for music, would result in other ways of companies to make money which are much more intrusive than simply paying for pure music (such as advertsting).
And if you circumvent this, they will just put in more advertising, but integral to the music. The Boston Symphony will be required to modify the last few bars of Beethoven's Ninth to include the Coca-Cola jingle. Backstreet Boys will be comissioned by AT&T to sing about the wonders of 1-800-CALL-ATT in every song. Etc. Etc. Etc.
Why don't you just pay the artists so it doesn't have to come to this? I would much rather have pure music, than music diluted by advertsting.
There are few things funnier than watching clueless Slashdot morons praising Orrin Hatch because of his stance against the record companies.
... Hilary Rosen, yes, Hilary ROsen, won an award from the ACLU for her support of the First Amendment while fighting against the PMRC and the type of agenda which Hatch advocates today (content regulation of the entertainment industry).
Please understand: Orrin Hatch hates the record companies not because of some anti-copyright fluff, but because the record companies refused to be legislated on morals. Hatch is one of the main enemies of the entertainment industry, because he wants them to clean up their act (with regard to violence in movies, explicit lyrics in music, etc.) His agenda is not to free music, but to bury the entertainment industry, since it won't let the government regulate its content. This is just his first step into making music into the public domain so it can be legislating by government (instead of the private industry it is today).
And don't forget
That all is for Napster to figure out. The court said that it is Napster's responsibility to limit access to copyrighted materials on the system.
If Napster cannot figure out how to do this, then it will need to completely halt trading of files. That's the point.
One method is to have an 'inclusion' policy: only permit a work to be traded if it is on a list of approved works (as oppposed to 'exclusion' which most Slashdotters think about: permitting use of a file UNLESS it is on a list). A simple file name check and data checksum match would be pretty hard to break in this case.
My question is what is going to replace napster when it goes to pay only?
Well, theoretically, 99% of Slashdotters said that they would be happy with a pay Napster service, and used Napster not because it was free, but because of convenience.
Now we'll see if that was just talk, or if they were just trying to get something for nothing.
No, that is not the status quo. Napster didn't stop piracy of Metallica's copyrighted work; they merely banned a few users who had done it. However, an unbanned user today could still go an pirate Metallica's work with Napster. What your paragraph says is that if notified by the copyright holders, it must halt transmission of that particular work.
Note that this will be extremely difficult for Napster to do; if Metallica says that they don't want any of their work traded, it will be Napster's responsibility to identify the work: if the filename contains the string 'Metallica', does it mean that Metallica owns it? If it does NOT contain that string does that mean that Metallica doesn't own it? No and no.
Since Napster does not have the technology to identify who owns what work, their only choice will be to shut down the whole operation since there is no way to tell who owns what (which is essentially what the preliminary injunction did; this one is doing the same thing, but giving more rationale for it).
This is indeed the bottom line. Even if you outsource the manufacture, you still need to pay several million dollars to manufacture each stepping to test it. A production CPU will only go through a half a dozen steppings before it's a product, so you have to be very careful on each one. Software programming (and, particularly, open source programming) is 'hacking'; you just recompile and program until it works. With hardware you can't do that, because you can only 'compile' it a couple of times.
Intel delivered this kind of crippled hardware before and got a big market share compared to slightly more expensive and considerably more usable processors.
XScale is nothing but the next generation StrongARM processor, which was developed by DEC at least five years ago.
It's funny how when DEC had it, everybody thought the StrongARM was the best thing since sliced bread. That Netwinder machine shipped with Linux and was at the top of ever geek's wantlist. ALl without FP. Suddenly Intel bought it, and now it's poison. It is obvious that your agenda is not based on technical merit; you are merely out to debase Intel's brand name, and don't care about the atcual quality of the products.
FYI, XScale is 17 times faster, and uses 1/3 the power of, the Dragonball processor which is shipped in Palm's (which also doesn't do floating point). The Dragonball has much higher marketshare, at least in the PDA market. So why don't you go around spending your time debasing the Dragonball?
Let's not let them get away with it again: if it doesn't do floating point, don't waste your time porting stuff that is more easily expressed using floating point to it.
Better yet: Don't waste your time being an Intel hater.
PPC isn't even really a 'braniac' chip. The HPPA chips are the real brainiacs, and they out-perform x86 chips at numerical simulations even with a 4:1 clock ratio. Look at the SPEC/FP. Until recently HPPA were the only systems to come anywhere near Alpha performance (they beat it occasionally).
This is incorrect. The 1.5 GHz Pentium 4 gets a SPECfp2000 score of 549, handily beating the fastest HPPA (PA-8600 at 552 MHz) which scores only 400. The only chip faster than P4 at FP is the 833 MHz Alpha which scores a barely better 571 (and the P4 still beats the fastest Alpha at SPECfp2000 - and is 1/4 the price to boot!).
Well, a lot of the 36 bit machines were 6x6bit, so you would fit 6 characters into one word (DEC had a 6 bit ASCII type endoding system). Some of these OS'es had six character filename limits (i.e., so it could fit in one word). There are still some vestiges of this around today (e.g., DECnet still has a 6 character hostname limit), which I'm not sure if they're related to 36-bitness.
The only DEC machines NetBSD will work on are VAX'es, MIPS'es, Alpha's, and Intel's. Ultrix only ran on VAX'es and MIPS'es. Neither works on any of the 16 bit or 36 bit DEC machines.
What you have to understand is that the culture of the 36 bit machines was very mainframe, and nobody who is interested in them is interested in anything to do with Unix.
The whole point of collecting exotic hardware is to be able to run exotic software (i.e. anything BESIDES Unix - especially a mass-consumed, homogenized Unix like NetBSD).
Also, the machines are extremely large, expensive, and costly to operate; there are very, very few installations of these machines by hobbyists (and few/none elsewhere), thereby severely limiting the potential audience for it.
May I ask what you mean by "real OS". Could it be Windows 95?
No, I was thinking along the lines of ITS or TOPS-10. I guess you are really new to copmputers since (a) you don't know the native software of a PDP-10 and (b) you aren't aware of any OS'es besides Linux and Windows 95.
Well, there's somewhat of a hierarchy for 'hating'. The top of the ladder is PDP-10/DECsystem-20 people who hate VMS. Then VMS people hate Unix. In turn, Unix people hate Linux. At the bottom of the food chain, Linux people hate Windows.
At least some PDP-10 types bypass VMS hating and go directly to Unix hating. For example, Mark Crispin (the author of Pine) is probably the most militant Unix hater in the world, but seems to like TOPS-10/20 as well as VMS.
Actually, both VMS (up to the current version, 7.2), and FreeBSD (believe it or not!) support CTRL-T today, as you describe. Yes, it is very useful for seeing if a program is hung.
Of course, Linux and Windows do not support this feature (big surprise).
I suspect that the feature has gone out of fashion as CPU speed has gotten faster and there is generally less of a need to wait for batch jobs. That's no excuse not to support it, of course.
What version of Unix ran on the -10? To my knowledge, one never did. (it certainly would have been a waste of an excellent machine).
The PDP-10 was most definitely a mainframe, or at least it was by far the largest computer that DEC made, and it was made expressly to compete with IBM in that space. It has nothing to do with the PDP-11 or -8, which were mini's.
PDP-10 fans (e.g. TOPS-10) are possibly the most intense Unix haters around (with possible exception of VMS). Will it have a real OS, or be stuck with Linux?
Well, Google is powered by something like 5,000 Celeron's.
Maybe we should blame Linux for this crisis. If it weren't for Linux, Google would have used a smaller number of more expensive, more powerful servers - NorthernLight, for example, is a larger search engine than Google, but has sixteen machines (powered by Alpha/VMS)
Well, the Athlon uses twice as much power as the Pentium III (60 Watts vs. 30 Watts). If AMD ever achieves 33% marketshare, they will be more to blame than Intel.
This might be complete UL, but I have heard that Windows 95 & 98's default screen color of cyan uses much more power through the monitor than some other colors (e.g. a primary color black). I had heard the cost of Microsoft making this decision was in the millions of gallons worth of water for hydroelectric power. Interestingly, Windows 2000 uses a different default color. Of course, they could have done worse, and used white (don't some Sun systems use White??)