What's new

In the begining (God and the bit)

Cyberman

Moderator
Moderator
This is a lovely allegory, unfortunately it resembles life all too well.

In the beginning, God created the bit. And the bit was a zero.

On the first day, he toggled the 0 to 1, and the Universe was.

On the second day, God's boss wanted a demo, and tried to read the
bit. This being volatile memory, the bit reverted to a 0. And the
universe wasn't. God learned the importance of backups and memory
refresh, and spent the rest of the day reinstalling the universe.

On the third day, the bit cried "Oh, Lord! If you exist, give me a
sign!" And God created rev 2.0 of the bit, even better than the
original prototype. Those in Universe Marketing immediately realized
that "new and improved" wouldn't do justice to such a grand and
glorious creation. And so it was dubbed the Most Significant Bit. Many
bits followed, but only one was so honored.

On the fourth day, God created a simple ALU with 'add' and 'logical
shift' instructions. And the original bit discovered that - by
performing a single shift instruction -- it could become the Most
Significant Bit. And God realized the importance of computer security.

On the fifth day, God created the first mid-life kicker, rev 2.0 of
the ALU, with wonderful features, and said "Forget that add and shift
stuff. Go forth and multiply." And God saw that it was good.

On the sixth day, God invented pipelines, register hazards,
optimizing compilers, crosstalk, restartable instructions,
microinterrupts, race conditions, and propagation delays. Historians
have used this to convincingly argue that the sixth day must have been
a Monday.

On the seventh day, an engineering change introduced Windows into the
Universe, and it hasn't worked right since.


<snicker>
Cyb
 
H

h4tred

Guest
Sounds nice....

What about Linux, or did God have not enough time? xD

--mud
 

Bopper

New member
pfft, some bloke in sweden made that. I heard he was jesus' second cousin.

THe bloke who invented macs was a distant relateive of satan.
 

A.I.

Banned
Vista was the apple that tested Adam & Eve and all us poor sods.
 
Last edited:
H

h4tred

Guest
THe bloke who invented macs was a distant relateive of satan.

Hahahhah, very funny.

Go do your fucking Linux zealotry elsewhere. :matrix:
 
OP
Cyberman

Cyberman

Moderator
Moderator
I wonder if the next technique for business side of some OS is religious conversions by the sword? I've noticed a lot of people are religious about there 'love' for windows. The more I work with it the more I say "what the ... is this ..."
Seriously it's more frustrating than driving through downtown Pittsburgh at rush hour.

Cyb
 
H

h4tred

Guest
Exactly, all OSes have thier purposes and strengths.

Which makes me wonder why all the fanaticism behind Linux (because its "free", hurray! </sarcasm>). Makes me quite infuriated seeing people bash other OSes for no real reasons.

--mudlord
 
OP
Cyberman

Cyberman

Moderator
Moderator
I never have to patch my linux box for internet security issues due to poor design decisions in OS modules for handling non standard functionality? Most of my complaints about windows have to deal with poor decisions on adding functionality that is of questionable use at the sacrifice of the system remaining functional and secure. Most of the widgets windows runs aren't necessary. Many others have to run to make other functionality that should be part of the kernal work. It's interesting that most of NT system is a reinvention of a wheel.

What amazes me most is it does work. I'm impressed with the ingenuity of the programmers to make a bad archetecture design actually work.

As for fanaticism, I'm not a fanatic really, it just so happens I use it on occasion. currently I'm working with DSL in QEMU on a windows machine to set stuff up for a MID linux development system (beagle board). I plan on running MythTV on it and use Vuze on a windows machine for the media server. The problem is you can't do this sort of tinkering with Windows. Namely because you can't port it (someone else has to) and you can't install components for new hardware unless someone else writes it or you have the winCE developement kit. In either case for linux at least you can find a way to do it, for windows you have to continuously deal with something someone else wrote that may not work (such as USB drivers windows supplied for a few SiS mother boards simply don't work and do not report why). It's not about religion it's about, can I use this to do what I want? If no I use something else, in this case I simply don't use windows in my work, or my hobby unless it's for compiling something.

There aren't tools in windows for partitioning SD cards and installing File systems apart from NTFS and FAT ... series. These are kind of killer for making a simple bootable SD that runs on an embeded system with only 128M of RAM and 256M of flash with one SD card slot.

In simple terms linux works for some things better than windows. Windows works for Office tools and games. Linux is great for experimenting with something that requires a much more hands on approach. That's the way life is sometimes. Not everything has to run linux, but also not everything has to run windows, that's my view.

The original author of the prior creation story is adding a bit of humor not making religious commentary. People may sing praises for there favorite operating system but no operating system is perfect.

Cyb
 
Last edited:

Phaze

Lurker
Not everything has to run linux, but also not everything has to run windows, that's my view.

Thank you. I have run into far too many fanboys of either system. (Or even Mac users sometimes. I hate it when any OS user becomes pompous and boasts about how 'superior' theirs is over all else)

I myself don't usually like to use Linux (but I have to, for certain assignments in college. Of course their installation is bare bones and you don't have access to the C drive so you can't install anything... :|) but I don't think it's a waste or anything. It's an interesting Open Source OS.
 

Bopper

New member
Re: Cyberman and "Windows works better for Office and games".

Just a point. If Linux was more widely adapted, developers would start to make games for Linux too. In fact, if they did, they'd probably run better since Linux uses OpenGL instead of DirectX.

But majority rules and game makers design for Windows and, to a lesser extent, Macs.



Also, I tried running MythTV with Ubuntu recently. Was easy enough ,though my crappy USB TV stick thing was crap so i never got it fully working!! :p
 

Toasty

Sony battery
I've gotten to like Linux a lot more over the past six months or so. I've been having a few hardware issues with my desktop PC, and my laptop (purchased a little over a year ago) didn't quite have the specs to run Vista smoothly. I'm cheap, so rather than upgrade the RAM or buy another copy of XP, I put Ubuntu on it. (I figured I would only be using the laptop on trips, and I could put up with Linux for that long.)

Of course, with a dead desktop, I fell back onto my laptop, and lo and behold, Linux isn't all that bad once you get to know it. It's flexibility is outstanding, and WINE can actually run a few Windows programs/games better than Windows Vista itself. (In contrast, there are many that Vista runs better, but it is kind of a funny irony that a bunch of open source developers managed to run some Windows programs better than Microsoft.) I'm not a major Linux zealot or anything, and I still enjoy the ease of using a Windows system. But there will always be a little partition on my HD for a Linux distro.
 

t0rek

Wilson's Friend
DirectX is far better than OpenGL. OpenGL is out dated even in 3.0 (at least for gaming stuff). But forgetting about that, OpenGL games like Doom 3, Quake 4 and Prey have better performance in Linux
 
H

h4tred

Guest
DirectX is far better than OpenGL. OpenGL is out dated even in 3.0 (at least for gaming stuff)




.....................


Please post exact articles and references to support your view.
 
OP
Cyberman

Cyberman

Moderator
Moderator
Re: Cyberman and "Windows works better for Office and games".

Just a point. If Linux was more widely adapted, developers would start to make games for Linux too. In fact, if they did, they'd probably run better since Linux uses OpenGL instead of DirectX.
DirectX exists because Microsoft didn't want to use OpenGL so they came up with direct X. It's all about control with them. DX is still proprietary no matter how they say it. What is funny is that DX is very much like OGL now in terms of functionality if you have time look at some of the really old DX API code. It's amazing how they've evolved it to more like OGL (or is it ironic?)

But majority rules and game makers design for Windows and, to a lesser extent, Macs.

Also, I tried running MythTV with Ubuntu recently. Was easy enough ,though my crappy USB TV stick thing was crap so i never got it fully working!! :p
I'm still trying to find a use for Ubuntu LOL.
More seriously it's possible but the problem has always been 'follow the money' people are pretty much forced to use DX and NT, most computers come bundled that way and people don't understand that "I just want it to work" isn't necessarily the best way of doing things. That's life I guess. :)

Cyb
 
H

h4tred

Guest
Excellent debate. Was quite a enjoyable read. :)

Yeah, OpenGL these days is dead.

To be honest now the only benefits are:

* Cross platform (no need for Vista)

And thats its. OGL3 was a major fuckup, I agree. Was extremely disappointed. Now I am thinking just of learning D3D since that is the future for gaming/emulation......:(
 
OP
Cyberman

Cyberman

Moderator
Moderator
Well I believe neither are. OGL or D3D is.
If you look at the direction GPU's are going neither API as they sit fit.

I might point out MicroSoft is on the OGL committee, I believe they primarily use that as a technology siphon and interference.

Erstwhile more pointedly neither API fullfill the end game for development.
DX10 <-- equal screw up

So what does the future represent? I believe with the tendancy toward multicore (128 stream processors for example) is a Ray tracing based rendering scheme. With an extremely simple scene description (no actual textures) one can have a photo realistic image. Ray tracing is embarassingly parallel does not require back face elimination or depth sorting. It provides true reflection refraction and infinite surfaces (perfect sphere without fancy normal interpolation and other shading tricks due to a bunch of polygons). Even models of organic things are really easy to make.

The biggest impass in the industry has been the pile of content they needed to make there output realistic. With raytracing this is decimated. Mostly because models and surfaces can be simpler and yet have more detail (as it's not a fight of polygons anymore but a series of tensioned blobs arranged to make a surface for example). This also reduces the memory bandwidth needed for doing numerous passes on the display (since there AREN'T any). Filtering however gets interested. AA for example requires a higher resolution than the image you are rendering. Still with so many streamlined processors this shouldn't be a problem (you shoot more rays is all).

My first animation was on an SGI with PacMan chewing globs (DBKtrace) the eyes were photo realistic even though it looked sureal in all it looked good (you see this kind of animation in Reboot around 2002).

Cyb
 

Top