EDK : FSL macros defined by Xilinx are wrong

[Everett M. Greene]

Andrew Smallshaw <andrews@sdf.lonestar.org> writes:

This is also an area where Microsoft have completely lost the plot.
Since Windows 95 every major release of Windows has been accompanied
by a new interface. Applications are even worse - I don't know
how many style of toolbar have been played with over the last 15
years. Microsoft always make great play of the new interface but
who exactly does it benefit? Users are forced to learn new interfaces
every upgrade and application developers are forced to 'upgrade'
their programs with the new UI or risk being considered outdated.

Who considers anything but the "latest and greatest" to be
outdated? This group is supposedly intelligent and familiar
enough with computing to make decisions about "upgrading".
If newer products don't offer anything in valued improvements,
ignore them.

The only people I can see benefiting are Microsoft themseleves (it
provides a very obvious reason to upgrade, even if it does lack
clear benefits) and hardware manufacturers (the upgrade needs newer
faster hardware). For all the talk of enhancing the user's experience
it seems obvious to me that MS don't give a shit about users. All
that matters is ensuring that the revenue keeps coming in from
repeated meaningless upgrades.

 

[Jerry Avins]

Everett M. Greene wrote:

Andrew Smallshaw <andrews@sdf.lonestar.org> writes:

This is also an area where Microsoft have completely lost the plot.
Since Windows 95 every major release of Windows has been accompanied
by a new interface. Applications are even worse - I don't know
how many style of toolbar have been played with over the last 15
years. Microsoft always make great play of the new interface but
who exactly does it benefit? Users are forced to learn new interfaces
every upgrade and application developers are forced to 'upgrade'
their programs with the new UI or risk being considered outdated.

Who considers anything but the "latest and greatest" to be
outdated? This group is supposedly intelligent and familiar
enough with computing to make decisions about "upgrading".
If newer products don't offer anything in valued improvements,
ignore them.

It's not that simple. Others upgrade, then you can't read what they send
you. MS sees to that.

The only people I can see benefiting are Microsoft themseleves (it
provides a very obvious reason to upgrade, even if it does lack
clear benefits) and hardware manufacturers (the upgrade needs newer
faster hardware). For all the talk of enhancing the user's experience
it seems obvious to me that MS don't give a shit about users. All
that matters is ensuring that the revenue keeps coming in from
repeated meaningless upgrades.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ

 

[Jim Granville]

rickman wrote:

You seem naive. I am very happy with Windows 2000 on my desktop
computer. If I build another it will also run Windows 2000. But if I
want a laptop, I won't have much choice but to run Win XP (for the
next few weeks) or Vista. I only wish I had a choice.

It seems many designers ARE using Win2000, and are happy with the
quirks-they-know, and do NOT want to buy into another round of
learn-the-quirk. [I have Win2000 here, on 2 machines!]

Sadly, not all EDA companies see this, and Win2000 is moving off some
radars.
Given that XP and expecially Vista, will not install on
hardware too out-of-phase with the release date, that will also mean
retiring functional PCs to a land-fill somewhere
(and those PCs probably pre-date Lead-free).....

I did hear Dell were running XP supply to 2011 (or something like that
? )- because of customer demand, not Microsoft's.

-jg

 

[rickman]

On Jun 6, 2:13 pm, moja...@mojaveg.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com (Everett M.
Greene) wrote:

Andrew Smallshaw <andr...@sdf.lonestar.org> writes:
This is also an area where Microsoft have completely lost the plot.
Since Windows 95 every major release of Windows has been accompanied
by a new interface. Applications are even worse - I don't know
how many style of toolbar have been played with over the last 15
years. Microsoft always make great play of the new interface but
who exactly does it benefit? Users are forced to learn new interfaces
every upgrade and application developers are forced to 'upgrade'
their programs with the new UI or risk being considered outdated.

Who considers anything but the "latest and greatest" to be
outdated? This group is supposedly intelligent and familiar
enough with computing to make decisions about "upgrading".
If newer products don't offer anything in valued improvements,
ignore them.

You seem naive. I am very happy with Windows 2000 on my desktop
computer. If I build another it will also run Windows 2000. But if I
want a laptop, I won't have much choice but to run Win XP (for the
next few weeks) or Vista. I only wish I had a choice.

Rick

 

[CBFalconer]

rickman wrote:

moja...@mojaveg.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com (Everett M. Greene) wrote:

.... snip ...

Who considers anything but the "latest and greatest" to be
outdated? This group is supposedly intelligent and familiar
enough with computing to make decisions about "upgrading".
If newer products don't offer anything in valued improvements,
ignore them.

You seem naive. I am very happy with Windows 2000 on my desktop
computer. If I build another it will also run Windows 2000. But
if I want a laptop, I won't have much choice but to run Win XP
(for the next few weeks) or Vista. I only wish I had a choice.

Seriously consider Linux, especially Ubuntu. You do have a
choice. A better choice.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

 

[Randy Yates]

rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:

But if I want a laptop, I won't have much choice but to run Win XP
(for the next few weeks) or Vista. I only wish I had a choice.

You do. I have successfully installed Fedora 8 on an HP Pavillion
DV9620US.

However one thing to be careful of in running linux on laptops is
Broadcom's stubborn refusal to open up their wireless card
specifications so that open source drivers can be developed. Translated:
don't buy a laptop with a Broadcom wireless card (or chipset) if you
want to run linux on it. Atheros I've heard is very good and supported
by madwifi.org.

But, even though Broadcom is stubborn, I have still been successful at
getting the card to work on my home network. Unfortunately the reverse
engineered drivers (b43-fwcutter...) do not seem to support the Master
modes used in public hotspots.
--
% Randy Yates % "The dreamer, the unwoken fool -
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % in dreams, no pain will kiss the brow..."
%%% 919-577-9882 %
%%%% <yates@ieee.org> % 'Eldorado Overture', *Eldorado*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

 

[Didi]

Randy Yates wrote:

...
Atheros I've heard is very good and supported by madwifi.org.

Here is what I found on that madwifi.org:
" The About/HAL: Hardware Abstraction Layer. All access to the
hardware has to go thru this closed source component which is
maintained by Atheros. Unfortunately there is no documentation
for it except the public interfaces in hal/ah.h."

I can understand they want to have something working with linux,
but I definitely lose all sympathy when those of the "open source"
community begin to get involved in the wifi secrecy scenario.
It is not just hypocrytic, it is of course fuelling the monopoly over
wifi related software.
I would much rather have something with closed sources but
documented rather than open source here and there and closed
key parts.
If such cooperation to blackmail companies (like MS and those
making wifi parts usable only for MS) is OK with linux and GNU
then they should certainly shut up with their claim about openness.

Didi

------------------------------------------------------
Dimiter Popoff Transgalactic Instruments

http://www.tgi-sci.com
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/didi_tgi/sets/72157600228621276/

Original message: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.arch.embedded/msg/36859f5adcc6089e?dmode=source

 

[rickman]

On Jun 7, 12:13 am, Randy Yates <ya...@ieee.org> wrote:

rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> writes:
[...]
But if I want a laptop, I won't have much choice but to run Win XP
(for the next few weeks) or Vista. I only wish I had a choice.

You do. I have successfully installed Fedora 8 on an HP Pavillion
DV9620US.

However one thing to be careful of in running linux on laptops is
Broadcom's stubborn refusal to open up their wireless card
specifications so that open source drivers can be developed. Translated:
don't buy a laptop with a Broadcom wireless card (or chipset) if you
want to run linux on it. Atheros I've heard is very good and supported
by madwifi.org.

But, even though Broadcom is stubborn, I have still been successful at
getting the card to work on my home network. Unfortunately the reverse
engineered drivers (b43-fwcutter...) do not seem to support the Master
modes used in public hotspots.

I knew someone would mention Linux. Linux is still an alien platform
to me and there is any amount of software that is not supported under
it... or I should say that there is any amount of software that is
only supported on specific versions of Linux. If I run Fedora 8,
maybe vendor X gives me support and vendor Y doesn't. I run Redhat
and vendor X gives me support and vendor Z doesn't... etc, etc, etc.

The reason that I still run windows at all is because for me, it is
the only option. Currently Win2000 is the best that runs the minimum
required set of software. If I want a laptop, my only choice
currently is to buy a machine running XP which I can do for the next
few weeks. After that there will be no choice on a new machine except
for Vista. With a number of vendors not supporting that still, I will
not have the option of buying a new laptop with an installed OS that
runs the software I need.

Rick

 

[Randy Yates]

rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:

On Jun 7, 12:13 am, Randy Yates <ya...@ieee.org> wrote:
rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> writes:
[...]
But if I want a laptop, I won't have much choice but to run Win XP
(for the next few weeks) or Vista. I only wish I had a choice.

You do. I have successfully installed Fedora 8 on an HP Pavillion
DV9620US.

However one thing to be careful of in running linux on laptops is
Broadcom's stubborn refusal to open up their wireless card
specifications so that open source drivers can be developed. Translated:
don't buy a laptop with a Broadcom wireless card (or chipset) if you
want to run linux on it. Atheros I've heard is very good and supported
by madwifi.org.

But, even though Broadcom is stubborn, I have still been successful at
getting the card to work on my home network. Unfortunately the reverse
engineered drivers (b43-fwcutter...) do not seem to support the Master
modes used in public hotspots.

I knew someone would mention Linux. Linux is still an alien platform
to me and there is any amount of software that is not supported under
it... or I should say that there is any amount of software that is
only supported on specific versions of Linux. If I run Fedora 8,
maybe vendor X gives me support and vendor Y doesn't. I run Redhat
and vendor X gives me support and vendor Z doesn't... etc, etc, etc.

The reason that I still run windows at all is because for me, it is
the only option. Currently Win2000 is the best that runs the minimum
required set of software. If I want a laptop, my only choice
currently is to buy a machine running XP which I can do for the next
few weeks. After that there will be no choice on a new machine except
for Vista. With a number of vendors not supporting that still, I will
not have the option of buying a new laptop with an installed OS that
runs the software I need.

I have been able to operate just fine for 3 years without most of the
Microsoft-specific software. Most notably, OpenOffice replaces Microsoft
Office. And for those occasions that I do need a MS-based OS, such as
once a year to run TaxCut, or when I need to run TI Code Composer
Studio, I use Win2000 running in a virtual machine under a linux host.
I previously used VMWare and currently use VirtualBox for this.

What software do you use that demands a MS OS?
--
% Randy Yates % "She has an IQ of 1001, she has a jumpsuit
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % on, and she's also a telephone."
%%% 919-577-9882 %
%%%% <yates@ieee.org> % 'Yours Truly, 2095', *Time*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

 

[Severi]

Yksinkertainen kysymys: "Mitä Suomen valtion kansantalous saa tehtyä niillä
100% puhtailla energiamäärillään, joita sille tuottaa esim. wanhasta
palaneesta vesiekosähkövoimasta kunnostettu perinteinen
pienvesivoimalayhtiömme Lapijoen sähkö 12v aikana. 10 000 000kWh?" Kertoen
selkeää viestiä siitä miten oikeasti energianhuoltoamme pitäisi suunnata
uusille urilleen.

L.S.19.05-08. (Kyse on siitä massiivisesta kuparin tuhlauksesta jota
Posiva/TVO tunkee vuosimiljoonaksi totaalihaaskuun pois maailmasta jota
muuten 30v jaksoissaan kiertävä neitseellinen kupari edustaa. Näin jää
kansantaloudestamme kiertämättä 33 333 kertaa kyseinen 90 000t
kuparitonnistomäärä. Huikein taloustappioin vuosimiljoonan jemmaansa. Se
tietää tuleville sukupolvillemme käsittämättömän suuren jalomettaliaarteen
poistumista talouskasvuistamme ikuisesti!) "Kuparikaan ei tule tyhjästä.
Ympäristökeskuksen Outokummun kuparista laskemia. Yhteen (15t)
loppusijoituskapseliin tarvittava kupari aiheuttaa 82 500kg
hiilidioksidipäästöt. Energiaa kuluu noin 130 megawattituntia, (yhtä paljon
kuin sähkölämmitteinen pientalo kuluttaa 6,5 vuodessa. )Polttoöljyä palaa 7
500kg ja kivihiiltä 29 000kg. Raakaöljyä tarvitaan 2 600kg.
Kuparikaivoksessa kalliota on pilkottu yhden kapselin tarpeisiin lähes 500
tonnia. 12 000 uraanitonnin loppusijoitus edellyttää 6 000
polttoainekapselia. Lähde Suomen ympäristökeskus, Luvata Pori Oy Posiva".

Lasketaan nyt malliksi mitä puolestaan edustaa Lapijoen Sähkön tuotanto
edelliseen ydinvoiman AIHEUTTAMIIN megasaastutukseen verrattuna.10
000MW/130MW/kiapseli= 77 kapselia/ 15 000kg. Lapijoen sähkön tähänastisella
tuotannolla Suomen talous menetyksen sijaan SAISI:

-(10 000 000kWh sähkönä)
- 1 155 000kg puhdasta kuparia kansantalouteemme
- Säästäisi 6 352 500kg hiilidioksidipäästöt
- Polttoöljyä 577 500kg
- Kivihiiltä 2 233 000kg
- Raakaöljyä 200 200kg
- Kuparimalmia 38 500 000kg

Tällä aineella toisin käytettynä EI olisi loppusijoitettuna siis:
*154 000 kiloa plutoniumpolttoainekapseleita!*
* 1 540 000 kg bentoniittia Posivaonkaloon!*
_______________________________

n.50 712 200 kg materiaali vapaaseen käyttöön!
___________________________________

*Miten tätä enää voisi kommentoida? .. .. .MYKISTÄVÄÄ.. !

 

[Artturi]

Transmutaatiotekniikasta.
*Maassamme ydinalalla on tuskin mitään niin tarkoin TABU:na pirettyä
systeemiä, kuin mahdollisuus neutraloida edes osin maailman vaarallisimpia
ihmiskunnan ydinjätemoskiaan ydinvoimalasaasteista. Päivän selvää on, että
tämä olisi mahdollista, koska sotilassektorilla systeemiä on pyöritetty
vuosikymmenet. Mutta siviilisektorilla ydinmoskiinsa hukkuva ydintehtailumme
ei suin surmin halua tutustua realiteetteihin, koska periaate "likaaja
maksakoon pahuutensa" panisi ydinteollisuuden vastaamaan ihan OIKEASTI
ydinrikoksistaan ihmiskuntaamme vastaan! Siksi ydinhallintomme ei edes
maksata TVO/Posiva,Fortumeiltamme rahaa asiallisempaan
ydinjätevarastointitekniikan kehittelyyn. Vaikka syytä enemmän kuin olisi!
Kyse on siis siitä, että täysin toimimaton "suolapintasuolammikkoviskonta on
olevinaan halvempaa!" ja todellisuudessa kaikki ydinjäte muutaman sentin
näennäissäästämiseksi pannaan suolavesiallikkoihinsa höyrystymään surutta
lastenlapsiemme tuhoamiseksi!

* Mitään edes alkeismoraalia ei tässä ydinröyhkeydessä voi sivistyskansa
nähdä toki. Yhtä kaikki asiasta on toki pidetty myös tutkimuksia. Mutta
koska transmutaatio ON realistinen maailmanlaajuinen mahdollisuus jo nyt
saati tulevaisuudessa, mutta pikkasen maksaa. Ennenkaikkea, koska
ydinhallinnostamme miljoonien hengenvaaraan asettaminen on..niin "hauskaa"?
Mitä ilmeisemmin vallankäytön, valtiydinterrorin työväline painetaan KAIKKI
myös tämän aiheen esittelykanavat hiljaiseksi. Siksi päätin, että nimenoman
minun tehtävänäni on ydinalanalan huippuosaajana maamme ensimmäisenä raottaa
tämän realiteetin muotoja vuosikymmenten 100% valtiotiedotuspimennostaan.
Tulevaisuuden ydirikoksen Nyyrbergin oikeudenkäynnissä nämä artikkelien
esilläolot tulevat toki lisäämään rajusti syyllistämisnäytöllään
vastuulliset ydinökymme ydinvaltiorikostemme tekijöiden paineita! Pidemmittä
puheitta valtion huippusalattua aiheeseen liittyvää materiaalia siis vihdoin
ja viimein myös TIETOISUUTEEN ja PALJON!:
--------------------------
Transmutaatiolaitteisto on eräs tärkeimmistä tulevaisuuden käytetyn
ydinpolttoaineen jälleenkäsittelyosasista! Laitteella saadaan tuntien
säteilyttämiskäsittelyllä pudotettua hengenvaarallisten käytettyjen
polttoainetankojen säteilytasoa 1000 osaan. Aiheesta löytyy loistava
artikkeli. Jokin aika sitten esim. Tieteen Kuvalehti käsitteli tätä pitkälle
kehitettyä innovaatiota ansiokkaasti.

Idean alkutaipaleet sijoittuvat Cernin hiukkaskiihdytinkokeiluissa
saatuihin tuloksiin. Tarkoitukseen tarvitaan järeä hiukkaskiihdytinyksikkö.
Perusajatuksena on hiukkaspommittaa, (ydinvoimapiireissä niin pidetty teema
tuo viimeinen), mutta asiaan. Testeissä on voitu havaita, että
kiihdyttimestä tulevat partikkelihiukkaset poistivat fissioprosesseissa
virittyneiden atomiytimien viritystiloja tramaattisesti. Ehkä yksi hyvä
vertaus tilanteelle olisi seuraava: Ydinreaktorissa oleva polttoaine on
"ikään kuin" kaupunki joka joutuu sotapommituksissa rauniotilaan. Tällöin
osittain sortunut talokanta sisältää runsaasti potentiaalista satunnaisesti
purkautuvaa "gravitaatioenergiaa" joka romahtaessaan ohikulkijoiden päälle
säteilee satunnaista gravitaatioenergiaansa vaarallisen paljon
ympäristöönsä. Nyt siis hiukkaskiihdyttimellä "murskataan" lisäpommittamalla
muodostuneet romahtamisvaaralliset rauniot. Tällöin siis rauniot jyrätään
"turvalliseksi ihmisille" alueella liikkumiseen.

No, miksi sitten ei voitaisi kuljettaa polttoainetankoja jo
olemassaoloevien hiukkaskiihdyttimien luo saamaan käsittelyä? Kimurantiksi
tilanteen tekee, kun muistetaan Euroopan laajuinen massiivinen vastustus
tämän käytetyn uraanin edustamaa supermyrkyn kuljettamisesta
surullisenkuuluisaan eurooppalaiseen hyötöreaktoriin. Tämän opettamana se
vaihtoehto onkin koettu riskialttiiksi. Ehkei näillä turvattomilla aineilla
kannata vaarantaa kokonaisten valtioiden olemassaoloa. Muuten, kuin
ydinvoimaloita tehtailemalla tietenkin.

Jos jo aineen kuljetus koetaan ongelmalliseksi, on nostettu esille ajatus
että halvempi vaihtoehto olisi kehittää liikuteltava laitteisto. On
laskettu, että jopa yksi eurooppalainen yksikkö voisi käsitellä koko
maanosassa muodostuneen ydinpolttoainekertymän. Näin laitehankinta tulisi
maakohtaisesti täysin realistiselle tasolle, jotenka hintakaan ei ole
ydinvoimapiireille ylittämätön. Jonkinverran ongelmia on tuottanut tämän
pienehkön laitteen tehon saaminen riittäväksi. Mutta suuremmissa kiinteissä
hiukkaskiihdyttimissä on jo nyt saatu riittäviä tehoja. Tämä ei ole ongelman
ydin.

Miksi sitten suomalaisessa ydinvoimakeskustelussa järjestelmällisesti tämä
toimiva tulevaisuuden tekniikka halutaan jääräpäisesti torjua? Miksi TVO/
Posiva konsortio, piittaamatta kiistattomista laitteen tuomista eduista,
haluaakin pikaisesti haudata jätteensä tulevan laitteiston
saavuttamattomiin. Toisihan ydinjätelakiin aiheesta lisätty
transmutaatiokäsittely kiistatta lisähintaa konsortion ennestäänkin kalliin
omakustanteisen ydinsähkön hinnan päälle. Julkisuuteen tulisi ihmisille
selvemmin esille, että kuinka vaarallista ja epävakaata peliä yhtiö pelaa
torjuessaan tämänkin loistavan idean.

Sitten vielä, TVO/Posiva konsortion tarkoituksena oli jo
loppusijoitusluolaston paikkaa kartoittaessaan seuraava. Aikoinaan geologit
ilmoittivat Olkiluodon kallioperän niin huonoksi luolaston sijoituspaikaksi,
ettei sitä rankattu edes 100 parhaimman suomalaisen loppusijoituspaikan
joukkoon. Koskapa se sijaitsee oseaanisen laattatektoniikan
törmäyspisteessä. Jossa Atlantin selänne luo kasvavaa puristusta yhä. Koska
tämä valtamerellinen sedimenttimurskevyöhyke luo loppusijoituspaikalle
kenties suomen huonoimmat ja epävakaimmat säilytysolosuhteet.

Miksi sitten TVO/Posiva konsortion kovassa painostuksessa Olkiluoto otettiin
väkisin 101 vaihtoehtona mukaan? Koska alueella oleva luonnonmerisatama luo
loistavat mahdollisuudet tuoda maailmalta huomaamatta ainokaiseen
ydinjätevarastoon vaivatta kovalla valuutalla käytettyä ydinmateriaalia.
(Asiaa muuten TVO on varkain , tarkoin piilossa julkisuudesta aktiivisesti
kysellyt jo 5 vuoden ajan mm. Ruotsin kautta maailmalta Suomeen
kuljetettavista ydinjätteistä mm. Olkiluodon satamaa hyödyntäen! Sain
ennakkotietooni vahvistuksen "sisäpiireistä" mm. 2008!) Tämän
transmutaatiolaitteen mukanaan tuoman helpotuksen takia saattaisikin tämän
loistavan ydinmonopolibisneksen perusteet murtua. Koska vähemmin säteilevää
polttoainetta voisi jokin "kilpaileva" taho myös varastoida muualle ja vielä
Posivalaista vaihtoehtoa turvallisemminkin. Silloinhan selviäisi myös, että
kuinka kehnosti Posivalainen loppusijoitusluolahahmotelma on suunniteltu,
verrattuna "oikeampaan" vaihtoehtoon. Silloin loppusijoitusbisneksen
hintataso luonnollisesti laskisi ja TVO/Posiva konsortio ei saisi kaikkia
haikailemiaan rahoja.

 

[rickman]

On Jun 7, 2:29 pm, Randy Yates <ya...@ieee.org> wrote:

rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> writes:
On Jun 7, 12:13 am, Randy Yates <ya...@ieee.org> wrote:
rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> writes:
[...]
But if I want a laptop, I won't have much choice but to run Win XP
(for the next few weeks) or Vista. I only wish I had a choice.

You do. I have successfully installed Fedora 8 on an HP Pavillion
DV9620US.

However one thing to be careful of in running linux on laptops is
Broadcom's stubborn refusal to open up their wireless card
specifications so that open source drivers can be developed. Translated:
don't buy a laptop with a Broadcom wireless card (or chipset) if you
want to run linux on it. Atheros I've heard is very good and supported
by madwifi.org.

But, even though Broadcom is stubborn, I have still been successful at
getting the card to work on my home network. Unfortunately the reverse
engineered drivers (b43-fwcutter...) do not seem to support the Master
modes used in public hotspots.

I knew someone would mention Linux. Linux is still an alien platform
to me and there is any amount of software that is not supported under
it... or I should say that there is any amount of software that is
only supported on specific versions of Linux. If I run Fedora 8,
maybe vendor X gives me support and vendor Y doesn't. I run Redhat
and vendor X gives me support and vendor Z doesn't... etc, etc, etc.

The reason that I still run windows at all is because for me, it is
the only option. Currently Win2000 is the best that runs the minimum
required set of software. If I want a laptop, my only choice
currently is to buy a machine running XP which I can do for the next
few weeks. After that there will be no choice on a new machine except
for Vista. With a number of vendors not supporting that still, I will
not have the option of buying a new laptop with an installed OS that
runs the software I need.

I have been able to operate just fine for 3 years without most of the
Microsoft-specific software. Most notably, OpenOffice replaces Microsoft
Office. And for those occasions that I do need a MS-based OS, such as
once a year to run TaxCut, or when I need to run TI Code Composer
Studio, I use Win2000 running in a virtual machine under a linux host.
I previously used VMWare and currently use VirtualBox for this.

What software do you use that demands a MS OS?

Various CAD/CAE tools. I am sure that it is possible to run most of
them under WINE or something similar, but they are not supported that
way. I am very happy with Win2000 and I see no need to switch to a
*nix flavor. Even if I buy the *nix version of the various tools,
they only support the version of *nix that they indicate. The CAE
tools are pretty flaky compared to general software and I don't need
the headache of trying to get support while running under an
unsupported OS.

My only problem is buying a laptop. You can't build one yourself and
the vendors don't offer Win2K anymore. Next month even Dell says they
will no longer offer XP. This is a double whammy because most of the
tools are not supported under Vista yet AFAIK.

 

[rickman]

On Jun 6, 11:46 pm, CBFalconer <cbfalco...@yahoo.com> wrote:

rickman wrote:
moja...@mojaveg.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com (Everett M. Greene) wrote:

... snip ...

Who considers anything but the "latest and greatest" to be
outdated? This group is supposedly intelligent and familiar
enough with computing to make decisions about "upgrading".
If newer products don't offer anything in valued improvements,
ignore them.

You seem naive. I am very happy with Windows 2000 on my desktop
computer. If I build another it will also run Windows 2000. But
if I want a laptop, I won't have much choice but to run Win XP
(for the next few weeks) or Vista. I only wish I had a choice.

Seriously consider Linux, especially Ubuntu. You do have a
choice. A better choice.

Only if I want to run programs without support. Most CAD/CAE tools
are unsupported under *nix or only supported on a single flavor and
version. The vendors don't even agree on the flavor and version
supported.

But there is also the issue of knowledge. I have *no* experience with
*nix... well, no good experience. Some years ago I bought a $200
Walmart machine which came with Lindows, a version of Linux. It had a
number of apps which were flaky and I didn't see much utility to it.
I couldn't figure out how to do a lot of things and I ended up
installing Win2000 over it. The company was also pretty poor about
meeting the license requirements. I thought they had to make the
sources available in the same manner that they distributed the
binary. When I first asked them about it they feigned ignorance.
After nagging they shipped me a hand copied CD. When I received an
update there were no sources. This time I was told that they were
available on the web site. Yes, they were there, but as individual
files which had to be downloaded one at a time.

I have just never had a positive experience with linux. I don't know
how much time it would take, but I can't see spending the investment
to convert and I seldom have the time to investigate. There is also
the research I would have to do to figure out *which* version of Linux
I would want. How can Linux be standard if there are so many versions
and each software vendor only supports a few?

So what exactly is better about Linux?

 

[Randy Yates]

rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:

On Jun 6, 11:46 pm, CBFalconer <cbfalco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
rickman wrote:
moja...@mojaveg.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com (Everett M. Greene) wrote:

... snip ...

Who considers anything but the "latest and greatest" to be
outdated? This group is supposedly intelligent and familiar
enough with computing to make decisions about "upgrading".
If newer products don't offer anything in valued improvements,
ignore them.

You seem naive. I am very happy with Windows 2000 on my desktop
computer. If I build another it will also run Windows 2000. But
if I want a laptop, I won't have much choice but to run Win XP
(for the next few weeks) or Vista. I only wish I had a choice.

Seriously consider Linux, especially Ubuntu. You do have a
choice. A better choice.

Only if I want to run programs without support. Most CAD/CAE tools
are unsupported under *nix or only supported on a single flavor and
version. The vendors don't even agree on the flavor and version
supported.

I don't doubt that - I don't think Orcad runs on any linux platform.

But there is also the issue of knowledge. I have *no* experience with
*nix... well, no good experience. Some years ago I bought a $200
Walmart machine which came with Lindows, a version of Linux. It had a
number of apps which were flaky and I didn't see much utility to it.
I couldn't figure out how to do a lot of things and I ended up
installing Win2000 over it. The company was also pretty poor about
meeting the license requirements. I thought they had to make the
sources available in the same manner that they distributed the
binary. When I first asked them about it they feigned ignorance.
After nagging they shipped me a hand copied CD. When I received an
update there were no sources. This time I was told that they were
available on the web site. Yes, they were there, but as individual
files which had to be downloaded one at a time.

That was probably a bad way to experience linux. These days, for
evaluation, you can install it (whatever flavor) in a virtual machine
and play with it that way. The VM takes a piece of your hard drive (10G
would be plenty), but in today's world that's largely negligible.

I have just never had a positive experience with linux. I don't know
how much time it would take, but I can't see spending the investment
to convert and I seldom have the time to investigate. There is also
the research I would have to do to figure out *which* version of Linux
I would want. How can Linux be standard if there are so many versions
and each software vendor only supports a few?

Well, those are all valid reasons to stick with Windows. But that's not
what you said; you said you didn't have an option. The truth is, you
do have an option, but it doesn't seem very appealing to you.

Also note that there are a set of open-source EDA tools available called
gEDA - check then out.

So what exactly is better about Linux?

1. It's free.

2. It won't watch over your shoulder (Big Brother):

a. You can watch whatever videos or audios you want whenever and
make all the copies you'd ever want.

b. No "phoning home" to tell the Corp. what your spending habits,
eating habits, sex habits, surfing habits, etc. are.

c. No checking to see if this is a valid installation.

3. It's built for global access.

a. It is based on the X11 windows system, which means that you
can run any application (X client) anywhere in the world from
your desktop.

b. It comes with ssh and ssh server out-of-the-box. That means that
you can access (securely) any file on your system from any point on
the internet.

c. It's easy to install Apache (a web server), postgresql (a database
server), subversion (version control software), and a myriad of other
things and access these servers from anywhere there's an internet
connection.

4. It's beautiful. There are several window managers that can be
configured any way you want. I use Gnome.

5. It's fast. The newer linux distros, along with your video card's GL
driver, makes fast work of graphics.

6. It's fun. It comes with a ton of utilities, games, programmer
utilities, a Web server (THE web server - Apache), etc. out-of-the-box.

7. You only have to reboot once a month (if that).
--
% Randy Yates % "So now it's getting late,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % and those who hesitate
%%% 919-577-9882 % got no one..."
%%%% <yates@ieee.org> % 'Waterfall', *Face The Music*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

 

[Vladimir Vassilevsky]

rickman wrote:

I couldn't figure out how to do a lot of things and I ended up
installing Win2000 over it.

So what exactly is better about Linux?

I second your opinion regarding Linux. It is a toy of students and
enthusiasts who are enjoying the process of configuring the computer
instead of getting the actual job done hard and fast.

BTW, why do you prefer Win2k rather then XP?


Vladimir Vassilevsky
DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
http://www.abvolt.com

 

[CBFalconer]

rickman wrote:

.... snip ...

I have just never had a positive experience with linux. I don't
know how much time it would take, but I can't see spending the
investment to convert and I seldom have the time to investigate.
There is also the research I would have to do to figure out *which*
version of Linux I would want. How can Linux be standard if there
are so many versions and each software vendor only supports a few?

So what exactly is better about Linux?

I think you will find that switching from Winders is much easier
now. Also, you have much less disturbance of your existing system
to simply try it out. If you get the free CD from Ubuntu.com you
will find you can install a working system without using your hard
disk at all (some penalties, obviously), or a dual booting system,
with no penalties except gobbling some disk space, or a complete
replacement. Just fill out the order and wait three or so weeks
for a CD delivery.

The unixy variations are largely in the GUI programs. The old
fashioned easy linkage of CLI programs remains available, largely
unchanged. Ubuntu 8.04 is a long term maintenance version (3
years). I am still running the previouss long term version (6.06).

Expect to invest one to two hours. Also see alt.os.linux.ubuntu.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

 

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

rickman wrote:
(snip)

But there is also the issue of knowledge. I have *no* experience with
*nix... well, no good experience. Some years ago I bought a $200
Walmart machine which came with Lindows, a version of Linux. It had a
number of apps which were flaky and I didn't see much utility to it.
I couldn't figure out how to do a lot of things and I ended up
installing Win2000 over it. The company was also pretty poor about
meeting the license requirements. I thought they had to make the
sources available in the same manner that they distributed the
binary. When I first asked them about it they feigned ignorance.
After nagging they shipped me a hand copied CD. When I received an
update there were no sources. This time I was told that they were
available on the web site. Yes, they were there, but as individual
files which had to be downloaded one at a time.

That is what wget is good for.

I have just never had a positive experience with linux. I don't know
how much time it would take, but I can't see spending the investment
to convert and I seldom have the time to investigate. There is also
the research I would have to do to figure out *which* version of Linux
I would want. How can Linux be standard if there are so many versions
and each software vendor only supports a few?

I like scientific linux, see http://www.scientificlinux.org/

 

[Henri Lundberg]

*Yleisön pyynnöstä alan julkaisemaan Suomen ydinaavikoitumisen
nykytilastamme kertovaa faktaa.
M.T.05.05-08. Ilmatieteen laitos.

PAIKKA SADE mm.
_________________
Helsinki
Kiikkala
Turku 0,2mm
Jormala
Pori
Niinisalo
Tampere 1,5
Jokioinen 3,7
Lahti
Utti

L.ranta
Mikkeli
Ilomantsi
Joensuu
Kuopio
Viitasaari
Jyväskylä
Ähtäri
Kauhava
Vaasa 0,4

Ylivieska
Kajaani
Ruukki
Pudasjärvi
Suomussalmi
Kuusamo 0,1
Rovaniemi
Pello 1,7
Salla 0,1
Sodankylä 1,4

Muonio 0,1
Kilpisjärvi 1,0
Ivalo 0,3
Utsjoki 0,1

*KESKIARVO= 34kpl/ 0,31mm
Keskisadantavrk. 2mm/5vrk/10mm= 3,1%

JÄI -96,9% satamatta
_________________

*Aika huimaavat kertymät siis jälleen kerran ydinaavikoituvassa
maailmassamme. Toki voin tuoda esiin, että tällaisen tiedon jälkeen
totaalivedätystään korostaakseen samainen Ilmatieteen laitos tietoisena
siitä, ettei maassamme ole satanut liki 2kk aikaan vedättää pokkana, että:
"Viime aikoina on satanut tavannomaista enemmän. Kuukausisadannan
vaihteluväli oli ollut 20- 60mm välillä". Totuus tuosta kun on se, että
maassamme pitäisi normisataa 2mm/vrk. Eli edelläkerrottu on 33%-100%
normaalistamme. Ilmatieteen laitos valehtelee julkisesti 67% tiputtelun ja
ydinaavikoitumisellemme nykytyypillisen -33% vesitakadon olevan mielestään
NORMAALIA! Lisäksi kaiken huipuksi väittää nykytilanteen olevan
"tavannomaista vetisemmän ja enemmän!" Siltapaa ja ydinalan käskytyksen
mukaan näyttää tämä valtiolaitos etenevän kansallishuijauksissaan.

 

[Jonathan Bromley]

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 15:00:09 +0200, "Norman Bollmann" wrote:

Problem is, the software implementation is far to slow.

In which case the algorithm is probably bad. Modern
database technology is pretty darned good, and is
largely limited by storage access speed. I think you
should start by looking at better ways to index your
database, rather than going for more brute-force speed.

Target is a database searching of
262144 elements with 16 bit each in maximum 220 ms.

Do you really mean this? Only half a megabyte of data?
That's easily small enough to fit into main memory
of any reasonable computer. At 220ms per 256K words
you have nearly a microsecond to work on each word -
enough time for dozens or even hundreds of machine
instructions. Are your numbers wrong? If not, there's
something sadly wrong with your software.

Does anybody have experience with FPGA based database
handling or similar tasks? Your urgent response will
be highly appreciated!

I'm sure it can be done, and I'm vaguely aware of hearing
of people doing such things, but you haven't yet made
a case for needing it. FPGAs can provide impressive
speedup for some types of sorting and indexing tasks,
but it is often harder to decide how to keep the
datapath busy than it is to decide what to do with
the data when you've got it inside the FPGA fabric.
Database problems tend to have patterns of address
activity that fly around all over the place, as a
strong function of the data itself, under control
of complicated algorithms. That's something that
software tends to be much better at than hardware.
--
Jonathan Bromley, Consultant

DOULOS - Developing Design Know-how
VHDL * Verilog * SystemC * e * Perl * Tcl/Tk * Project Services

Doulos Ltd., 22 Market Place, Ringwood, BH24 1AW, UK
jonathan.bromley@MYCOMPANY.com
http://www.MYCOMPANY.com

The contents of this message may contain personal views which
are not the views of Doulos Ltd., unless specifically stated.

 

[Leon]

On 23 Jun, 11:42, christopher.saun...@durham.ac.uk (c d saunter)
wrote:

Symon (symon_bre...@hotmail.com) wrote:
: Jeff Cunningham wrote:

:
: > Speaking of FPGA alternatives, this recently caught my eye. Don't know
: > much about it, but it sure looks cool:
:
: >http://www.tilera.com/products/processors.php
:
: > -Jeff

: Jeff,
: Where have I seen that before?
: Ah yes,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transputer
: Syms.

One of the things that strikes me about the Transputer is that it
was parallel hardware designed hand-in-hand with parallel software.

Not C/C++

It seems odd that there is so much convergence happening between a very
complex highly sequential CPUs and functionally simple, highly parallel
FPGA type devices, with lots of innovative hardware flying about.

All this convergence is happening in hardware, but for it to really work
don't the software environments need to do the same...

---

cds

The new XMOS devices (out of the same stable as the transputer) are
intended to bridge the gap between FPGAs and processors:

http://www.xmos.com/

Leon