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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Mostly for criminals (Score 1) 105

For 3100 we could get a quad core Mac Pro with dual graphics cards. This Talos thing is just a bunch of RAM. Does it even come with flash storage?

I suspect the comparison to a Mac Pro is not really the point, but no it doesn't come with flash storage. In fact that RAM figure is just the amount that is supported, it doesn't actually come with any.

Comment Re: Duh (Score 1) 105

The only plus side is the generous RAM. I think there is plenty of room in the x86-64 space for that amount of RAM at that price point.

That price does not include the RAM...or GPU or SSD/HDD or case.
For around $3,100 USD, security-minded individuals and corporations can own a Talos Secure Workstation mainboard with an entry-level 8-core 130W POWER8 CPU, heatsink / fan assembly, and ATX I/O shield.

Comment Re:Holy Cow (Score 1) 230

I don't use Firefox, I prefer Chrome and the fact that it gets lots of updates is good because it adds support for new web features and fixes bugs and security issues.

Eh, whatever, the throwaway society is dominating all facets.

Nothing is being thrown away, in fact thanks to open source everything that was out there still is there and anybody can use and maintain it. I'm not sure exactly what you're upset about here.

Comment Re:Holy Cow (Score 1) 230

So is your beef with the accelerated release schedule or just that you don't like Firefox and prefer something else?

I see no disadvantage of sticking with something a bit more familiar that I can run for years without having to think about "upgrades".

So why not just do that then? You're free to do that and let others do what they want.

Comment Re:Holy Cow (Score 0) 230

I would love to know where the "improvements" are in a program that is no faster than, has grown just as fat as, and still has less than a quarter of the user features of its ancestor.

Then why haven't you just looked at the changelogs? The basic release notes for the latest release are here and the full changelog is here. Sure they could have just made these changes and sat on them for a time but why not just release them when they're ready?

Comment Re:No use fighting it (Score 1) 144

It doesn't actually matter what the studios do. The biggest reason for selling fewer shows in the future is not going to be piracy, it's going to because they make crap shows.

Well we're talking about piracy, you're hardly going to pirate shows you don't even want to watch. I'm not sure there has been any significant decrease in the watching of television shows recently due to a supposed quality decline.

Comment Re:No use fighting it (Score 1) 144

Some people will always pirate, sure, but 99% of people aren't going to ever bother if they can get what they're looking for conveniently and without paying through the nose for it.

True. They spent so much time fighting the internet rather than embracing it that piracy became the norm, it wasn't a matter of people being unwilling to pay but of studios not providing a channel. It was more convenient and ultimately you got a better product. Now we see streaming services that are even more convenient than piracy in most cases (yes there are people who dont have good enough internet connections or want to save for offline viewing, etc...) so studios should be embracing, rather than fighting this sort of technology.

Comment Re:Want big Hollywood movies? Eliminate Hollywood (Score 1) 144

I certainly agree with that, which is why I pay for content. What irks me is when content producers refuse to sell it to me because of things like region restrictions. I want the content and I'm happy to pay for it so I'll admit I do pirate some things but it's only stuff where they won't "shut up and take my money".
I don't participate in online communities for tv shows like those that discuss and analyse them but I can see how it would be annoying to want to be a part of that but to have to isolate yourself from it because content producers have shown it to some people but not to others. If you're getting the content a week or so later than in other parts of the world then obviously I can see why you would pirate it.

Comment Re:w00t! (Score 1) 152

Yes yes more "fanboy" namecalling garbage to detract from your inability to express yourself objectively. Post your criticism in the Vulkan forums, then you will see how wrong you are. It will expose both your lack of knowledge and understanding.

We can do this in tiny steps, one at a time since large things are clearly overwhelming and enraging you:

OpenGL's model means application-specific optimization code must exist in the driver rather than the application, this is wrong. In Vulkan this application code is in the application instead of the driver.

Comment Re:w00t! (Score 1) 152

Here's a short summary from a Vulkan IMPLEMENTOR on where OpenGL is better than Vulkan, and vice-versa

The only criticism in that article is that Vulkan comes with some added complexity, which is precisely why I pointed out that for people like you there is the higher level API built on top of Vulkan. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

Then if you read Graham Seller's own Powerpoint AND have experience in developing LARGE applications you can see massive potential pitfalls in using Vulkan that you won't get with OpenGL

And also the massive benefits that you do get with Vulkan, so again, for people like you that can't manage the complexity and for which the benefits of Vulkan aren't an advantage there are less efficient higher level APIs for you to use.

Nope, OpenGL is more than sufficient

Not for everybody, hence the reason OpenGL (and DirectX which is wrong.

the use of the Vulkan command-buffer model gains nothing, but increases development cost.

Which is why you would use a higher level API for your use-case, problem solved. Why are you still whining about it?

Yes, OpenGL has that feature (so why use Vulkan?)

What I'm pointing out is that you citicised Vulkan for having memory barriers and now that I have educated you on the fact that OpenGL also has memory barriers you have changed your mind. You claim to be experienced yet you didn't even know this existed in OpenGL before and so criticized its existence in Vulkan. I don't expect anybody to know everything so stop pretending, you just keep looking stupid.

Sometime you should read the criticisms of the Mantle API, as this applies directly to Vulkan (which follows the same concepts), for an idea, look at this. Apple considers Metal to have better performance than Vulkan, and supposedly better than OpenGL - yet OpenGL beats Metal (and thus, Vulkan) on the discrete GPU in this benchmark

So use OpenGL (or a high level equivalent) in that case. Parallel is not always better so use the right approach for your problem, Vulkan allows this. Your issue with it is that its benefits may not be useful to you therefore they can't be useful to anybody, that is an attitude that stems from limited experience. You may be old and stuck in a rut for decades but that doesn't make you experienced.

Couple that with the fact that Apple is not supporting Vulkan (supporting OpenGL and Metal instead)

Apple's support for OpenGL is merely a token gesture, as you already pointed out they are way behind in feature support.

You think I'm "trying to convince you"? LOL !

Yes you in fact are, you respond to every one of my points and avoid my questions. Please post your criticisms on the Vulkan forums and you will see how wrong you are, apparently you "don't have time" for that but you do have time to desperately respond to me.

Vulkan is not cross-platform in the way OpenGL is (at least, it won't be for a few years).

Of course not, nobody is suggesting even getting rid of OpenGL at this stage, just having Vulkan as an option for developers for which it will be advantageous, why do you have such baseless and irrational objection to that?

Slashdot Top Deals

In every hierarchy the cream rises until it sours. -- Dr. Laurence J. Peter