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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Awesome (Score 1) 133

First of all: GTK has OpenGL support, so that's already there. Has nothing to do with the web.

Although WebGL does implement OpenGL in a full-fledged web page, and I'm pretty sure GTK's WebGL just leverages GTK's OpenGL widgets.

Really, it's just a step towards what we've all known: Emacs has taken another step to becoming a modern graphical operating system.

Next, we need to be able to boot to Emacs from Grub, instead of using a hack like Linux to bootstrap Emacs.

Comment Re:Oh, COME ON! (Emacs User here) (Score 3, Insightful) 133

At the end of the day, code that goes in meets a few criteria:

1.) (the most important one): Somebody gives a crap.
2.) Somebody gives a crap and actually writes decent code
3.) Somebody gives a crap and gives so much of a crap that they're willing to do an additional 400-500% of work to get the patch into the main codebase.

Seriously, complaining what some nebulous "they" should do something is just stupid. This isn't a product that people buy, no project manager doing focus research on what consumers want, and no manager telling an employee "do this or you're fired".

There's just some guy/gal out there with an itch to scratch, who couldn't possibly care less what you want.

(S)he who codes, decides. End of story.

Comment Re:Old Habits Die Hard (Score 1) 442

The thing that's insidious about product placement is also the thing which makes it tolerable: "real life" is essentially product placement everywhere, because everything under the sun is branded. Stuck in traffic? Stare at the Chevrolet logo in front of you. Walking behind somebody -- yup, clothing logo. Staring at somebody's tight behind? Little red Levi's tag. That homeless guy walking across the street? Covered in a the local team's old logo...

Comment Re:Old Habits Die Hard (Score 5, Insightful) 442

So if my business is, say, making people unable to turn their TVs on, the people in the TV industry should just "adapt" to people being unable to use their product?

Don't talk crap. Adblock doesn't prevent people from using their web browsers.

A closer descrition: "If somebody is making a technology that prevents TV's from showing advertising, the TV industry should adapt to people not watching ads."

Well, let's look at the situation: We've had DVR's that can skip commercial for nearly a generation now.

Some of the more forward-looking companies in the TV industry has adapted to a model that has no ads: See Netflix, Amazon Prime video, and Hulu +'s ad-free option.

Each of those networks produce their own highly-rated, highly-watched content.

There are, of course, incumbents who refuse to adapt.

Ironically, the ones who refuse to adapt are all advertising companies: the old TV and cable networks. Their refusal to adapt is well described in their anger/frustration that Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon do not report their viewerships (ie. "ratings").

Well, let's think about that for a second: What are ratings for? They're to provide a value for how much an advertising slot during the show should cost.

Well... Netflix doesn't show ads, so what is the point of ratings? Netflix knows how many people are watching, and they know what it costs to stream. As long as they've got a profit, and their customers are happy, why do they care what advertisers think?

It's the advertisers trying refusing to change their habits, and refusing to accept that consumers are so tired of advertising that consumers prefer to pay directly for content than get it "free" with commercials.

In the same way, internet consumers are sick of being monitored and assaulted all of the time by intrusive advertisers who continue to try to force increasingly unpalatable advertising upon consumers.

Comment Re:I like AMD... (Score 1) 174

+this. I've also done High performance computing for over a decade, and claiming that one company's benchmark is unfair is crap when every other open benchmark tells a similar story.

It broke my heart to see AMD fall the way they did, but when you can compile and run the benchmarks yourself, with whatever compiler you choose, and see, with perfect clarity, how badly AMD gets mauled by Intel's chips. Those of us working in High Performance Computing don't care who makes the part, we just need the part that's best for a particular application - so we benchmark the hell out of everything. Memory performance, CPU performance, I/O performance... Then you do price vs performance, and TCO (including the cost of electricity, since the electric bill to run 50,000 cores full tilt is not small).

I know I'm not playing favorites; I know GCC, Microsoft Visual Studio, Clang, Pathscale, PGI, and any of the other compilers Intel doesn't make don't have the purported "run faster on Intel" flag.

AMD makes CPU's and AMD cherry-picked benchmarks that aren't a test of a CPU. WTF is that supposed to say when you're a CPU manufacturer? ie. "Compare the speed when we pick a workload that's dependent on the performance of all the shit we didn't make."

How about we compare AMD and Intel CPU's based on the speed of Western Digital hard drives? Sound fair? That's great!!!, AMD thinks so too!

AMD used to make a world-beating product, with better speed, better memory performance, better I/O performance and lower power usage. That was eight years ago

I've gotten tired of hearing AMD's "next generation" will change everything, and they'll beat Intel. It's the same story with every generation since Barcelona, ending with the same disappointment.

Comment Re:Subnet sizing (Score 1) 294

Correct me if I'm wrong, but routing is not the same thing as managing address pools.

IANA, the RIR's, and national registries coordinate IP Address allocation so that IP addresses are (hopefully) unique.

Managing a database of unique numbers is entirely different from routing packets around a global heterogeneous network.

IANA is also a department of ICANN, which manages the root DNS servers. - again, managing translation of words to ip addresses, which is similarly related to routing.

its kind of like the difference between a government surveyor, who assigns addresses to homes (i.e. the number), and the means by which various public and private organizations deliver packages to that address (routing).

Comment Re:what (Score 1) 294

Not all ISP's are equal. I get a maximum of four subnets, and the ISP (Comcast/Xfinity) only offers one subnet by default.

I'll get by, somehow, but I really wanted to be able to address every article of clothing in my wife's wardrobe.

Comment Re:More than just attacked. (Score 1) 294

I call BS.

As most consumer and small business routers run Linux and use Netfilter, it's not much of a stretch to ask "how do you do it on Linux?"

Well, with Netfilter, it's pretty simple to setup an effective IPv6 firewall that offers at least as much 'protection' offered by NAT in IPv4. ie.) allow only incoming requests that are 'related' to requests made from inside. Then if you have specific hosts/ports to open, you can add an exception in the exact same way you do for port mapping in IPv4.

If you want to be more specific about what transits the firewall, you just add more firewall rules -- which aren't any different than making rules with IPv4.

About the only practical difference is that with IPv4, you can get away with memorizing IP addresses, while with IPv6, mere mortals aren't going to memorize the full address. But that's what DNS is for -- and DNS for IPv6 isn't any more difficult than it is in IPv4.

Spreading misinformation doesn't help anybody, especially when IPv6 isn't that hard to use.

Now, if your Cisco/Juniper/commercial firewall and/or routers seem like an unmanageable mess, it's time to talk to your vendor about their product's deficiencies and ease of use. The response will probably be a lot of handwaving that amounts to "there are consulting dollars to be made, and you must pay it." If like paying to be abused, that's your choice, and I'm not going to question your decision making process. Some people like that sort of thing. Just be aware that it doesn't have to be that way.

Comment Re:Chilling? More like "obvious" (Score 2) 166

There's no such thing as a purely military mission for large nuclear weapons. It's doubtful there's a use for small ones.

The only thing that is "chilling" in this document is that the deployment of such weapons was carefully, methodically considered. The calculations of a suicide pact.

It's one thing to accept that nuclear war would destroy our civilizations, kill billions, and cause suffering we literally can't imagine. We already 'accept' that war is hell, in our detached way.

It's something else entirely to be forced to say 'yeah, that makes sense' with the purpose behind a target's selection. It's chilling to take a look at yourself and see that you can agree, at some level, with a truly monstrous decision.

Comment Re:AMD settled (Score 2) 225

Having worked in the HPC/supercomputer world during the rise & fall of AMD, I really wish I could mod you up further.

TFA talks makes much of the Intel compiler & benchmarks compiled with the Intel compiler for Intel processors.

I call BS. Nobody in HPC was dumb enough to be fooled with the benchmarks using the Intel compiler & Intel chips. There are (and were) commercial, highly optimizing alternatives to Intel's compiler, each with similar speed boasts over GCC: PathScale and PGI come to mind. Back in the day, AMD chips easily ran PathScale-compiled code faster than Intel's chips could -- and, for that matter, faster than Intel hardware with code compiled by Intel's compiler.

A big part of my job was compiling & running benchmarks using four compilers - GCC, Intel, Pathscale, PGI on the different architectures.

Even on a level playing field, such as GCC or PGI with model-specific optimizations and the closest thing to 'neutral' benchmarking there was, AMD was unquestionably king - better memory performance thanks to HyperTransport, better floating point performance, better integer performance - you name it, AMD was king. Intel couldn't touch 'em. AMD outsold (and outperformed) Intel, hands down.

The tide started shifting sometime after Intel's Woodcrest came out, with Intel easily being the better chip by 2010.

AMD simply pissed away everything, and did just about everything wrong for at least half a decade.

All Intel had to do was be less incompetent than AMD, and they'd win -- which is exactly what happened.

For a non-Intel example: Then-tiny ARM has grown to 10x bigger than AMD in terms of market valuation.

If benchmarks are to be believed, even Apple's ARM-derived A9 chips used in iPads are giving AMD's best a run for their money - and completely blow them away at flops/watt.

When an Apple chip running on a portable device gives your server hardware a run for its money, pointing a finger at Intel is a little hard to swallow.

Slashdot Top Deals

You can bring any calculator you like to the midterm, as long as it doesn't dim the lights when you turn it on. -- Hepler, Systems Design 182