Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

GNU is Not Unix

+ - HTC Delays Release of GPL'ed Linux Kernel Source->

Submitted by Specialist2k
Specialist2k (560094) writes "Apparently, HTC have been busy these days signing patent deals, so that they have forgotten about the true origins of the Android operating system running on many of their mobile phones. While these phones are running a customized version of the GPL'ed Linux kernel, HTC has been unwilling to provide the corresponding source code for the HTC Desire's Linux kernel for nearly a month now. Unfortunately, HTC already have a well-known history of GPL violations with no apparent signs of any improvement."
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:What are Intel's naming department on? (Score 2, Insightful) 173

by baka_vic (#29351243) Attached to: Intel Lynnfield CPU Bests Nehalem In Performance/Watt

The later Pentium 4 procs were just pushing higher and higher speeds with no regards to the incredible TDP they were now producing - basically it was the epitome of a hot and expensive processor which lost to AMD at that time. The Itanium sinking also doesn't help.

The Core stuff is from a different architecture lineage, and I guess they want to tell people that these processors were something different from the hot P4s.

But you're right, the Core naming is retarded - Core and Core 2, are different families, the solo, duo and quad, are the number of cores...people get confused as to what the '2' means - "is it 2 cores?" etc.

Comment: Re:no, YOUR methodology is flawed (Score 3, Insightful) 428

by baka_vic (#19347255) Attached to: Music Listeners Test 128kbps vs. 256kbps AAC

That's it. "best" Not "like the original", which is a poor substitute for "best".

The problem is, "best" is subjective. One's person's "best" is not the same as another. When comparing against the original, we have a baseline to compare against.

And example of this would be that different codecs preserve certain frequencies differently. Different people are more sensitive to changes in different frequencies. If it just happens that a codec does preserve a those particular frequencies that you are sensitive to, then of course you will feel that that codec is bad.

Of course, I'm oversimplifing things. Factors like the music, speakers/headphones, etc, all play a part in how you preceive quality of the codec.

So, basically, the idea is, when doing testing which will be relevant to others, we need to test against the original. But if you're testing to see what codec is best for your own personal use, yes, you can use the codec that sounds "best" to you.

Q: How many IBM CPU's does it take to execute a job? A: Four; three to hold it down, and one to rip its head off.