Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Phil Carmody on 17 Feb 2007 08:40 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: > >I think that Linux has reached the point where it is good enough for all > >practical purposes. > > Nope. It is not a product (in the sense that we called things > a product). It is still a toy; it has a little bit more growing > up to do. Odd. The *world's largest manufacturer* of the kit that holds the internet together think that they want to run linux on their kit, and have done for years. Your perspective on the IT world is as skewed as your perspective on pretty much everything else, it appears. Phil -- "Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of /In God We Trust, Inc./.
From: Phil Carmody on 17 Feb 2007 08:43 MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> writes: > On Fri, 16 Feb 07 12:36:30 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > > >GAWD. I HOPE NOT. All we've been having is hardware break > >throughs. This has all had the direct effect of coding slop. > > > If you were any more stupid, I'd swear you were merely trolling. Actually, apart from a few specialist fields, BAH is right on this one. Sturgeon's Law is a massive underestimate when it comes to software. Phil -- "Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of /In God We Trust, Inc./.
From: Phil Carmody on 17 Feb 2007 09:02 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: > In article <er45sh$pkf$2(a)jasen.is-a-geek.org>, > jasen <jasen(a)free.net.nz> wrote: > >On 2007-02-12, Ken Smith <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote: > >>>> You had to load the CX register to do a LOOP. > >>> > >>>What's LOOP got to do with anything? > >> > >> You haven't been following the discussion. I used the case of a REP > >> prefix used inside a loop as the example of why the 8086's instruction set > >> was so poorly designed. The CX and the REP both use the CX so the CX must > >> be loaded for the REP inside the loop. This means that the current CX > >> contents must be saved, the CX loaded, the REP done and the CX restored. > >> This is a lot of extra work. > > > >It's less work to just use something else to hold the loop count > > Well, that depends on what the hardware has to do for you > to change that "something else". > > >and use DEC and JNZ in place of LOOP (faster too since 80486) > > > >One of the other registers or [bp+N] is often a good choice > >(for apropriate values of N) > > Snort. Don't you just love that "appropriate values of N"? > It implies you have to check it each and every time. No it doesn't. You're completely hatstand. Phil -- "Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of /In God We Trust, Inc./.
From: jmfbahciv on 17 Feb 2007 09:08 In article <87fy94udes.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >> In article <aaict21nu9t1faaiodh912qu7en2240379(a)4ax.com>, >> MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >> >On Fri, 16 Feb 07 12:25:03 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >> > >> >> Other >> >>than instrumentation, there usually isn't any computing task that >> >>has to have the CPU pay attention to it *right now*. >> > >> > >> > A/V stream decoding does. Hell, even MP3 stream decoding does. >> > >> > When I watch Lost episodes on ABC.com, those streams get a LOT of >> >CPU time slices simply because the stream MUST be processed >> >continually. >> >> Son, it is time you learned about buffered mode I/O. > >Idiot. Presume the stream is all buffered in memory - how does that >affect the fact that the processor must constantly be throwing >up frame after frame to the screen? The CPU isn't doing that work. That's what the video card does. > It doesn't. So the buffering >or otherwise is irrelevant. You're completely hatstand. Why does the CPU have to be latched with the video card painting? Not even your computer games work this way. The CPU does not say throw this pixel at that TTY x,y address and then get back to me when you have lit it. > >Sure, a reasonably capable processor will only spend a fraction >of the time doing the decoding/filtering/scaling/whatever, but >for that timeslice, it's working on something that must be >processed in real time. Why real time? The CPU is sitting idle most of time. The idle time can be used for other stuff. This is not a new concept; it's been around since females had to cook, rear kids, and entertain the males so they would stick around for a while. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 17 Feb 2007 09:12
In article <8764a0ucl2.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >> >I think that Linux has reached the point where it is good enough for all >> >practical purposes. >> >> Nope. It is not a product (in the sense that we called things >> a product). It is still a toy; it has a little bit more growing >> up to do. > >Odd. The *world's largest manufacturer* of the kit that >holds the internet together think that they want to run >linux on their kit, and have done for years. Your >perspective on the IT world is as skewed as your perspective >on pretty much everything else, it appears. I am not talking about the IT world. That's just a small niche of the computing biz. There is more to Real Life than IT. /BHA |