Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> __/ [ Rex Ballard ] on Saturday 23 September 2006 10:36 \__
>
> > Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> >> ATI Goes Open-Source With Stream Computing
> >>
> >> ,----[ Quote ]
> >> | ATI's latest push for general purpose GPUs will allow software
> >> | developers to harness GPU power for non-graphics applications.
> >> `----
> >>
> >> http://techfreep.com/ati-flexes-its-gpu-with-stream-computing.htm
> >
> > Just speculating, but it sound like they have implemented X11/XGL in
> > hardware.
>
> I couldn't quite see it, but then again, I didn't read the article carefully.
> There is a common argument that I once came across and it speak about how
> it's cheaper to move everything possible to the 'software end', as means of
> exposing the card to less irreversible vulnerabilities (also the reason for
> closing the designs).
You can program a card like this in flash-ram. The X11 server is an
"appliance", as is the XGL server. The Window manager in "front" of
the server can read Xwire, but can also read "extensions" such as PHIGS
or Postscript, or window decorations, and make the approprate
conversion into the correct XGL "wire" codes on behalf of the client.
It's the "magic" of ICCCM.
> This may lead to skepticism over your contention. I
> think this opinion was posted as a comment in Slashdot, by a GPU
> engineers/designer. What I still loathe is dedicated support for proprietary
> technologies such as DirectX.
DirectX is loosing popularity. There are DirectX to OpenGL conversion
libraries, and there are OpenGL to DirectX libraries. Coding to OpenGL
means that you can run on almost anything (except maybe Xbox/360).
Coding to DirectX means that you can only run on Windows XP or later,
and maybe Xbox/360.
Since older/slower machines, including Windows 98, Windows 2000,
Windows ME, and and NT 4.0 used OpenGL, as well as most Linux machines,
the cost of a few hundred instructions to use DirectX conversions to
OpenGL could significantly slow down the machine. On the other hand,
since DirectX is deployed on faster XP machines, which also support
OpenGL, the few hundred extra instructions may actually make the game
more "playable". In most cases, Windows GDI will try to synchronize to
the V-sync timing anyway, which means that there would be no noticable
difference unless you were using Linux as the core OS and running
Windows under Xen. Since Linux/X11 doesn't "wait around" for V-sync,
the came would actually be faster. Perhaps even too fast.
> It's as though hardware is moving towards a
> close binding to a platform, applications, and a vendor.
Actually, the other way around. Linksys, Dlink, and Netgear, among
others, have been offering Linux router "appliances" for several years
now. It's possible to even get the source code for these devices. One
such device had two USB-A ports added, and became a NAS device.
Another had WiFi chips and an antenna added and became a WiFi hub. The
day of the "Linux/XGL - Display Appliance" isn't really that hard to
concieve. Essentially, that's what digital cable tuners, TiVo boxes,
and DvD players are, just at lower resolution.
> And that's exactly what Microsoft sought to achieve.
> Kill OpenGL and no game will ever be
> ported to a competitor's platform.
Either that, or OSS will come up with DirectX because the came makers
won't want to miss out on market opportunities.
Microsoft may have a lock on the OEM PC market, but white-boxes,
appliances, and game machines are a very different story. Even Palm is
offering a Linux powered PDA.
It's only a matter of time before Sharp releases a version of the
Zaurus back into the US market. It's only a matter of time before
Panisonic, Motorola, Quasar, Phillips,... monitors come with X11/XGL
servers.
AMD capture the biggest increase in market share ever, up to 25% of the
market and expecting a 42% increase, by offering a chip that was only a
"Selling Point" if the PC machine it powered was running Linux. With
that "Linux Ready" advantage, they captured huge new markets. HP
gained market share in the desktop, while IBM, caught with it's pants
down, sold off their PC division. Dell has shifted gears as well, and
the Intel Duo chip is designed to run Linux and Windows "side-by-side"
using Xen.
> Same with Winmodems, ActiveX, among many
> other anticompetitive 'extensions', 'innovations', and close collaboration
> with hardware manufacturer, who have the ability to imprison the end user.
But look at the long-term picture. Yes, Microsoft got some short-term
advantage, but Winmodems gave way to Linux powered cable modems and DSL
modems. Today, Linux protects Windows from many direct attacks by
functioning as a NAT firewall as well as a Router and Hub.
> > Just point your X-wire byte stream into it, and you have an optimized
> > X11 server and XGL server, ready to do your beck and call.
> >
> > Way to go ATI.
> >
> > Look for this card on "Linux Ready" machines.
>
> Linux-ready as opposed to people-ready (AKA botmaster-ready)? I'm sure that
> the script kiddies get a stiffy just thinking about all that Vista-capable
> gear that will become available for them to use, once it's hijacked. I guess
> blacklists to manage and cope with DDOS attacks will be harder with IPv6 in
> the wild.
Linux has supported IPv6 for years, and hasn't had too much trouble.
Registration might become more "mandatory" but it could get simpler.
On the other hand, dynamically assigned "short duration" DHCP addresses
could become "forbidden". You'll get a DHCP address and it will
"stick". This goes back to the original concept of RARP, which which
IP addresses were assigned to MAC addresses. A "dynamic RARP" was
implemented which would allow an "unassigned" MAC to be set
dynamically. DHCP was just a simple way for companies to assign a
limited number of addresses, for example, 256 class C addresses, to
say, 2000 dial-up users who might be on for 20-30 minutes.
> By that point nonetheless, the Internet will have been in a
> catastrophic state anyway. How long will it be before I get 2000 SPAM per
> day? Judging by the current nonlinear pace, as well as the recent (yet
> unpatched) threats that expose Windows to hijackers, it may take just
> several months.
Maybe weeks. There were appearantly a few threats to release a
"terrorist virus" that would spread itself as rapidly as possible, then
after an unspecified period, would completely trash the computers.
Such a virus would make the Morris Worm look like "script kiddies".
For those who don't remember, the Morris Worm was an attempt to map the
internet, that went wrong. Morris had accidentally set the wrong value
in the timer loop between probes. Instead of waiting 300 seconds
(about 5 minutes), it waited only 300 milliseconds. It spread so fast
that UNIX machines all over the world stopped functioning in a matter
of minutes. Morris realized his mistake immediately, and tried to send
out instructions on counter-measures, but by the time admins got the
message, the were already infected.
Fortunately, the mass media was able to broadcast recovery measures,
and the problem was remedied in about 6 hours, but for the first 2-3
hours, there was even fear that this was a prelude to a Nuclear attack
by the Soviet Union, or the USA.
It took UNIX almost 3 years to recover the trust of the corporate
world. Many companies even made references to the Morris Worm when
UNIX was proposed (especially those who wanted to keep the mainframe in
place as the IT center). Over that 3 year period, even BSD systems
were beefed up and tightened up to the same levels of security as many
military systems. In fact, by 1992, the NSA was even concerned that
Unix systems were TOO SECURE, making them impossible to monitor. They
tried to restrict the use of DES, Kerberos, and RSA encryption. Even
today, the NSA maintains strict control of Certificate Authorities by
having the CA certificates assigned by companies like Verisign. This
allows SSL encryption keys to be obtained by court order (or request
from Microsoft).
> A Cisco executive said Vista is scary. Can it be more scary
> than its predecessors? If so, I might as well start buying some tin cans and
> fill my home with food, in preparation for wartime.
Probably not a bad idea. Fortunately, Linux and Unix aren't so
vulnerable. On the other hand, an improper switching of circuits
blacked out NYC and most of the northeast for 2 days. What if such
acts were planned by terrorists?
Windows and Vista have been breeding grounds for the kinds of viruses
that can really do nasty stuff. Melissa, ILOVEYOU, and NIMDA viruses
were trivial compared to some of the really destructive things that can
leak confidential information to unknown recipients, send malicious
e-mail or web accesses on your behalf, turn your laptop or cell phone
into a bugging device (blue-tooth access), or low-level wipe your hard
drive to the point where it can't even be formatted.
And all of this so that Microsoft can catch the 2% of the people who
didn't pay for Windows when they bought their OEM machines?
Yes, 2% is 20 million users. And 2 percent of annual sales is 1
million machines, and the OEM price for a license is about $30 per
machine, meaning that Microsoft might have lost $30 million in revenue
due to piracy. But even then, the "pirate" may already have a Windows
license from another machine, which he has "wiped clean, even removing
the hard drive, or instaling Linux and filling it with garbage files,
or formatted as a USB drive, again wiping the original Windows clean.
The licenses for OS versions prior to XP permit such 1 time transfers,
so long as the original is removed from the original machine and/or
destroyed.
And so that Microsoft can get that last little $30 million, they open
the back door to nearly $30 billion in damage per month. Microsoft
doesn't even consider spyware to be malware. Perhaps they are paying
for the right to invade hundreds of millions of Windows machines? I
don't know. What I do know is that Microsoft has been promising
"secure" versions of Windows since 1995, when it was discovered that
Windows 95 "shares" could be read by anyone - without knowing a
password.
Microsoft even claimed that Windows NT 4.0 was C2 secure (lowest level
security) but reading the actual report indicated that this was only
true if IE were disabled, and there were no other 3rd party software
installed. The NSA audited Linux and eventually came up with
configuration guidlines to make it acceptable for "top secret"
information.
Fundamentally, Microsoft is it's own worst enemy. Tighten security and
you disable all of the functions that make Microsoft desirable as an OS
platform. Applications don't work, services can't be reached, and
websites that need IE won't talk to you. Uncripple the applications by
reactivating ActiveX, Signed Java Applets, Preview HTML e-mail, and
firewalls that enable 3rd party applications to function, and you
disable security.
So now, Microsoft has decided to take action against evil viruses like
Linux, FireFox, and Open Offiice, by disabling "ring 0" access, by
requiring that ALL drivers be signed by Microsoft and refusing to allow
anything that isn't signed to be installed even if the user want it
installed. They intend to prevent the installation of any boot
managers, virtual machine managers, or other "viruses" like VMWare and
Win4Lin, unless it's controlled by Vista.
The irony is that Microsoft is again slitting their own throats. If
the only way to get a functional system that lets me use the system the
way I want to is to install a SUSE Linux CD and wipe Vista off the hard
drive - - So Be It!
|
|
