Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment Don't confuse "support" with "capability" (Score 1) 176

The economics are fairly simple.

Your support, validation and sustaining costs don't contribute to the bottom line of your business. If you have a part of the product that takes a unnecessarily large proportion of the bottom line, you look at the value proposition. You do something as simple as removing the client for a platform, you save money.

BUT, if the product is based around open standards, the Linux community has a high probability of making something that will work anyway. For FREE. No support costs for a client, no development and validation costs either. Linux, with it's "Freedom" has an extremely high cost to be an ISV on, you have kernels, X versions, distributions.. All subtley different and all having precious consideration for the cost of operating in that ecosystem.

Google has many examples of killing/not creating a client, but fostering the capability. Google talk is a great example. Google still gets the branding value of the service, but doesn't need to have a client, I have *NEVER* heard anyone talk about "Google's JMPP or Jabber Service". I would expect that this is the same, but for google voice. The people carrying credit will probably be handled.

Comment Re:That is the question... (Score 1) 38

Judging by your posts and your handle, you work in or around servers - a lot.

You would probably be aware that security, stability, and all such things are a set of tradeoffs of risks and benefits/costs.

You can make a system 100% secure, but it may not be useable. You can make a system five 9's stable, but you have to pay for it. You make the assessment of the risk (in this case data corruption), against the benefit/costs (double the speed in some cases).

SuSE seemed to have made the assessment of risk without understanding the cost. They enabled barriers by default to take the high moral ground, but then didn't understand the cost of doing so.

Your analogy about buying a new gas oven is interesting. You look at the manuals and there are *many* ways that you can blow up your oven. It is just that the risk (of someone naively or accidentally blowing themselves up) has been balanced against the benefit of lower consumption of energy. There are many ways of managing risks - redundancy, accepting the risk, etc.

My prime point was that the benchmarking which yeilded questions - without the answers given - are extremely valuable. They allow the upstream people developing systems to understand that they need to consider the bigger picture and apply a risk/cost/benefit judgement and not close of all risks. I would expect that in later versions of SuSE they have turned off barriers now that the risk has been sufficiently understood and the costs determined as being commercially relevant.

Or using your analogy. The tests that the oven may blow up but save 50% on the energy bill has been shown that the net benefit is on the side of the oven that may potentially blow up!

Comment That is the question... (Score 2, Informative) 38

The Phoronix benchmarking is intended to provide you the answers as to why. It is to highlight the stuff that has happened.

If performance management is going on within the kernel community, then this shouldn't come up as a shock. The whole purpose of independent testing is that you see something that looks out of place, investigate and resolve. A perfect example is phoronix article, that showed that SuSE was trailing. This causes this discussion.

The question and answer don't need to be provided by the same voice. It is when you have someone questioning, and then someone answering, then you have a discussion, then finally you have progress.

To make it worse, there is virtually no reason that any number of the organizations supporting the leading developers can't invest a small amount of infrastructure and run the tests themselves. Phoronix Test Suite is absolutely trivial to use. The amount of "software development in autopilot" is frightening, this applies equally to Open Source as it does to Proprietary.


Submission + - AMD Launches New ATI Linux Driver ( 1

Michael Larabel writes: "AMD has issued a press release announcing "significant graphics performance and compatibility enhancements" on Linux. AMD will be delivering new ATI Linux drivers this year that offer ATI Radeon HD 2000 series support, AIGLX support (Beryl and Compiz!), and major performance improvements. At Phoronix we have been testing these new drivers internally for the past few weeks and have a number of articles looking at this new driver. The ATI 8.41 Linux driver delivers Linux gaming improvements from the R300/400 series and the R500 series. The inaugural Radeon HD 2900XT series support also can be found in the new ATI Linux driver with "the best price/performance ratio of any high-end graphics card under Linux." While this new driver cannot be downloaded yet, AMD has also eluded to accelerating efforts with the open-source community. Will AMD's announcement be enough to rectify their troubled Linux past?"

Submission + - ATI/AMD Announces Driver Breakthrough (

schestowitz writes: "AMD has just dropped the bomb when it announced a major driver breakthrough. To Linux users, the effect of this news is enormous. To gamers and to projects like Compiz-Fusion, this will be the end of a lot of trouble. seems to have had some insider information because the site already boasts extensive benchmarks and detailed information. From one among five articles: 'Whether you are using a Radeon X300 purchased a few years ago or the Radeon X1950PRO, the 8.41 driver is noticeably faster. How much faster? In many cases it is about 50% faster while in some configurations it may go as high as 90% or more. In fact, in some benchmarks the Mobility Radeon X300 was over 10x faster!'"

Submission + - The Truth Is Out About the ATI Linux Drivers (

jHofa writes: Phoronix has posted an article entitled The Truth About ATI/AMD & Linux in which they have slides from AMD that debunk some of the common myths about the ATI Linux display drivers along with other information. The slides show how long each driver is in development for, what consists of their different development phases, and what is carried out for quality assurance. They also have quotes from ATI's Matthew Tippett.

Submission + - The Truth About ATI/AMD & Linux (

Xaxo writes: "Earlier this month AMD's Henri Richard promised open graphics drivers for Linux. While the drivers aren't open sourced yet, they have opened their development and release cycle information to Phoronix. In this article called The Truth About ATI/AMD & Linux they have authenticated slides from AMD about their Linux development cycle and quotes from the AMD Graphics Products Group. From the article: "...each AMD Linux "fglrx" driver release takes usually about eleven to twelve weeks from start to finish. With the development, validation, beta, and bake phases, there are always at least two releases being prepared. This rigid development cycle allows AMD to release updated drivers on a monthly basis while ensuring that each driver has been tested and contains more changes than just a simple version bump.""

Submission + - Intel in graphics partnership with Nvidia?

An anonymous reader writes: Intel may get some help building its upcoming floating point accelerator Larrabee. Following some rumors earlier this month, which claimed that Intel and Nvidia will be trading technologies, TG Daily now says that it has received information that the two companies will be announcing a "graphics partnership". An acquisition of Nvidia is a bit unlikely right now, but if Intel has access to Nvidia GPU technology, what exactly does that mean for AMD/ATI? Looks like Intel is catching up with AMD's ideas much faster than we thought.

Submission + - RFID Passports Cloned Without Opening the Package

Jeremy writes: "Using some simple deduction, a security consultant discovered how to clone a passport as it's being mailed to its recipient, without ever opening the package. These are the kinds of things that people need to understand are possible now that our governments are trying to use wireless technology (inherantly insecure) for security."

Slashdot Top Deals

I judge a religion as being good or bad based on whether its adherents become better people as a result of practicing it. - Joe Mullally, computer salesman