crunchy666 - Slashdot User

Comment Re:spending time on opportunities ? (Score 1) 747

by crunchy666 on Tuesday October 06, 2009 @12:15PM (#29658335) Attached to: De Icaza Responds To Stallman

So the "foundation" from the outset is surrounded by ambiguity and attempting to cause confusion between "Free" and "Open Source" software?

Comment Re:Really? The infamous? (Score 1) 198

by crunchy666 on Thursday May 28, 2009 @02:23PM (#28127087) Attached to: The Unexpected Patents of Steve Jobs

Business is unpleasant. Anyone who thinks otherwise should not go into business for themselves.

Novell and Intel Team Up For Moblin On Netbooks 29

Posted by Soulskill on Saturday May 09, 2009 @09:40AM from the os-names-that-sound-like-they-might-eat-you dept.

ruphus13 writes "The Mobile and Netbook space already has several Open Source OS providers. Android has been making its way into netbooks, and Moblin, LiMo and Ubuntu are also alternatives for OSes on netbooks and mobile handhelds. Now, Novell has also joined the fray, but rather than porting openSuSE, they have teamed up with Intel to get OEMs to use Moblin for their mobile devices. From the article: 'With the other tools and benefits that Moblin offers OEMs and developers, it's really a rather smart approach that could potentially yield a better netbook experience (for developers and consumers), maximize development resources, and produce quality software in minimal time. I don't think Novell is eschewing SUSE, but in its current form, it's not as suited for netbooks as it is systems like the HP ProBooks. Paired with Moblin's netbook-centric bent and coming from a desktop/server market (rather than a true mobile device background), bringing a SUSE/Moblin system to netbooks has as much potential (if not more) for success as an Android adaptation does.'"

Comment Re:Er, no (Score 1) 286

by crunchy666 on Monday September 15, 2008 @08:55PM (#25019617) Attached to: Twilight of the GPU — an Interview With Tim Sweeney

You're thinking about this the wrong way. What you would be programming for is a general purpose language, with extensions (C/C++), then a compiler would generate the necessary binary code specific to the hardware. The compiler would handle the chip specific portions, leaving you to contend with creation of the graphics routines to render your scene (handling parallelism, vectorization, optimizations, etc.), in any way you see fit (rasterization, ray tracing, etc.) There is no reason why this would be any more difficult to support than the current DirectX/OpenGL APIs.

Slashdot Top Deals