On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 19:55:02 +1100, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > WC -Sx- Jones
>
> "Dash Sx Dash" must be hard to pronounce quickly..
LOL :-) Sx is an Action Verb.
And it's damn easy to find in search engines; however my first
mumblings into Usenet are likely deleted now -- I
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 07:59:34AM -0500, Chasecreek Systemhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 23:32:39 +1100, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 10:01:59AM -0500, Chasecreek Systemhouse wrote:
> >
> > It would be nice if you included your name in your posts.
>
>
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 05:40:30PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 05:00:12PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> >>
> >> Ah, you misinterpreted my point in quite an impressive way. Valid
> >> numbers or not, his statement was of the form "Here is how
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 05:00:12PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>>
>> Ah, you misinterpreted my point in quite an impressive way. Valid
>> numbers or not, his statement was of the form "Here is how we do it,
>> and our way is the only way in which it is possible to do it
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 05:00:12PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 11:27:45AM -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Hamish said, "Manufacturing an ASIC involves NRE...of hundreds of
> > thousands to millions per revision..."
> >
> > Message
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 11:27:45AM -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Hamish said, "Manufacturing an ASIC involves NRE...of hundreds of
> thousands to millions per revision..."
>
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> You said, "Manufacturing an operating system invol
On Monday 13 December 2004 21:24, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > What does that have to do with hardware, please?
> > I mean, it's a lovely statement and all, but it's wrong.
>
> Right back at you.
Smarmy, but useless. Ok, I have figured out that you have nothing useful to
say. Thank you.
And from a
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 23:32:39 +1100, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 10:01:59AM -0500, Chasecreek Systemhouse wrote:
>
> It would be nice if you included your name in your posts.
Lordy. :-) It *is* in my posts.
See below here ...
--
WC -Sx- Jones
http://inse
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 10:01:59AM -0500, Chasecreek Systemhouse wrote:
It would be nice if you included your name in your posts.
> On 14 Dec 2004 09:03:20 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hardware design has very different and higher third-party costs than
> > software design,
Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
Aha, I see where you found this in my original note (although you didn't
quote it). In that paragraph, "thousands of dollars" was just an
example for illustration, although I chose the magnitude of the cost
from one of the links Bruce posted (I recall seeing a $5400 fabric
On Tue, 2004-12-14 at 14:42 -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
> > The *price* of product has *nothing* to do with how much it *cost*
> > to create.
> >
> In a purely competitive market the price of goods would approach their
> cost. The system of "intellectual property" is a barrie
Ron Johnson wrote:
The *price* of product has *nothing* to do with how much it *cost*
to create.
In a purely competitive market the price of goods would
approach their cost. The system of "intellectual property" is a barrier
that prevents certain goods from becoming commodities. There
ar
[Yes, replying to myself.]
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 11:05:44AM -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 11:17:24AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> > * Kenneth Pronovici
> >
> > | I think what you're forgetting (or at least ignoring) is that designing
> > | hardware is not exactly
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 03:51:43PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 08:57:20PM -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
> > And no, I can't confirm or refute the numbers, which is why *I* didn't
> > comment on whether they were realistic. You might want to try that
> > sometime.
>
>
On Tue, 2004-12-14 at 17:43 +0100, Jonas Meurer wrote:
> On 14/12/2004 Chasecreek Systemhouse wrote:
> > Personally I'm not buying it. Hardware costs what it does for the
> > same reasons as software -- to advance the state of the art and to
> > create better hardware (or software as the case may
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 11:17:24AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * Kenneth Pronovici
>
> | I think what you're forgetting (or at least ignoring) is that designing
> | hardware is not exactly like designing software. The process is
> | similar, yes, but it's not an apples-to-apples comparison.
On 14/12/2004 Chasecreek Systemhouse wrote:
> Personally I'm not buying it. Hardware costs what it does for the
> same reasons as software -- to advance the state of the art and to
> create better hardware (or software as the case may be.)
I personally don't think that the price of products in a
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 09:20:53PM -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
> > > I think what you're forgetting (or at least ignoring) is that designing
> > > hardware is not exactly like designing software. The process is
> > > similar, yes, but it's not an apples-to-apples comparison. At the
> > > leas
Chasecreek Systemhouse writes:
> On 14 Dec 2004 09:03:20 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hardware design has very different and higher third-party costs than
> > software design, and the cost to make and test minor revisions can be
> > a significant fraction of the cost to d
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 08:57:20PM -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
> And no, I can't confirm or refute the numbers, which is why *I* didn't
> comment on whether they were realistic. You might want to try that
> sometime.
I cannot figure out what mail you were reading.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/
[Please Note that I'm not trying to create a hardware holy war. Of
all the OSes I have used and upon all the architectures I have built -
both commercial and non-commercial -- Debian has consistently
delivered a great wholistic, as well as holistic, system solution.]
On 14 Dec 2004 09:03:20 -050
Another interesting link is Electronic Design Automation (EDA) software on
Linux: http://www.linuxeda.com/
Cheers,
Blue.
Chasecreek Systemhouse writes:
> > To design software, all you need is a fully functional computer.
> >
> > To design hardware, you need to create and test a prototype every once
> > in a while. That'll cost you.
>
>
> Your logic doesnt follow.
> Why, then, isn't Be (BeOS) still around ?
>
>
Try to take a look to this http://lists.duskglow.com/open-graphics/
about problems, solutions and ASIC vs FPGA proposed for a real project
to build a open design 2d/3d graphic card.
Cheers,
Blue.
Op di, 14-12-2004 te 07:48 -0500, schreef Chasecreek Systemhouse:
> > To design software, all you need is a fully functional computer.
> >
> > To design hardware, you need to create and test a prototype every once
> > in a while. That'll cost you.
>
>
> Your logic doesnt follow.
> Why, then, i
> To design software, all you need is a fully functional computer.
>
> To design hardware, you need to create and test a prototype every once
> in a while. That'll cost you.
Your logic doesnt follow.
Why, then, isn't Be (BeOS) still around ?
Plenty of fully functional computers around at the
> Any commercial software company will tell you exactly the same thing
> about software: testing is not free.
Testing is not free only in the sense that a *vendor*
might lose clients if said clients "are" the *testers*...
Historically, lots of clients are performed free testng for vendors.
I'm
Op di, 14-12-2004 te 02:24 +, schreef Andrew Suffield:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 03:57:19PM -0500, Brendan wrote:
> > On Monday 13 December 2004 14:50, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 11:21:54AM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> > > > My surmise is that we'd need an effort like
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 11:17:24AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * Kenneth Pronovici
>
> | I think what you're forgetting (or at least ignoring) is that designing
> | hardware is not exactly like designing software. The process is
> | similar, yes, but it's not an apples-to-apples comparison.
* Kenneth Pronovici
| I think what you're forgetting (or at least ignoring) is that designing
| hardware is not exactly like designing software. The process is
| similar, yes, but it's not an apples-to-apples comparison. At the
| least, this is because testing your hardware "implementation" is
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 02:26:46AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 08:43:37AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > Manufacturing an ASIC involves NRE (non-recurring engineering) costs
> > of hundreds of thousands to millions per revision. A manufacturing
> > company is going to
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 02:39:07AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 02:13:53PM -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 07:50:02PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 11:21:54AM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> > > > My surmise is that w
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 02:24:08AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> I don't care about it. It's the people who want it done badly enough
> to whine about it on public mailing lists who should go do it.
The issue is people who care about it enough that they want Debian's policies
to encourage vendor
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 02:26:46AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 08:43:37AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 07:50:02PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 11:21:54AM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> > > > My surmise is that we'd
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 02:13:53PM -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 07:50:02PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 11:21:54AM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> > > My surmise is that we'd need an effort like that, raising $250K, to
> > > design and go to f
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 08:43:37AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 07:50:02PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 11:21:54AM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> > > My surmise is that we'd need an effort like that, raising $250K, to
> > > design and go to full
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 03:57:19PM -0500, Brendan wrote:
> On Monday 13 December 2004 14:50, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 11:21:54AM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> > > My surmise is that we'd need an effort like that, raising $250K, to
> > > design and go to full-custom fabricat
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 07:50:02PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 11:21:54AM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> > My surmise is that we'd need an effort like that, raising $250K, to
> > design and go to full-custom fabrication of an FPLA with fully-open
> > design.
>
> Mine is
On Monday 13 December 2004 14:50, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 11:21:54AM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> > My surmise is that we'd need an effort like that, raising $250K, to
> > design and go to full-custom fabrication of an FPLA with fully-open
> > design.
>
> Mine is that one c
Andrew Suffield wrote:
There is absolutely no reason why any money is needed for this. Design the damn thing.
My personal EE skill is insufficient for the task. I can help someone
else get it done.
Regarding how much money it takes, it's a matter of how soon we want
it. I've no doubt that
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 07:50:02PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 11:21:54AM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> > My surmise is that we'd need an effort like that, raising $250K, to
> > design and go to full-custom fabrication of an FPLA with fully-open
> > design.
>
> Mine is
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 11:21:54AM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> My surmise is that we'd need an effort like that, raising $250K, to
> design and go to full-custom fabrication of an FPLA with fully-open
> design.
Mine is that one can get useful things done without having to spend
ridiculous amoun
Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 11:07:35AM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
It will take fund-raising to do it.
^&&##$@@. There goes that "free software is impossible" argument again.
Well, maybe I'm doing the wrong thing to feed a troll like this, but
I'll g
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 11:07:35AM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> It will take fund-raising to do it.
Bullshit. There goes that "free software is impossible" argument
again.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
Matthew Garrett wrote:
No, you're missing the point. I understand that there are practical
arguments against this desire for freedom, but that doesn't alter the
philosophical basis - as far as freedom is concerned, there is no
difference in having non-free code in ROM or on disk.
Yes, but w
45 matches
Mail list logo
