Discussion in 'Business & Enterprise Computing' started by elvis, Jul 1, 2008.
VPN that looks like it tops out at at 3MB/3MB - their own applications are bottlenecked by it.
Like my Dad always said "Do as we say not as we do"
Thank you I needed a lol
wow and it's still broken.
FMD, more non login exploits for exchange:
You want CVEs? I'LL GIVE YOU CVES!
Happy Vulnerability Wednesday, Microsofties.
Yup cause *nix (or by proxy, android phones) doesn't have any vuln's.
OMFG, privacy.gov.au is still broken . We'd notified them on Monday as well
Yeah no, Android has some linage to Linux,its ecosystem is not *nix or *nix like it is more akin to Microsoft OS than a true *nix.
Android is more closed source these days then 2007.
Obvious prediction was obvious.
Rolling out the "elvis told you so" banner. Toot toot.
Haha, I do think it takes a little longer than 6 months for them to R&D this stuff. Me "predicting" the obvious 6 months before public release isn't anything special.
But I am constantly amazed at how many people think we'll be operating on x86 "forever", given RISC-V's explosion in the embedded space, ARM's dominance of mobile and pushing into laptop/desktop, and Nvidia's dominance of high end compute and acquisition of Mellanox. Pretty obvious where things are going in the next 5-10 years.
yep next 5-10 years its all wintel baby......
yes im serious
* Looks at recent $100K GPU Linux HPC upgrade invoice *
* Looks at thread *
* Looks at invoice again *
This could be fun. I think your both right but in different ways. Elvis is right as we are starting to see a genuine evolution and diversification of CPU's with a clear move towards the best for the purpose mentality combined with the movement of more every day software tasks into browser and out of locally installed applications. While itsmydamnation is also right as consumers need available software (including games) to run on the new platforms and hence will not want to move.
If you go back the only reason we are still on x86 is because AMD worked out how to do 32 & 64 bit processing on one chip. Prior to that the 64 bit chips were 64 bit only (see intel 64 bit chips) with no backwards compatibility. The market at the time was also heavily tied to locally installed software applications and there was no way companies that had invested millions in custom software were going to throw that away, hence x86 is still here and 32 bit applications are still getting made. With the reduction of locally installed application we have to ability to move away from this chip or that chip and into the best for the job chip.
Personally I can't wait to see more usage of dedicated parallel processing chips into systems and opening up of better smarts in the computer itself. Having the ability for example to say "run this task every time I log in" and have the computer configure itself to do that job and not have to run through the configuration manually would be great as the easier automation becomes the more people will automate.
that wasn't "AMD worked out how to"
Intel made the deliberate decision to break away from x86 and clean slate Itanium IA64, because even Intel knows how broken x86 is. History shows however, users are lazy/dumb/high inertia so didn't/wouldn't move from wintel even when it's the worse option.
Intel made a big bet, it didn't pan out (like a lot of technically superior technologies over the decades the alternative that's more convenient wins), AMD went the safe/easy route, bolt on more and more onto x86, make it even more bloated and full of security holes. Everybody wins. oh wait.
If you made the effort (properly write application code for it, just just throw some x86 at it and hope for the best) to go IA64 properly it was far supreior at the time.
Imagine if there was no ARM around when smart phones became a thing, and all smartphones were x86, and then 5/10 years later, ARM came along, we'd still be using x86 phones because market inertia.
for RISC-V or any other new architecture to take off, it needs to find its killer market, one that's not already dominated with decade of software written for something else, you can't win in that space.
Working off memory so forgot about that bit . But I do remember that IA64 was better that AMD64 it just did not get the software support to push it into the consumer market.