Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #17603 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2012-11-27 08:01 -0800 |
| Last post | 2012-11-28 14:21 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 112 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
DTC Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-11-27 08:01 -0800
Re: DTC Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-27 08:55 -0800
Re: DTC Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-11-27 09:01 -0800
Re: DTC Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-27 17:42 -0800
Re: DTC Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-11-27 23:50 -0800
Re: DTC Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-11-28 04:41 -0600
Re: DTC Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-11-28 02:48 -0800
Re: DTC Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-11-28 05:27 -0600
Re: DTC Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-11-28 03:51 -0800
Re: DTC Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-28 21:56 -0800
Re: DTC Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-11-29 01:26 -0800
Re: DTC Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-29 22:34 -0800
Re: DTC Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-11-30 01:42 -0800
Re: DTC Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-30 13:18 -0800
Re: DTC Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-12-01 01:42 -0800
Re: DTC Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-12-03 15:25 -0800
Re: DTC Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-12-03 16:18 -0800
Re: DTC "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-12-03 21:20 -0500
Re: DTC "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-12-03 17:29 -1000
Re: DTC Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-12-04 00:12 -0800
Re: DTC Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-12-05 11:35 -0800
Re: DTC Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-12-04 20:17 -0800
Re: DTC Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2012-12-05 08:31 +0200
Re: DTC Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-12-04 23:48 -0800
Re: DTC Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-12-04 23:53 -0800
Re: DTC Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-12-05 12:13 -0800
Re: DTC Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-12-05 15:26 -0800
Re: DTC Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2012-12-06 06:32 +0200
Re: DTC Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-12-06 01:07 -0800
Re: DTC Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-12-06 04:23 -0800
Re: DTC Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-12-06 15:49 +0100
Re: DTC Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-12-06 07:42 -0800
Re: DTC Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-12-06 08:30 -0800
Re: DTC Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-12-06 09:45 -0800
Re: DTC albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2012-12-06 21:41 +0000
Re: DTC "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-12-06 23:15 +0100
Re: DTC albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2012-12-08 01:27 +0000
Re: DTC "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-12-08 11:19 +0100
Re: DTC Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-12-08 03:55 -0800
Re: DTC Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-12-08 13:44 +0100
Re: DTC Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-12-08 06:05 -0800
Re: DTC Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-12-08 18:35 +0100
Re: DTC Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-12-08 11:20 -0800
Re: DTC Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-12-09 01:01 +0100
Re: DTC Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-12-08 06:10 -0800
Re: DTC Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-12-08 18:57 +0100
Re: DTC "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-12-08 19:46 +0100
Re: DTC Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-12-08 11:23 -0800
Re: DTC Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-12-08 13:37 +0100
Re: DTC "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-12-08 14:41 +0100
Re: DTC Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-12-08 06:15 -0800
Re: DTC "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-12-08 17:07 +0100
Re: DTC Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-12-06 14:16 -0800
Re: DTC Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2012-12-07 09:00 -0800
Re: DTC Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-12-06 14:21 -0800
Re: DTC "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-12-06 08:01 -1000
Re: DTC Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-12-06 14:18 -0800
Re: DTC "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-12-06 13:48 -1000
Re: DTC "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-12-06 19:03 -0500
Re: DTC Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-12-07 02:59 -0800
Re: DTC albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2012-12-06 13:13 +0000
Re: DTC "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-12-05 20:39 -0500
Re: DTC Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-12-06 15:46 +0100
Re: DTC Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-12-06 07:47 -0800
Re: DTC Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-12-06 08:36 -0800
Re: DTC Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-12-05 04:03 -0800
Re: DTC "Clyde W. Phillips Jr." <cwpjr02@gmail.com> - 2012-12-06 20:30 -0800
Re: DTC David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2012-12-11 23:52 -0500
Re: DTC Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-12-12 10:59 -0800
Re: DTC David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2012-12-31 02:43 -0500
Re: DTC Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-01-02 00:44 -0800
Re: DTC albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2012-11-28 13:54 +0000
Re: DTC "Clyde W. Phillips Jr." <cwpjr02@gmail.com> - 2012-12-06 20:16 -0800
Re: DTC "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-11-28 06:58 -0500
Re: DTC Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-11-28 04:50 -0800
Re: DTC Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-11-28 07:08 -0600
Re: DTC Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-11-28 06:02 -0800
Re: DTC Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-11-28 08:23 -0600
Re: DTC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-11-28 14:18 +0000
Re: DTC Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-11-28 08:32 -0600
Re: DTC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-11-28 15:00 +0000
Re: DTC Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-11-28 09:18 -0600
Re: DTC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-11-28 16:36 +0000
Re: DTC Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-11-28 11:02 -0600
Re: DTC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-11-28 17:13 +0000
Re: DTC Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-11-28 12:03 -0600
Re: DTC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-11-28 18:12 +0000
Re: DTC Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-11-28 12:32 -0600
Re: DTC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-11-29 14:30 +0000
Re: DTC Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-11-29 18:05 +0100
Re: DTC Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-11-29 11:19 -0800
Re: DTC Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-11-30 03:14 -0600
Re: DTC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-11-30 14:12 +0000
Re: DTC Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-11-30 10:32 -0600
Re: DTC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-11-30 16:40 +0000
Re: DTC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-12-01 15:34 +0000
Re: DTC Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-12-01 21:23 +0100
Re: DTC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-12-03 16:28 +0000
Re: DTC Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-12-03 18:44 +0100
Re: DTC Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-12-03 04:50 -0600
Re: DTC Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-12-03 16:48 +0100
Re: DTC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-12-03 15:59 +0000
Re: DTC albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2012-11-30 15:34 +0000
Re: DTC Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-11-30 10:36 -0600
Re: DTC Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-30 12:47 -0800
Re: DTC Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-11-28 11:29 -0800
Re: DTC "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-11-29 04:15 -0500
Re: DTC "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-11-29 08:52 -1000
Re: DTC Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-28 22:25 -0800
Re: DTC "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-11-29 04:12 -0500
Re: DTC humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2012-11-28 02:04 -0800
Re: DTC anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-11-28 14:21 +0000
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-05 11:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7xzk1s1ecv.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #17847 |
Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> writes: > What is the difference between a level 1 and a level 2 cache? ... > Guess I should read up on caches! This is a bit out of date, but it is still informative: http://magazine.redhat.com/2007/10/26/ulrich-drepper-memory-article-series/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-04 20:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3f5c4055-0f6e-4dfa-83f8-beb87bbf999d@i7g2000pbf.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17845 |
On Dec 3, 7:20 pm, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@notemailnotz.cnm>
wrote:
> The problem with RET on modern x86 - according to those on
> c.l.a.x. - is that it must be _matched_ with a CALL or it causes a
> slowdown of the processor. E.g., the RET location was pushed
> onto the stack via PUSH instead of by a CALL.
Most of my knowledge of this kind of thing comes form CLAX, most
likely from the same threads that you have been reading. I've also
read some of Intel's optimization manual. See 3.4.1.4 for a discussion
of inlining versus CALL/RET.
It is true that CALL and RET have to be paired for them to be
optimized. This means that my stack-threading, in which RSP is used as
the Forth IP, won't get optimized, because there are a lot of RET
instructions and no CALL instructions at all. That is not what we are
talking about here though. We are talking about subroutine-threading
(as done by SwiftForth), and the decision of whether to inline a
function or just CALL it. It ends in RET, so the CALL and RET are
paired, which will work. The optimization only works for 16 nesting
levels, but that is not generally a problem.
Mark is right, that if the sub-function is not in the same 32KB memory
block, then calling it will thrash the cache. If it is close though,
then calling it is better than inlining it. Also, if you mostly call
sub-functions rather than inline them, you save a lot of memory. I
don't know why Alex said that it doesn't save memory, as it obviously
does assuming that the function is larger than a CALL instruction and
it gets called more than once. Calling rather than inlining functions
makes the code less bloated and boosts the chance of the sub-function
being close to the calling function.
For the most part, I recommend against just blindly inlining
functions, as done in SwiftForth (for everything defined with ICODE).
You might as well just CALL them rather than inline them, if you
aren't going to do any optimization (in the sense of holding values in
registers, rather than pushing them onto the stack and pulling them
off again).
Generating machine-code for the x86 was somewhat beyond my knowledge,
which is why I reverted to ITC for HostForth. Nobody cares about the
x86 anyway --- all desktop-computer software is given away for free
--- the only thing that matters is micro-controllers. For this reason,
I have decided to make HostForth fairly simple, and get it to run.
Then I can focus most of my effort on TargForth that generates code
for the micro-controllers, to make it generate efficient code. That
makes sense economically, as micro-controllers get sold for money, so
quality is important. Also, it is easier, as micro-controllers don't
have complicated cache systems, and all of that other complicated
stuff that the x86 has. With the x86, nobody really knows what it does
internally, because the manufacturer won't say because they don't want
to give away trade secrets to their competitors --- the result is that
the assembly-language programmer gets a lot of vague heuristics about
how to optimize his code --- these are like voodoo rituals in that
they seem to work, but you don't know why. By comparison, with the
80486 we had the u and v pipes, and we could know at compile-time
pretty much exactly what the processor would do at run-time --- life
was much simpler then.
This is an example of SwiftForth just blindly inlining sub-functions:
: init-node ( node -- node )
0 over ! ; ok
see init-node
46E8BF 4 # EBP SUB 83ED04
46E8C2 EBX 0 [EBP] MOV 895D00
46E8C5 0 # EBX MOV BB00000000 ( 0 )
46E8CA 4 # EBP SUB 83ED04
46E8CD EBX 0 [EBP] MOV 895D00
46E8D0 4 [EBP] EBX MOV 8B5D04 ( OVER )
46E8D3 0 [EBP] EAX MOV 8B4500
46E8D6 EAX 0 [EBX] MOV 8903
46E8D8 4 [EBP] EBX MOV 8B5D04
46E8DB 8 # EBP ADD 83C508 ( ! )
46E8DE RET C3 ok
see over
40383F 4 # EBP SUB 83ED04
403842 EBX 0 [EBP] MOV 895D00
403845 4 [EBP] EBX MOV 8B5D04
403848 RET C3 ok
see !
40335F 0 [EBP] EAX MOV 8B4500
403362 EAX 0 [EBX] MOV 8903
403364 4 [EBP] EBX MOV 8B5D04
403367 8 # EBP ADD 83C508
40336A RET C3 ok
This is how VFX does it:
: init-code ( node -- node )
0 over ! ; ok
see init-code
INIT-CODE
( 004C7A90 C70300000000 ) MOV DWord Ptr 0 [EBX],
00000000
( 004C7A96 C3 ) NEXT,
( 7 bytes, 2 instructions )
ok
This is how I hand-wrote the same thing in my novice package for
SwiftForth:
icode init-node ( node -- node )
eax eax xor eax 0 [ebx] mov ret
I think VFX's generated code is actually more efficient than my hand-
written code. I recently read in the Intel optimization manual that
register-to-register instructions (such as my xor) are not efficient
nowadays. I wrote my function in the way that I would have written it
for the 80486 --- but that isn't necessarily the best way for the
modern x86. All of this x86 stuff is complicated now, and I don't
really know very much about the subject --- even a simple function
such as init-code is a mystery as to how to write it efficiently. :-(
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-05 08:31 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <k9mpo6$ekv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #17851 |
On 12/05/2012 06:17 AM, Hugh Aguilar wrote: > Nobody cares about the > x86 anyway --- all desktop-computer software is given away for free I'm sure Microsoft and Apple would be fascinated to find out their software is given away for free! > With the x86, nobody really knows what it does > internally, because the manufacturer won't say because they don't want > to give away trade secrets to their competitors --- the result is that > the assembly-language programmer gets a lot of vague heuristics about > how to optimize his code --- these are like voodoo rituals in that > they seem to work, but you don't know why. By comparison, with the > 80486 we had the u and v pipes, and we could know at compile-time > pretty much exactly what the processor would do at run-time --- life > was much simpler then. Modern desktop computer CPUs are complex and their microcode is complex, making optimization of hand-written assembly more challenging -- that's certainly true. However, the old technique of "measure your code's performance" still works, even on the most advanced processors in existence. Still and all, the best optimization is to use your head and choose a better algorithm, rather than try to micro-optimize CPU pipelines.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-04 23:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ad09accf-e13b-45e1-93fa-ccb3302a3b09@w3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17852 |
On Dec 5, 6:31 am, Ron Aaron <rambam...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I'm sure Microsoft and Apple would be fascinated to find out their > software is given away for free! > Well, not all software is given away for free, but an awful lot of it is. I'd argue that practically all of Apple's software is in fact given away for free. It's a loss leader to sell the hardware. Ditto microsoft: Despite the many millions it must have cost MS to develop IE, Media Player, Movie Maker et al they are given away for free to make the OS more attractive. So yes, I'd agree in general terms with Hugh on that point. It's quite hard to make money on x86 software sales IMHO when the big boys are giving a lot of software (iTunes etc) away for free. Even Winamp, which I am using right now, is free, relying on donations. Same with the Linux vendors: Entire operating systems given away for free. Personally I think it's bonkers, it's a race to the bottom (and we're seeing the same in the mobile entertainment market: Phone and tablet games) and I take my hat off to companies like Red Hat who have managed to carve out a profit from their business. Mozilla not doing so well. IIRC they rely heavily on Google for their income. Just thought i'd chip in!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-04 23:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a166dcf2-4f38-4411-ad1d-2f7f980f16bf@8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17853 |
Related to my earlier post: Half of all app store revenue goes to just 25 developers http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/04/top_25_app_devs_earn_half_of_revenue/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-05 12:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3cfcf1ea-df96-45e4-be03-b6da801b6fb5@m4g2000pbd.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17853 |
On Dec 5, 12:48 am, Mark Wills <forthfr...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 5, 6:31 am, Ron Aaron <rambam...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I'm sure Microsoft and Apple would be fascinated to find out their > > software is given away for free! > > Well, not all software is given away for free, but an awful lot of it > is. I'd argue that practically all of Apple's software is in fact > given away for free. It's a loss leader to sell the hardware. All software is a loss-leader to sell hardware. The difference between micro-controllers and desktop-computers, is that with micro-controllers you are selling the hardware, so it makes sense for you to provide it with software to give it value. With desktop-computer software, somebody else (Dell, etc.) is selling the hardware, and you are providing software to give it value but not getting paid. The reason why MicroSoft gets paid, is because they have a deal to bundle their software with the hardware, and the hardware vendors pay them for this. Theoretically, MicroSoft will eventually fail when the hardware vendors switch over to bundling Linux, which makes sense for them considering that the Linux programmers are willing to work for free --- this will never happen though, because the American federal government has standardized on Windows for their own bureaus, meaning that MicroSoft has a monopoly --- Benito Mussolini (who coined the term: "corporatism") would be proud! Richard Stallman was right when he said that programming is a service, but that programs aren't products. The days of programs getting sold in shrink-wrapped packages containing a pile of disks and a stack of manuals, is long gone (I bought TASM like that, in a store's going-out- of-business sale). Nowadays, most programming is done writing software that will be run once and will become obsolete a week later --- this is typically software that supports a moving target, such as health- care billing in which the regulations change almost daily at the whim of a byzantine bureaucracy. I myself wrote IBM370 assembly-language software for direct-mail, so the software became obsolete a week later after the mailing was done --- the company that I worked for had one of the few licenses from the Post Office to do that and get the big discount on postage. It is a battle between fascists and communists --- on one hand we have the fascists who want MicroSoft to have a monopoly, and for everybody to pay for their software --- on the other hand we have the GNU communists who want all software to be given away for free, but for programmers to get paid by the hour to make custom upgrades to the software (after investing years of their own time in writing the software for free). Neither plan is very good, but I would prefer communism to fascism --- mostly because I don't think that MicroSoft is going to hire me. By comparison, I expect that Elizabeth Rather would prefer fascism --- mostly because she hopes to get the monopoly on Forth programming (that is why she tried so hard to kill FIG in the 1980s) --- maybe the monopoly will even be government enforced, in the sense that she could have me shot for writing Forth code without permission. :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-05 15:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <dabba9b6-c352-4cd4-a318-1304e711ebd4@r20g2000yql.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17866 |
On Dec 5, 8:13 pm, Hugh Aguilar <hughaguila...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Dec 5, 12:48 am, Mark Wills <forthfr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Dec 5, 6:31 am, Ron Aaron <rambam...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I'm sure Microsoft and Apple would be fascinated to find out their > > > software is given away for free! > > > Well, not all software is given away for free, but an awful lot of it > > is. I'd argue that practically all of Apple's software is in fact > > given away for free. It's a loss leader to sell the hardware. > > All software is a loss-leader to sell hardware. That's (almost) the wrong way round. There is no to little margin in most hardware. > > The difference between micro-controllers and desktop-computers, is > that with micro-controllers you are selling the hardware, so it makes > sense for you to provide it with software to give it value. With > desktop-computer software, somebody else (Dell, etc.) is selling the > hardware, and you are providing software to give it value but not > getting paid. Dell's 2012 Q2 had a consumer products operating margin of 0.5 percent. > The reason why MicroSoft gets paid, is because they have > a deal to bundle their software with the hardware, and the hardware > vendors pay them for this. Theoretically, MicroSoft will eventually > fail when the hardware vendors switch over to bundling Linux, which > makes sense for them considering that the Linux programmers are > willing to work for free Most Linux programmers -- the vast majority -- work for companies and are paid by them to write code for Linux. My company funds 5 full time Linux developers, and many others contributing to other open source projects like OpenStack and so on. There are good business reasons for doing so which will be beyond your undestanding. > --- this will never happen though, because > the American federal government has standardized on Windows for their > own bureaus, meaning that MicroSoft has a monopoly --- Benito > Mussolini (who coined the term: "corporatism") would be proud! Linux federal users; US Dept of Defense; "single biggest install base for Red Hat Linux" "RedHat's largest customer" US Navy US Postal Service US Federal Aviation Authority There are many more. Mussolini did not coin the term corporatism (first used c 1890), although he was one of the first to attempt to effect it. > > Richard Stallman was right when he said that programming is a service, > but that programs aren't products. The days of programs getting sold > in shrink-wrapped packages containing a pile of disks and a stack of > manuals, is long gone (I bought TASM like that, in a store's going-out- > of-business sale). Much open source software can be bought with maintenance contracts. RedHat is an example; Linux is free, and RedHat support Fedora that way. But commercial support will cost you money for RedHat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). > Nowadays, most programming is done writing software > that will be run once and will become obsolete a week later --- this > is typically software that supports a moving target, such as health- > care billing in which the regulations change almost daily at the whim > of a byzantine bureaucracy. Complete fantasy. > I myself wrote IBM370 assembly-language > software for direct-mail, so the software became obsolete a week later > after the mailing was done --- the company that I worked for had one > of the few licenses from the Post Office to do that and get the big > discount on postage. > > It is a battle between fascists and communists --- on one hand we have > the fascists who want MicroSoft to have a monopoly, and for everybody > to pay for their software --- on the other hand we have the GNU > communists who want all software to be given away for free, but for > programmers to get paid by the hour to make custom upgrades to the > software (after investing years of their own time in writing the > software for free). Neither plan is very good, but I would prefer > communism to fascism --- mostly because I don't think that MicroSoft > is going to hire me. I can guarantee that no-one will hire you while you spout such ridiculous and easily disproven "facts". > By comparison, I expect that Elizabeth Rather > would prefer fascism --- mostly because she hopes to get the monopoly > on Forth programming (that is why she tried so hard to kill FIG in the > 1980s) --- maybe the monopoly will even be government enforced, in the > sense that she could have me shot for writing Forth code without > permission. :-) I do hope so. Actually, you writing anything at all would seem to be a really good excuse.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-06 06:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <k9p761$9sb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #17869 |
On 12/06/2012 01:26 AM, Alex McDonald wrote:> On Dec 5, 8:13 pm, Hugh Aguilar <hughaguila...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> All software is a loss-leader to sell hardware. > > That's (almost) the wrong way round. There is no to little margin in > most hardware. I've been working as a programmer almost thirty years now; none of the software I wrote was "a loss-leader to sell hardware". >> The reason why MicroSoft gets paid, is because they have >> a deal to bundle their software with the hardware, and the hardware >> vendors pay them for this. Theoretically, MicroSoft will eventually >> fail when the hardware vendors switch over to bundling Linux, which >> makes sense for them considering that the Linux programmers are >> willing to work for free > > Most Linux programmers -- the vast majority -- work for companies and > are paid by them to write code for Linux. My company funds 5 full time > Linux developers, and many others contributing to other open source > projects like OpenStack and so on. There are good business reasons for > doing so which will be beyond your undestanding. In fact, for the past several years I've been working almost exclusively on *commercial* Linux software. Not free, and not open-source, but commercial or proprietary. The company I'm at has a team of five Linux programmers, and looking to hire more. > Linux federal users; > > US Dept of Defense; "single biggest install base for Red Hat Linux" > "RedHat's largest customer" > US Navy > US Postal Service > US Federal Aviation Authority > > There are many more. Indeed there are, especially if you look outside the US. >> Nowadays, most programming is done writing software >> that will be run once and will become obsolete a week later --- this >> is typically software that supports a moving target, such as health- >> care billing in which the regulations change almost daily at the whim >> of a byzantine bureaucracy. > > Complete fantasy. Did you expect something based in reality from him? My personal experience has not involved writing health-care-billing programs. The world of programming is much wider than Hugh seems to think it is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-06 01:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <00bb3995-3897-4a2c-8c40-ee216e26b623@10g2000yqo.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17869 |
On Dec 5, 11:26 pm, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote: > > That's (almost) the wrong way round. There is no to little margin in > most hardware. > Snort! Really? I must let Allen Bradley, ABB and Siemens know.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-06 04:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d6da8672-b061-41c8-b7e0-a6abfe6429f4@b11g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17877 |
On Dec 6, 9:07 am, Mark Wills <forthfr...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 5, 11:26 pm, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote: > > > That's (almost) the wrong way round. There is no to little margin in > > most hardware. > > Snort! > > Really? > > I must let Allen Bradley, ABB and Siemens know. Go look at the figures from HP, Dell, IBM and any other number of computer hardware suppliers. Tin doesn't pay. Here's a classic one- liner from IBM's last earning's call; "We continue to see value shifting to software." Out of curiosity I went and looked at the companies you mentioned. Rockwell (owners of Allen Bradley) provide a mixture of software, hardware and services and don't break out the mix of each in their two major divisions. Sales rose but profits dropped in their last quarter. Siemens is a large and diverse German company, and I can't get any sense of their specific computer hardware sales vs expenses from their annual report; their business sectors aren't structured that way, since computer hardware is not their primary business. Ditto for the UK company ABB.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-06 15:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1587853.3h3bfAnP8P@sunwukong.fritz.box> |
| In reply to | #17879 |
Alex McDonald wrote: > Siemens is a large and diverse German company, and I can't get any > sense of their specific computer hardware sales vs expenses from their > annual report; their business sectors aren't structured that way, > since computer hardware is not their primary business. They did have that (making PCs, mainframes and Unix/Sinix workstations), and sold them a long time ago to Japanese companies like Fujitsu. No wonder you don't find computer hardware sales any more. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-06 07:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <dabf90fc-ddd4-438a-8df9-6db2ef5a722d@s14g2000yqg.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17885 |
On Dec 6, 2:49 pm, Bernd Paysan <bernd.pay...@gmx.de> wrote: > Alex McDonald wrote: > > Siemens is a large and diverse German company, and I can't get any > > sense of their specific computer hardware sales vs expenses from their > > annual report; their business sectors aren't structured that way, > > since computer hardware is not their primary business. > > They did have that (making PCs, mainframes and Unix/Sinix workstations), > and sold them a long time ago to Japanese companies like Fujitsu. No > wonder you don't find computer hardware sales any more. > > -- > Bernd Paysan > "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"http://bernd-paysan.de/ ABB, Allen Bradley, and Siemens all make and sell industrial PLC's (programmable logic controllers). They cost an absolute arm and a leg. They're not computers. It's true that they do have other divisions (well, not really in Allen Bradley's case). ABB have a Power division, Turbines division etc. Siemens have power, communications etc. But take it from me, their hardware costs an absolute freaking fortune. So, there is money to be made in hardware! Just not PC's, which are consumer products, no different to a VDR or a DVD player.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-06 08:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d26784fc-7bcf-4e2a-97f5-cabbe5146853@b11g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17887 |
On Dec 6, 3:42 pm, Mark Wills <forthfr...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 6, 2:49 pm, Bernd Paysan <bernd.pay...@gmx.de> wrote: > > > Alex McDonald wrote: > > > Siemens is a large and diverse German company, and I can't get any > > > sense of their specific computer hardware sales vs expenses from their > > > annual report; their business sectors aren't structured that way, > > > since computer hardware is not their primary business. > > > They did have that (making PCs, mainframes and Unix/Sinix workstations), > > and sold them a long time ago to Japanese companies like Fujitsu. No > > wonder you don't find computer hardware sales any more. Yes, I'd forgotten. > > > -- > > Bernd Paysan > > "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"http://bernd-paysan.de/ > > ABB, Allen Bradley, and Siemens all make and sell industrial PLC's > (programmable logic controllers). They cost an absolute arm and a leg. > They're not computers. It's true that they do have other divisions > (well, not really in Allen Bradley's case). ABB have a Power division, > Turbines division etc. Siemens have power, communications etc. > > But take it from me, their hardware costs an absolute freaking > fortune. So, there is money to be made in hardware! Just not PC's, > which are consumer products, no different to a VDR or a DVD player. Ah, PLCs. Not quite what I had in mind. PS Ever heard of Sun?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-06 09:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7xfw3jnkfc.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #17887 |
Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> writes: > ABB, Allen Bradley, and Siemens all make and sell industrial PLC's > (programmable logic controllers). They cost an absolute arm and a leg. I've been wondering why anyone buys these things other than traditionalism. Surely there are some high-assurance microprocessors by now. Ladder logic doesn't seem like a particularly safer programming language than, well, you know.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-06 21:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <50c11118$0$3182$e4fe514c@dreader36.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #17891 |
In article <7xfw3jnkfc.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com>, Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: >Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> writes: >> ABB, Allen Bradley, and Siemens all make and sell industrial PLC's >> (programmable logic controllers). They cost an absolute arm and a leg. > >I've been wondering why anyone buys these things other than >traditionalism. Surely there are some high-assurance microprocessors by >now. Ladder logic doesn't seem like a particularly safer programming >language than, well, you know. Last job I was in they were switching from PLC to industrial PC's running Windows and emulating PLC. Now that is progress ;-) Groetjes Albert -- Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters. albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-06 23:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <50c118ea$0$6549$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> |
| In reply to | #17898 |
On 06.12.2012 22:41, Albert van der Horst wrote: > Last job I was in they were switching from PLC to industrial PC's running > Windows and emulating PLC. Now that is progress ;-) > > Groetjes Albert > A bit oversimplifying, aren't we? ;-) Windows (or Linux) for browser-based man-machine-interface. By the way tablet PCs as maintenance tools have also become very common. Intel-based hardware (say industrial PCs) as PLC CPUs but with (redundant) industrial interface to inputs/outputs or communication links to 3rd party systems. So it's really not desktop PC technology, and it's really not Windows as realtime OS. Special hardware and software for any safety-related PLCs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-08 01:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <50c2977d$0$3492$e4fe514c@dreader37.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #17899 |
In article <50c118ea$0$6549$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>, A. K. <akk@nospam.org> wrote: >On 06.12.2012 22:41, Albert van der Horst wrote: >> Last job I was in they were switching from PLC to industrial PC's running >> Windows and emulating PLC. Now that is progress ;-) >> >> Groetjes Albert >> > >A bit oversimplifying, aren't we? ;-) Stating a fact cannot be oversimplification. > >Windows (or Linux) for browser-based man-machine-interface. By the way >tablet PCs as maintenance tools have also become very common. > >Intel-based hardware (say industrial PCs) as PLC CPUs but with >(redundant) industrial interface to inputs/outputs or communication >links to 3rd party systems. So it's really not desktop PC technology, >and it's really not Windows as realtime OS. > >Special hardware and software for any safety-related PLCs. Industrial PC's, with specifically designed hardware yes, and OEM supplied drivers yes, but running MS-Windows. Groetjes Albert > -- Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters. albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-08 11:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <50c31431$0$6580$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> |
| In reply to | #17927 |
On 08.12.2012 02:27, Albert van der Horst wrote: > Industrial PC's, with specifically designed hardware yes, and > OEM supplied drivers yes, but running MS-Windows. > > Groetjes Albert In most industries you have to follow the NERC safety standards when selling PLCs. I wonder how they got along with it using a vulnerable OS like Windows as controller OS. Regards Andreas
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-08 03:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5ce8cb60-491d-470c-9b06-1f6d6deba1f5@f19g2000vbv.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17931 |
On Dec 8, 10:19 am, "A. K." <a...@nospam.org> wrote: > On 08.12.2012 02:27, Albert van der Horst wrote: > > > Industrial PC's, with specifically designed hardware yes, and > > OEM supplied drivers yes, but running MS-Windows. > > > Groetjes Albert > > In most industries you have to follow the NERC safety standards when > selling PLCs. > > I wonder how they got along with it using a vulnerable OS like Windows > as controller OS. > > Regards > Andreas Simple. They're not 'on the critical path' - in other words, if they fall over, nobody dies. Industrial PC's are used a lot for things like HMI's/MMI's or data gathering systems. But anything that is mission critical will *not* be *controlled* by a PC based system or *rely* on a PC based system*. It will be controlled by an appropriately rated system, perhaps with a SIL rating, and the application code will have been designed, documented, and written in accordance with appropriate standards, e.g. IEC 61508. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEC_61508 * they may be *monitored* by PC based systems, in fact, they almost always are, but *monitoring* is not *controlling*. For example, every major DCS vendor (ABB, Emerson, Kongsberg Maritime, Honeywell, Invensys et al) has autonomous industrial controllers (non PC) hooked up to PC based (and in every case, Windows based) monitoring systems.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-08 13:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11293597.NcN1QH9LUS@sunwukong.fritz.box> |
| In reply to | #17935 |
Mark Wills wrote: > Simple. They're not 'on the critical path' - in other words, if they > fall over, nobody dies. You are wrong, and you apparently didn't hear about Stuxnet. Well, nobody died, but that's not the point: The attack did cause considerable damage, and was a significant setback in the Iranian Uranium enrichment program. It's *not* safe and secure against a malicious attacker; though of course, the Stuxnet attack was quite expensive. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web