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


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Since when is AMT controversial? (Score 1) 143

by unixisc (#48936911) Attached to: FSF-Endorsed Libreboot X200 Laptop Comes With Intel's AMT Removed

I agree w/ you, and the same argument goes for software. RMS and the FSF supporters tell us that we need the source code for the 4 GNU freedoms. Well, even hardware - particularly at chip level - has hardware description languages, or HDL code that defines it, both in a structural level and behavioral level. Yet, the same people argue that they are circuits, since they cannot be changed. Why not? Just get the HDL code, put it on an FPGA, and recode it whenever needed.

For the record, I agree w/ the Open Source guys - focus on the advantages of FOSS code, and accommodate the business modifications needed to the licenses. That's the pragmatic approach, as opposed to the Copyleft cult of the FSF. And I have no problems w/ binary blobs, or closed drivers, or exceptions to the FOSS rule.

Comment: Re:OK, based upon notebook shopping thus far (Score 1) 107

I typically don't close browser tabs when the newer pages I open have something interesting that I may want to reference in future. So sometimes, I have something like 20 or more tabs running. So I wouldn't sneer at having more memory - usage, as opposed to the capability of apps, do tend to fill it up. And that's w/o even using the VMs

Comment: Re:OK, based upon notebook shopping thus far (Score 1) 107

Why does Intel deliberately disable chips to support at the max 16GB or anything like it? Under 32-bit, 4GB was the maximum theoretical limit, so I understood. For 64-bit, the maximum theoretical limit is 17,179,869,184GB. Assuming that a certain portion of it will be reserved for BIOS or something, let's half that and make it 8,589,934,592GB. Intel can still have the capability of addressing that much in their system. So why artificially cripple it to 16GB, when people may want 32 or even 64GB as memory gets cheaper?

Comment: Re:Um, let me get this straight... (Score 1) 143

by unixisc (#48936233) Attached to: FSF-Endorsed Libreboot X200 Laptop Comes With Intel's AMT Removed
I've wondered that as well. Why do these laptops need to be based on an x86? Use something like RMS' previous fav - a Loongson CPU, or an Allwinner - the same thing being used for some Android tablets. That way, one can get a fully documented thing. Of course, it would be illegal to sell that in the US due to laws violating IP, but since when has that stopped RMS, or the FSF, which is his sock puppet?

Comment: Re:A Perfect Metaphor For the FSF/GNU... (Score 1) 143

by unixisc (#48936185) Attached to: FSF-Endorsed Libreboot X200 Laptop Comes With Intel's AMT Removed

I fully endorse this! I visited a Linux conference in my city several months back, and all the booths had something interesting or the other. Only exception was the FSF - except for slogans like iBad and posters & stickers, they really had nothing worth showing. And how can they be, when they've completely discounted the importance of good products, and made liberated products the only criteria by which to endorse? Other companies make products around Linux or the BSDs, while all these guys do is take a fully functional Linux, cripple it some b'cos the software that makes it better ain't liberated, and then they expect people to pay equal or inflated prices for those.

What are all the GNU programs I have on my computer? Most of them - GTK+ ones - now conquer my whole screen and are usually difficult to resize, except under GNOME. Functionality - less than other standard BSD or Linux programs. If GNU wants to be relevant, there is one way they could do it - have their cadres focus on writing great software, as opposed to being the Software industry's equivalent of the OCCUPY crowd.

Comment: Re:Since when is AMT controversial? (Score 0) 143

by unixisc (#48936025) Attached to: FSF-Endorsed Libreboot X200 Laptop Comes With Intel's AMT Removed

THIS!!!! All the 'Libre' crowd rants about the source code of the software, but somehow gives a pass about the hardware not being open (here, RMS prefers the term 'open' to 'free', even while he rants at the term 'open source' for software).

And this laptop - a lenovo - how is it preferable to the Librem laptop discussed here a few days ago, which was built from the ground up to be made w/ only publicly documented parts?

Comment: Re:Government Intervention (Score 1) 403

by unixisc (#48935879) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: When and How Did Europe Leapfrog the US For Internet Access?

Yeah, who would have thought that European 'socialism' would be more effective at bringing the internet to the masses than American private enterprise? But sarcasm aside, here are the world's 16 most connected countries according to a study done by Harvard University for the FCC: 1 Sweden 2 Denmark 3 Japan 4 South Korea 5 Switzerland 6 Netherlands 7 Finland 8 France 9 Belgium 10 Norway 11 United Kingdom 12 Germany 13 Iceland 14 Italy 15 Portugal 16 United States

Well, the US has 2 things that none of the above countries from Sweden to Portugal have:

A huge area when compared to any of the others, and a large population outside the most densely populated cities, making it less cost effective to provide the same sort of speeds to remoter areas

A far larger population scattered over that larger area

A fairer test would have been including China, Russia, India, Brazil, Australia, Kazakhstan, Mongolia and Argentina in the list, and seeing where they stand. I know, lower than the US, but one could then also factor in their populations, areas and made that judgement

Factorials were someone's attempt to make math LOOK exciting.