While I agree with you, on-board sound-chips are not so bad. I just got a new motherboard with an Intel HD AUDIO chip, and I'm pleased to say that JACK runs wonderfully on it. I hear no interference from other devices, which indicates a good board design. I just created some nice Gothic Rock on this Linux box using JACK+hydrogen+fluidsynth. I'd say (recent) on-board chips works great for most *hobby* musicians, like me.
That said, if you work in a studio environment, you should probably go with something better.
A number of significant kernel changes had went on between these Ubuntu Linux releases including the Completely Fair Scheduler, the SLUB allocator, tickless kernel support
These are kernel level modifications. Many distributions have switched to the SLUB allocator as the default allocator. CFS has proven it's worth (that's why it was included in the mainline kernel). I don't know whether the tickless kernel support is enabled for most stock kernels or not. I use Arch Linux, which upgrades the kernel if available every time I do a system upgrade. So far, I haven't experienced any degradation in performance. It's likely that the drivers for some chipset have been flawed, and this chipset is used in the machine where the recent Ubuntu was tested. Also, if the desktop effects feature got activated during upgrade of the text machine, that can explain a small amount of performance degradation, but not as much as a 2x-3x degradation in LAME performance.
The point is, we must test Ubuntu on different machines to determine if it's Ubuntu, the kernel or some hardware specific issue that is causing this.
Barring that, I'd like to see manufacturers start offering Ubuntu pre-installed on computers. Surely somebody can make a buck from it, even if it's just some little company.
I run a small computer business. While I offer XP installations, I recommend Ubuntu, and my customers usually think it's a good idea. That said, I offer to install any operating system per request, but I always recommend Ubuntu due to it's simplicity.
That's interesting, because in all my XP setups I've done for friends on their fairly recent machines, I have to spend about half an hour or more to browse around downloading drivers for pretty much everything. That is, if the ethernet card works. Otherwise I have to get my USB key and use another computer to download the ethernet drivers and transfer it to my friend's computer.
For instance, I built a computer for my brother a couple of weeks ago. He wanted to run XP, but also wanted to try out Ubuntu (8.04). We installed windows first, to avoid the MBR hassle. The windows installation, including downloading drivers, took about two hours. SP3 download/install took about another hour. The Ubuntu installation took 45 minutes including downloading software updates, because it had support for ethernet, graphics etc. out of the box.
So, what's the point of this post? It's to inform you that in many cases Ubuntu is *easier* to install than XP from scratch. However, if your computer manufacturer sent along a "System Restore CD", you'll probably have drivers for your ethernet card etc., so then it could be as easy to install XP on your particular machine (if not easier in some cases).
(manage wired, Wi-Fi, VPN, and cellular broadband connections in one place).
This is great news! I for all have had trouble setting up VPNs in an easy fashion without using command line tools. While I have no problems using the command line, most users do. This is a highly anticipated feature.
Also, it's great with a network manager that can set up cellular broadband connections. In Sweden we have a technolygy store that incorrectly states on it's web page that Linux doesn't support cellular broadband, and therefore recommends customers to set up Windows XP on the Asus Eee PC they sell, in order to use cellular broadband. This is ignorance at it's worst, and I for one think it's a welcome addition to Ubuntu to support this type of connection in its graphical network manager. It might just be enough to kill this myth.
If you have years of slackware experience, why would you need a "user friendly" distro?
I used Slackware for about five years, but I got tired of it mainly because of the package system. I tried to remedy this by installing third-party package managers like slapt-get. That didn't work for me either, because of (very) small repositories. About two years ago I decided I care too much about the bleeding edge to use Slackware, which is more stability oriented, and switched to Arch Linux. I keep thinking to myself that it would be nice to have a distribution with roots in Slackware, but with better community support and more recent packages. The point is, even if you want to have control over everything, configure && make && make install starts to drive you nuts after about four years. Even hackers eventually get lazy.
Oh, I originally meant this as a joke. Shame on me!;) I based this "joke" on the fact that the processor itself doesn't have any moving parts, but the coolant does.
When it comes to games, very few games take advantage of multi-core CPU:s, unfortunately. The only games I can recall benefiting from multi-core technology that I've played is Doom 3, Quake 4 and ETQW: Quake Wars. When it comes to general purpose computing, multi-core systems are often the way to go if you use multiple applications simulaneously. When I got my first multi-core system, I was completely amazed by how fast large program packages would compile. And this was only with two cores. I can't even begin to imagine what a delight it would be to compile stuff on a quad-core system.
...but a safe bet would be DDS-3 or DLT tapes wrapped in anti-ESD bags and locked inside a fireproof safe. All this in a room deep within some mountain. This method will also be good for a hundred years, but may be considered overkill.
I own an Atari Portfolio, and I love it! Sure, it's slow as hell compared with today's machines, but it has all the apps you need in ROM. The operating system is DIP-DOS(Like MS-DOS with extensions) and it's the size of a VHS tape. I use it every day and as far as I know, I'm not mad.
While many people have the need for power, it's interesting that something so slow as the Portfolio is still usable for everyday tasks.
I was just about to reference to OHCI/UHCI myself. However, since both Intel and AMD are friendlier towards Open Source than before, implementation should not be an issue. That is, as long as we keep Microsoft out of the picture.
IIRC, the main purpose of this project is not to actually use a PS3 for the computing, but rather to make GROMACS run on more powerful instances of the cell processor. This is just the first step.
Here at Uppsala University, Sweden, we have a PS3 that is currently computing molecular dynamics. I'd say the PS3 is not perfect for desktop computing, since most desktop software is poorly written in respect to parallelisation. It is, however, quite good for scientific applications which are designed to run on a cluster. (GROMACS for instance)
It's all about efficiency. If the computers are getting faster and no optimizations are done, the performance of JavaScript will of course increase. If, however, optimizations are introduced we'll get a steeper increase of performance and will also be able to write more advanced JavaScripts. Which one is better? If a better algorithm for solving a given problem comes along, then it's best to make use of it.
Try OpenBSD for instance. OpenBSD 4.2 is backwards compatible with binaries from OpenBSD 2.3, for instance. Linux is also quite good on this, since the kernel still has support for a.out binaries.
Oh, and you probably shouldn't talk about Micosoft's backwards compatibility adherence with Vista in the arena. What you don't mention is that many applications from XP and earlier simply refuse to run under Vista.
I probably also shouldn't forget to mention FreeMiNT/XaAES. This OS/GUI combination for Atari compatible machines can, although the latest release was from mid-2006, run GRAPHICAL applications from around 1985.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm Goth. Just to shine light on a few things:
Futhermore, I know people who cut themselves. They're emotionally unstable, and this is nothing to joke about.
Flamebait? Sorry, I purely meant this as a joke.
Obviously I went too far on this one, and for that I apologise.
((((((((((((((((Really?))))))))))))))))
While I agree with you, on-board sound-chips are not so bad. I just got a new motherboard with an Intel HD AUDIO chip, and I'm pleased to say that JACK runs wonderfully on it. I hear no interference from other devices, which indicates a good board design. I just created some nice Gothic Rock on this Linux box using JACK+hydrogen+fluidsynth. I'd say (recent) on-board chips works great for most *hobby* musicians, like me.
That said, if you work in a studio environment, you should probably go with something better.
Creative releases source code?
/me looks out the window, searching for flying pigs.
A number of significant kernel changes had went on between these Ubuntu Linux releases including the Completely Fair Scheduler, the SLUB allocator, tickless kernel support
These are kernel level modifications. Many distributions have switched to the SLUB allocator as the default allocator. CFS has proven it's worth (that's why it was included in the mainline kernel). I don't know whether the tickless kernel support is enabled for most stock kernels or not. I use Arch Linux, which upgrades the kernel if available every time I do a system upgrade. So far, I haven't experienced any degradation in performance. It's likely that the drivers for some chipset have been flawed, and this chipset is used in the machine where the recent Ubuntu was tested. Also, if the desktop effects feature got activated during upgrade of the text machine, that can explain a small amount of performance degradation, but not as much as a 2x-3x degradation in LAME performance.
The point is, we must test Ubuntu on different machines to determine if it's Ubuntu, the kernel or some hardware specific issue that is causing this.
Barring that, I'd like to see manufacturers start offering Ubuntu pre-installed on computers. Surely somebody can make a buck from it, even if it's just some little company.
I run a small computer business. While I offer XP installations, I recommend Ubuntu, and my customers usually think it's a good idea. That said, I offer to install any operating system per request, but I always recommend Ubuntu due to it's simplicity.
(Like my Windows XP disc.)
That's interesting, because in all my XP setups I've done for friends on their fairly recent machines, I have to spend about half an hour or more to browse around downloading drivers for pretty much everything. That is, if the ethernet card works. Otherwise I have to get my USB key and use another computer to download the ethernet drivers and transfer it to my friend's computer.
For instance, I built a computer for my brother a couple of weeks ago. He wanted to run XP, but also wanted to try out Ubuntu (8.04). We installed windows first, to avoid the MBR hassle. The windows installation, including downloading drivers, took about two hours. SP3 download/install took about another hour. The Ubuntu installation took 45 minutes including downloading software updates, because it had support for ethernet, graphics etc. out of the box.
So, what's the point of this post? It's to inform you that in many cases Ubuntu is *easier* to install than XP from scratch. However, if your computer manufacturer sent along a "System Restore CD", you'll probably have drivers for your ethernet card etc., so then it could be as easy to install XP on your particular machine (if not easier in some cases).
(manage wired, Wi-Fi, VPN, and cellular broadband connections in one place).
This is great news! I for all have had trouble setting up VPNs in an easy fashion without using command line tools. While I have no problems using the command line, most users do. This is a highly anticipated feature.
Also, it's great with a network manager that can set up cellular broadband connections. In Sweden we have a technolygy store that incorrectly states on it's web page that Linux doesn't support cellular broadband, and therefore recommends customers to set up Windows XP on the Asus Eee PC they sell, in order to use cellular broadband. This is ignorance at it's worst, and I for one think it's a welcome addition to Ubuntu to support this type of connection in its graphical network manager. It might just be enough to kill this myth.
Copyright fault (Lawyer dumped)
Still waiting for a x86_64 version. nspluginwrapper is most unsexy.
I'm cool with it :)
...is for their children to succeed.
That, and don't fix what's not broken.
However I must agree that a web/mail appliance mode that just works sounds like a nice thing.
What about an "everything" mode that just works?
If you look at it this way, The UMPC part may easily be built into its own hardware with display, keyboard etc. Then we'll have a platform that's
That would be something.
If you have years of slackware experience, why would you need a "user friendly" distro?
I used Slackware for about five years, but I got tired of it mainly because of the package system. I tried to remedy this by installing third-party package managers like slapt-get. That didn't work for me either, because of (very) small repositories. About two years ago I decided I care too much about the bleeding edge to use Slackware, which is more stability oriented, and switched to Arch Linux. I keep thinking to myself that it would be nice to have a distribution with roots in Slackware, but with better community support and more recent packages. The point is, even if you want to have control over everything, configure && make && make install starts to drive you nuts after about four years. Even hackers eventually get lazy.
Oh, I originally meant this as a joke. Shame on me! ;) I based this "joke" on the fact that the processor itself doesn't have any moving parts, but the coolant does.
It uses a Freescale processor that runs Linux and has no moving parts.
Did I miss something? When did processors have moving parts?
When it comes to games, very few games take advantage of multi-core CPU:s, unfortunately. The only games I can recall benefiting from multi-core technology that I've played is Doom 3, Quake 4 and ETQW: Quake Wars. When it comes to general purpose computing, multi-core systems are often the way to go if you use multiple applications simulaneously. When I got my first multi-core system, I was completely amazed by how fast large program packages would compile. And this was only with two cores. I can't even begin to imagine what a delight it would be to compile stuff on a quad-core system.
...but a safe bet would be DDS-3 or DLT tapes wrapped in anti-ESD bags and locked inside a fireproof safe. All this in a room deep within some mountain. This method will also be good for a hundred years, but may be considered overkill.
I own an Atari Portfolio, and I love it! Sure, it's slow as hell compared with today's machines, but it has all the apps you need in ROM. The operating system is DIP-DOS(Like MS-DOS with extensions) and it's the size of a VHS tape. I use it every day and as far as I know, I'm not mad. While many people have the need for power, it's interesting that something so slow as the Portfolio is still usable for everyday tasks.
I was just about to reference to OHCI/UHCI myself. However, since both Intel and AMD are friendlier towards Open Source than before, implementation should not be an issue. That is, as long as we keep Microsoft out of the picture.
IIRC, the main purpose of this project is not to actually use a PS3 for the computing, but rather to make GROMACS run on more powerful instances of the cell processor. This is just the first step.
Here at Uppsala University, Sweden, we have a PS3 that is currently computing molecular dynamics. I'd say the PS3 is not perfect for desktop computing, since most desktop software is poorly written in respect to parallelisation. It is, however, quite good for scientific applications which are designed to run on a cluster. (GROMACS for instance)
It's all about efficiency. If the computers are getting faster and no optimizations are done, the performance of JavaScript will of course increase. If, however, optimizations are introduced we'll get a steeper increase of performance and will also be able to write more advanced JavaScripts. Which one is better? If a better algorithm for solving a given problem comes along, then it's best to make use of it.
Try OpenBSD for instance. OpenBSD 4.2 is backwards compatible with binaries from OpenBSD 2.3, for instance. Linux is also quite good on this, since the kernel still has support for a.out binaries.
Oh, and you probably shouldn't talk about Micosoft's backwards compatibility adherence with Vista in the arena. What you don't mention is that many applications from XP and earlier simply refuse to run under Vista.
I probably also shouldn't forget to mention FreeMiNT/XaAES. This OS/GUI combination for Atari compatible machines can, although the latest release was from mid-2006, run GRAPHICAL applications from around 1985.