Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Cores Schmores (Score 1) 134

They didn't, the fastest P4 Xeon outperformed the fastest Athlons, but for any given Athlon the equivalent speed P4 was a lot more expensive. Once the Opterons came out, that changed: if you wanted the fastest x86 chip you could buy, you bought from AMD, especially in multi-socket configurations (quad-processor Opterons wiped the floor with memory-starved quad Xeons until Intel integrated the memory controller on die). Worse (for Intel), if you were willing to recompile your code you could get another 20+% out of the Opterons using the x86-64 ISA (more GPRs and cheaper PIC made a big difference, and a floating point ABI that used SSE exclusively and not x87 could give you a 100% speedup in float-heavy code, where even if the x86-32 compiler was using SSE registers for compute it was still losing performance moving them to and from the x87 register stack for function calls / returns).

Comment Re:Cores Schmores (Score 3, Informative) 134

The Thunderbird was nice, but it was more of a price/performance winner than overall performance. A 1GHz Thunderbird ran stable at 1.3GHz and was similar performance to a 2GHz Pentium 4 at a fraction of the cost (particularly as the P4 required RAMBUS DRAM, so you could stick twice as much DDR in Athlon for the same money). It wasn't until the Opteron that AMD really started winning on performance. The integrated DRAM controller was a big win and being first to 64 bits (which, on x86, means more GPRs, sane floating point ISA, and PC-relative addressing) gave them a huge advantage. Unfortunately, they haven't really been competitive since the Core 2, except in market segments where Intel intentionally cripples their offerings (e.g. no more than 2 SATA ports on the Atom Mini-ITX boards to avoid competition with the i3 boards, making AMD the only viable option).

Comment Re: All I know is that this: (Score 2) 267

It's about both cost and risk analysis. If you've got a lot of infrastructure, then you've probably already got a team of decent admins. Adding another server has a very small marginal cost. If you haven't, then the cost is basically the cost of hiring a sysadmin. Even the cheapest full-time sysadmin costs a lot more than you can easily spend with GitHub. Alternatively, you get one of your devs to run it. Now you have a service that is only understood well by one person, where installing security updates (let alone testing them first) is nowhere near that top priority in that person's professional life, and where at even one hour a week spent on sysadmin tasks you're still spending a lot more than an equivalent service from GitHub would cost.

In both of the latter cases, the competition for GitHub isn't a competent and motivated in-house team. It is almost certainly better to run your own infrastructure well, but the competition for GitHub is running your own infrastructure badly and they're a very attractive proposition in that comparison.

Outsourcing things that are not your core competency is not intrinsically bad, the problem is when people outsource things that are their core competency (e.g. software companies deciding to outsource all of the development - it's not a huge step from there to the people working for the outsourcing company to decide to also handle outsourcing management and start up a competitor, with all of the expertise that should be yours), or outsourcing without doing a proper cost-benefit analysis (other than 'oh, look, it's cheaper this quarter!').

If you think outsourcing storage of documents is bad remember that, legal companies, hospitals and so on have been doing this for decades without issues - storing large quantities of paper / microfiche is not their core competency and there are companies that can, due to economies of scale, do it much cheaper. Oh, and if that still scares you, remember that most companies outsource storing all of their money as well...

Comment Re:The gun is pointing at the foot (Score 1) 412

Something of a biased set. I've been using Firefox on Android for over a year, and I am very happy with it. I wasn't aware until your post that Mozilla was collecting satisfaction stats, and even now I can't really be bothered to post there - but I probably would if I were unhappy with it. Firefox with the self-destructing cookies add-on is the only mobile browser that I've found that gives me the cookie management policy that I want.

Comment Re:Firefox 44 (Score 1) 412

Perhaps they're expecting people to install add-ons? Fine-grained cookie management was why I switched to Firefox on Android, but I actually ended up using the self-destructing cookies add-on, which has exactly the policy that I want: any site can set a cookie, but unless I explicitly opt in (which I can do retroactively with the undelete button) to keeping it, then it's deleted when I navigate away from the site. Everything works as if I had cookies set to automatically accept, but doesn't get to persist any state for me across visits unless I permit it to.

Comment Re:Things that make you go "hmmm..." (Score 0) 150

A plane travelling at 500 miles per hour, at an altitude of 40,000 feet, has to lose a huge amount of both kinetic and gravitational potential energy before it's stationary on the runway. If you can capture 1% of this, then you can taxi around the airport for quite an extended period.

A number of airlines are now also powering the flight systems from the ground when connected to the terminal, so that they're not burning expensive avgas to generate electricity.

Comment Re:What's the point (Score 1) 312

MINIX is far more capable these days than HURD, is a more modern microkernel design, and is more permissively licensed. The only reasons for continuing to work on HURD are that you really like the particular filesystem namespace arrangement of servers that they use, or that you are fanatical about GPLv3.

Comment Re:"7:30 PM" (Score 1) 117

Which would be equally unhelpful for readers that are not familiar with UTC

Fortunately, for now, most readers of Slashdot are from Earth. Every time zone is expressed as an offset from UTC. Given a time in UTC, it is easy to work out what it is in your own time zone. Given a time in any other time zone, you do the conversion by first looking up the UTC offset of the reported time zone, subtracting it, and then adding your own UTC offset.

Comment Re:I guess it's easier... (Score 1) 425

It does, but the simple fact is if you're fat and trending towards obese you're eating too much for your particular configuration.

Even that's not really true. You're eating too much of some things, but for some people it's very hard to find foods that contain enough of things that they are bad at metabolising (certain amino acids or vitamins, for example), without also including far too many of certain carbohydrates or fats that they do absorb. There are outliers who, eating what for most people would be a fairly balanced diet, are both putting on weight and exhibiting symptoms of starvation. There are a lot more people who tend in this direction, but to a lesser extreme.

Slashdot Top Deals

Business will be either better or worse. -- Calvin Coolidge

Working...