Code: Select all
channel ? data
Code: Select all
channel ! data
Code: Select all
ALT channel1 ? data SEQ proc1 proc2 channel2 ? data PAR proc1 proc2
A charming turn of phrase (and thanks for offering that definition).I'm all for open source everywhere, but the devout "Richard Stallman"-type attitude that some posses can go do one.
Probably a good thing you never encountered SPS (the assembly language on the IBM 1620). It didn't use "pointers", but it had indirect addressing with no level limit. One beginner mistake was to create an indirect addressing loop, which made for a single machine instruction that would never end (until the operator used the "Stop SCE", aka "Instant stop", button on console).karrika wrote: Frankly I don't like any languages that include the concept of a pointer...
I was also doing crypto (ssh and IPSec) for a while. Worked as chief engineer at SSH Communications Security.I did put up a proposal for using Transputers in a crypo engine in a military communications project. They went with a very clunky multi-processor design using Intel instead.
Thats pretty much what I think and want, too. Especially better single core performance. I have here a machine with an AMD Sempron 1,6 Ghz from 2005. When I run this CPU with 800 Mhz and do some single core benchmarks, it is (averaged out) still almost 2x faster than RPi 2. Of course, I could try the competitors (Odroid XU4, Pine 64+ ... or even the upcoming SBCs with Intel Cherry Trail), but their support and community will never reach RPi-Standards... So, for the time being, I keep waiting for RPi3... and hope to see a RPi3-desktop (or laptop, like the Pi-top) for my son in school, so that he does not get hooked with iPads or Chromebooks or such crap.rhubarb65 wrote:My Pis have been pretty reliable, (Samba server,VPN gateway and more)
the main issues for me with the PI2 are
1 desktop performance. Web Surfing still not useable. Needs 50-100% more CPU and a couple more GBs RAM.
2 server performance. IO throughput too slow (2.5MB/s). Lose The USB - NIC hardware contention to hopefully double throughput.
None of this need cost much 10-20$ ? and we now have a low-end but useable desktop or server. This is the PI3 hopefully. There is SOOOO MUCH demand
USB3 and another CPU doubling in the PI4 and we have a sweet mid range
and yes I know this is not what the original Pi was about (Kids experimenting). But it is what the new Pis will become
Dont forget that the Kids need a desktop to find the info they need in order to experiment
As a consumer, when it comes to hardware purchases I look for two things: how much does it cost, and does it do what it says it does? The latter is usually informed by reviews: if I see two competing products and one has an inferior firmware that leads to degraded performance then I'm probably not going to consider buying it. I used the example of SSDs since they were a significant purchase back when companies were still trying to nail their firmware, they weren't quite as cheap as they are now. These days I might consider a cheaper SSD over a more expensive one if I could modify the firmware of the cheaper one and increase its performance, but it's a question of financial risk. How much money am I willing to risk by buying a product and modifying it in a manner which would render a warranty invalid? Let's take GPUs as an example: I spent just shy of £300 on a GPU recently and there is no way I am going to risk losing warranty support on a £300 product (in fact the warranty turned out to be crucial, because the card in question was utterly dead on arrival). Let's say the manufacturer allowed modification of their firmware; how can they possibly support their products when it's impossible to predict the manner in which they're being used? They would have to support every variation of firmware out there when they're trying to assess whether there's a fault; otherwise how do you figure out whether it's a genuine fault in your hardware or something the customer has mucked up? Support costs would skyrocket. This is also one of the reasons that Apple have complete and utter control over their hardware ecosystem: the hardware and firmware in my Macbook is no different to the hardware and firmware in your Macbook, and it becomes far easier to support customers if you know exactly what they've got. (Again I'm not definding Apple here, because they are guilty of some extremely crappy business practices, like: changing connectors on hard drives so that you can't buy third party replacements, or modifying the standard Qi wireless charging system so that you have to buy the official Apple charger in order to charge your Apple Watch, or not bothering to adhere to the EU-mandated standard of using MicroUSB chargers for mobile phones)Heater wrote:Now, whilst you defend closed source "blobs" you also manage to point out why they are a bad idea. For example:
"...in the early days of SSDs it was a real minefield when it came to controllers, because some firmwares were implemented extremely poorly..."
"You only have to look at the Novena laptop project to see the difficulties - and expense - involved in making a truly "open" system."
You are providing evidence there that closed source leads things being lower quality and more expensive than they need to be and the consumer getting screwed over.
Those are flawed comparisons. We already have various open source firmwares for home routers; true that not all routers are supported, but I can't imagine that I'm the only one who has used the compatility lists of something like DD-WRT to inform their buying choices. In my case I'm more interested in better features and improved performance, not necessarily software "openness". Granted, the latter enables the former but I wouldn't rule out using reliable third-party firmware that performs very well, offers better features than standard, and yet is not open source. In any case, the onus should be on the manufacturers to release products which don't have gaping wide security holes; relying on a "community" to find and fix these errors absolves the manufacturer of any responsibility towards the security of their customers. You can't blame closed-source firmware for shoddy and halfassed testing/quality procedures. True, making the firmware open would allow people to release patches more quickly, but we already have that option available in existing third-party router firmware.Heater wrote:We only need to look at the current VW scandle or the array of buggy insecure home routers for further examples.
But couldn't the same also be said with the BIOS or UEFI of any other x86 platform? You can't boot the system without the BIOS or UEFI.Heater wrote:The Pi video blob is a bit of a special case as it "owns" your machine from boot up onwards. Indeed you cannot boot without it. In that respect its rather different to a typical blob loaded into some peripheral gadget. I think this is what causes many people grief.
Hmm...that sounds like you are making use of the mere possibility of open source. Good stuff isn't it?
I can't imagine that I'm the only one who has used the compatility lists of something like DD-WRT to inform their buying choices..
I think you have a typo there. We do indeed blame closed-source firmware for shoddy and halfassed testing/quality procedures.
You can't blame closed-source firmware for shoddy and halfassed testing/quality procedures
Yeah, why is that? As far as I know the BIOS is never used once the Linux kernel is booted. I never understood why the BIOS was not replaced by GRUB or some such years ago.
You can't boot the system without the BIOS or UEFI.
My "bench mark" system is one I built in 2003. The crucial components are dual processors (64-bit Opteron 240 CPUs at 1.4GHz), 2GB of ECC RAM, 3 36GB WD Raptor drives (10K rpm). Right now, the replacement is a Cubieboard 2 where the mass storage is a 60GB SSD connected by SATA II. Fortunately, the original system was overkill for its purpose.uit wrote: Thats pretty much what I think and want, too. Especially better single core performance. I have here a machine with an AMD Sempron 1,6 Ghz from 2005. When I run this CPU with 800 Mhz and do some single core benchmarks, it is (averaged out) still almost 2x faster than RPi 2. Of course, I could try the competitors (Odroid XU4, Pine 64+ ... or even the upcoming SBCs with Intel Cherry Trail), but their support and community will never reach RPi-Standards... So, for the time being, I keep waiting for RPi3... and hope to see a RPi3-desktop (or laptop, like the Pi-top) for my son in school, so that he does not get hooked with iPads or Chromebooks or such crap.
It used to be that the BIOS was the only way to control the hardware devices in the PC. The BIOS provided the drivers for the keyboard, screen and serial and parallel ports which the OS called through a software interrupt. (Mostly INT 21, although there were others.) These functions eventually migrated inside the OS for efficiency reasons but required a huge array of device drivers that had to be written, usually by Microsoft or application developers. It was quite a while before hardware manufacturers were convinced that it was their job. By the time that Windows 2000 came out, and the BIOS would have been a huge bottleneck, that battle had mostly been won.Heater wrote:Yeah, why is that? As far as I know the BIOS is never used once the Linux kernel is booted. I never understood why the BIOS was not replaced by GRUB or some such years ago.
Actually it used to be that a PC BIOS had no control over your machine after boot. The BIOS was 16 bit real mode code and your kernel went into 32 bit protected mode.
It's not a matter of being against it, its a matter that in order to make it work it would require a lot of software effort and that would take people off the educational and general Raspbian stuff.Djinny wrote:What do i want the RPi to do that it current can not? Full speed Android. I can't personally figure out why so many people are against it. I get it, the rpi is a learning tool, but so is any other computer. Doesn't stop you from gaming/entertainment or using it as a consumer product.
Eh? How does that have any effect on security?Bobalong wrote:It would be really nice if there were a USB port that could present as a device. I would like to put a Pi between my keyboard and PC for macros and security.
Not just "some", it's exactly how I converted an IBM Model M Terminal keyboard to USB. Not my code obviously, but an Arduino is capable of being a full-on keyboard encoder, complete with macro functions, key remapping, etc.DougieLawson wrote:Eh? How does that have any effect on security?Bobalong wrote:It would be really nice if there were a USB port that could present as a device. I would like to put a Pi between my keyboard and PC for macros and security.
You can do some keyboard emulation using an Arduino.