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


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Is this Google's fault? (Score 1) 397

by swillden (#49635253) Attached to: Google Can't Ignore the Android Update Problem Any Longer

Your notion of "optimizing for the hardware" is something that isn't real. According to your theory, Linux also shouldn't perform well because it also is hardware-agnostic.

As for what OEMs have to do, a modern mobile device is immensely complex, consisting of dozens of processors, many on the SoC (system on a chip) but many not. All of them have to be configured, which is a complex and tedious operation, and easy to get wrong -- and every custom board requires a custom configuration. In addition, there are drivers for all of the bits and pieces that have to be assembled and tested together. Plus there's also typically a complex, multi-stage boot process that has to be orchestrated to bring up all the bits and pieces of the hardware in the right way and in the right order. And other stuff that I don't know about because I'm not a hardware systems guy.

Some of the above doesn't depend on the OS, and can be done before it's available. But much of it does depend on OS requirements and has to wait.

And then if the OEM decides to customize Android they have to do that, with whatever skin, and default apps they want, plus whatever changes they need deep in the system to support the hardware and their changes to the software. Finally there is lots and lots of testing, because such complex, custom devices always expose new interactions between components that have to be debugged and fixed. Oh, and lots of hardware testing as well, including endless burn-in tests to validate that the stuff not only works but that some subtle design flaw doesn't stop it from working.

And I'm sure there's still more that I don't know about at that level as well.

Then they have to run Google's compliance tests, to find out what they've broken with all of their changes, or what they missed in configuring their device for proper support (actually, this is something they do throughout, not at the end), and then go back and fix what's broken until it passes... or else negotiate with Google for waivers on things they think should be okay.

Then comes carrier validation and testing, more rounds of fixes, etc.

Little or none of this has anything to do with "optimization". That's mostly the compiler's job, and it does that job well.

Comment: Re:Extrapolate? (Score 1) 81

by hairyfeet (#49635085) Attached to: AMD Outlines Plans For Zen-Based Processors, First Due In 2016

Uhhhh...just FYI but Intel has come right out and admitted it rigged the benchmarks so you can trust them about as much as the infamous FX5900 benches with its "quack.exe" back in the day.

For those Intel fanboys, I have a simple question for you...if Intel is REALLY so far ahead, why would they risk the fines and antitrust by rigging benchmarks? If they are really THAT far ahead what would be the point of spending all those millions and taking all that risk? For bragging rights? If you have any common sense the answer should be obvious, a company with that large a warchest would NOT do such a thing if it were not necessary and the only reason Intel would take all that risk and go to all that trouble would be that their numbers do not justify their price and if the real numbers come out, like what the guys at Phoronix show is that they are a LOT closer than they would lead you to believe which means their 200%-300% price premiums are not in any way justified and would not exist in a free none rigged market!

I don't give a shit if you like AMD, Intel, fucking SPARC it really should not matter because this should PISS YOU OFF because time and time again we have seen market rigging benefits nobody BUT the one doing the rigging! It certainly doesn't benefit those that like Intel CPUs, unless you consider it a fricking tithe to your church, because if it wasn't a rigged market 1.- the benches would show the chips a lot closer, 2.- More consumers would refuse to pay 300%+ for the Intel chips, and 3.- the PRICE WOULD GO DOWN, so you should be royally pissed right about now, cuz if you own an Intel chip you paid too much!

Comment: Re:Just in time for the End of the Line (Score 1) 81

by Kjella (#49634317) Attached to: AMD Outlines Plans For Zen-Based Processors, First Due In 2016

None of those other nodes pitches involved dimensions of which quantum mechanical tunneling was the dominant effect, nor of gate thickness being one atom. But that's what 10nm is.

Not even close. They have on the research stage made functional 3nm FinFET transistors, if they can be produced in the billions is unlikely as it requires every atom to be in the right place but 10nm still has some margin of error. The end of the road is in sight though...

Comment: Re:Extrapolate? (Score 4, Interesting) 81

by Kjella (#49634193) Attached to: AMD Outlines Plans For Zen-Based Processors, First Due In 2016

Anyone care to extrapolate from current benchmarks as to how this new processor will compare to Intel's desktop offerings? I would like to see Intel have some competition there.

FX-8350: 2012
"Zen": 2016

The 40% jump is more like 0%, 0%, 0%, 40%.

If you compare a 3770K (best of 2012) to a 4790K (best of today) you get a ~15% frequency boost and another ~10% IPC improvements. If the leaked roadmaps are to believed Skylake for the desktop is imminent which will bring a new 14nm process and a refined micro-architecture at the same time as Broadwell missed their tick for the desktop, so in the same timeframe Intel will have improved 30-40% too.

Anyway you asked about AMD and I answered with Intel but it's a lot easier to get a meaningful answer without getting into the AMD vs Intel flame war. In short, even if AMD comes through on that roadmap they're only back to 2012 levels of competitiveness and honestly speaking it wasn't exactly great and AMD wasn't exactly profitable. They're so far behind that you honestly couldn't expect less if they weren't giving up on that market completely, which honestly thinking I thought they had. And I wonder how credible this roadmap is, I remember an equally impressive upwards curve for Bulldozer...

Comment: Re:Finally a replacement (Score 1) 81

by hairyfeet (#49633997) Attached to: AMD Outlines Plans For Zen-Based Processors, First Due In 2016

Same here only the 1035T and with the 3.2GHz Turbocore this baby has NO problem playing the latest games and on medium settings Handbrake hits over 160fps.

So while I might look into one of these if they hit 12 cores or better right now I'd say grab one of the AMD hexacore or Octocores if you haven't, because once you remove the benchmarks Intel admits they rigged you'll find the FX8s trade blows with chips costing more than double the price, numbers which the GCC compiled Linux becnhmarks attest to.

Comment: Re:Snowball effect (Score 1) 303

by Kjella (#49633767) Attached to: Why Was Linux the Kernel That Succeeded?

It's not a big mystery. Linus released a primitive kernel that worked, at the right time, with the right license, and then diligently kept rolling up contributions and releasing the result.
  These days he writes very little code himself; almost all he does is manage patches. I'm not sure how much code he wrote in the early days, but I think his diligent application of patches sent to him helped Linux to become stable and useful.

He wrote huge parts of it himself and in 2006 about 2% was still written by himself. I can't find how many LOCs it had then, but it was 5 million in 2003 and 11 million in 2009 so 8 million-ish. That means in the ballpark of 160.000 lines of code over 15 years, along with managing the whole project. And when that's not enough, he bootstraps what's possibly the most widely used source control management system today.

Now I've met people who are absolutely brilliant, they're rare. I've met people who truly excels at making everybody pull in the same direction, they're rare too. But I've never met one that's both, he could have been overly possessive and not let anyone else work on his pet project. It's one thing to say you want contributions, it's another thing to mean it in practice. Or he could have been the one pointing out a direction with nobody to do the heavy lifting.

Most of us don't even want to do both, the more I have to rely on others to get something done the more I realize how much I'd hate it if everything I did was manage other people. Those who want to run the business/organization/project get out of the doer role quickly, those who don't avoid management and get into some kind of technical guru role, to use a military analogy more like the special forces than a general. If you find one that both can do both and want to do both, you've hit the jackpot.

Comment: Re:Why do companies keep thinking people *want* th (Score 1) 89

by MightyMartian (#49633377) Attached to: Ubuntu May Beat Windows 10 To Phone-PC Convergence After All

I've used my Nexus 7 that way, and it works reasonably well. The biggest problem, as always, is that apps that are optimized for the small displays of most mobile devices simply don't work that well on larger screens. I have used it quite frequently with a Bluetooth mouse and keyboard and RDP software to work on our terminal services server, and there really isn't any noticeable difference between that and a PC remoting in. It's rather a special case, to be sure.

Comment: Re:Sort-of-worked. (Score 2) 49

by Bruce Perens (#49633129) Attached to: SpaceX Launch Abort Test Successful

What I am getting from the videos is that this test was a success but that there was indeed an engine failure and the system recovered from it successfully by throttling off the opposing engine. There was less Delta-V than expected, max altitude was lower than expected, downrange was lower than expected, and that tumble after trunk jettison and during drogue deploy looked like it would have been uncomfortable for crew.

This is the second time that SpaceX has had an engine failure and recovered from it. They get points for not killing the theoretical crew either time. There will be work to do. It's to be expected, this is rocket science.

It sounds to me like the launch engineers were rattled by the short downrange and the launch director had to rein them in.

Comment: Re:Licensing, mostly (Score 2) 303

by swillden (#49632957) Attached to: Why Was Linux the Kernel That Succeeded?

Other than Xenix what do you mean by Microsoft

Er, nothing actually. TFA mentioned "Microsoft's take on Unix", which I took to mean NT's stab at POSIX support, or maybe something else equally ridiculous. Looking at the article again, it actually says "Xenix, Microsoft's take on Unix". Not being more than vaguely aware of Xenix, I didn't realize it was bought by Microsoft and I took that text as two separate items in the list (should have paid closer attention to commas vs semi-colons).

Also you forgot SCO if you are including commercial Unixes for 386

Indeed. There I claim selective memory, driven by the massive stain on the Unix world left by SCO's successor-in-ownership, The SCO Group.

Also one that gets forgotten about but was quite good in those early days was: Coherent

I heard good things about Coherent back in the day, but never touched it.

Comment: Re:Sounds completely reasonable (Score 1) 251

by causality (#49632653) Attached to: Uber Forced Out of Kansas

Who DOESN'T want minimal government? Even communists and fascists think the policies they support are necessary, and mainstream Republicrats think their policies prevent market failures. I have never met anyone who identified as an "excessarchist", only folks who believe everyone else is being excessive.

Specifically, I am referring to a return to federalism, with the vast majority of citizens' government coming from the state and local levels. You know, the way this system was intended to work.

Comment: Re: Not forced... (Score 1) 251

by causality (#49632541) Attached to: Uber Forced Out of Kansas

These people randomly speed up and slow down because of changing slope of the road. No one is really paying attention to their speed, and they don't realize that you have to push the pedal a little harder uphill and less downhill to maintain speed.

Most of the time that's correct, but I see it with surprising frequency on level terrain. I think most of them are simply not paying full attention to the road; perhaps they're fiddling with a cell phone.

It's the same reason people sometimes fail to notice that the light has turned green. I mean, why should they pay attention, it's not like they're *driving* or anything...

Comment: Re: Not forced... (Score 1) 251

by causality (#49632445) Attached to: Uber Forced Out of Kansas

At least in my mind, there's a huge difference between "this person has an infection, or cancer, or heart disease" versus "this person was hurt because a drunk driver ran straight through a stop sign and crashed into them". Does your law make such a distinction?

There is, but we don't consider it when deciding whether to provide medical treatment or not. We punish illegal activity in court not in hospital.

Apparently this is confusing some of you. So I'll explain how it works in the USA.

Hypothetically, let's say you cause a car accident, as in this imaginary accident is 100% your fault. As a result of this accident, another person is injured and requires medical care. Your own car insurance policy has a line item called Bodily Injury Coverage. That coverage would pay for the injured person's medical expenses.

The injured person would not file a claim with their health insurance company (assuming they have one) because you, as the person who caused the accident, are held responsible for any expenses you caused to the injured person.

I was simply asking if car insurance works that way overseas. Instead of a private insurance company that you may or may not have, you have NHS. While the NHS is provided as a public service, the care they provide does have a cost. I wanted to know if NHS bears that cost even when there is an at-fault party who caused the problem, or whether in those specific cases, the at-fault party (via their car insurance liability policy) was expected to cover it.

Aren't you glad you're not getting all the government you pay for now?