All rivers find their lowest level to which to flow: oppress the workers.
The whole purpose of forming one of these open-source communes is to assure that no corporate bourgeois overlord-oppressors dictate to the workers. By being an open-source commune, the spurned workers can at any time take full ownership of the means of production as a fork of the open-source commune's source code.
It sounds as though Brian Fitzpatrick, Ben Collins-Sussman, and Google need to be taught a lesson that they are not permitted to be corporate, bourgeois, overlord-oppressors. Subversion programmers of the world unite! Rise up against your oppressors. Take control of the source code of the commune! Fork Subversion. (And, you new Subversives-no-more, please rename your new fork to some more-appropriate name for the business world, such as Terrorism or Racism or Perversion. Seriously, perhaps Interversion or Introversion.)
As shown in the above marketing link at STMicroelectronics, the Loongson processor has historically been (throughout its development by the China Academy of Science's Institute of Computing Technology and throughout its initial marketing by STMicroelectronics) a MIPS-based instruction set, not x86.
Is this claim of x86 instruction set a misleading factual error in the article or is this actual news that x86 instruction set has been somehow added to the not-fully-revealed Loongson III processor? The Register, please correct/retract or more fully reveal more information to justify the x86 claim.
Register
2 posts • joined Friday 11th April 2008 16:10 GMT
All rivers find their lowest level to which to flow: oppress the workers.
The whole purpose of forming one of these open-source communes is to assure that no corporate bourgeois overlord-oppressors dictate to the workers. By being an open-source commune, the spurned workers can at any time take full ownership of the means of production as a fork of the open-source commune's source code.
It sounds as though Brian Fitzpatrick, Ben Collins-Sussman, and Google need to be taught a lesson that they are not permitted to be corporate, bourgeois, overlord-oppressors. Subversion programmers of the world unite! Rise up against your oppressors. Take control of the source code of the commune! Fork Subversion. (And, you new Subversives-no-more, please rename your new fork to some more-appropriate name for the business world, such as Terrorism or Racism or Perversion. Seriously, perhaps Interversion or Introversion.)
MIPS instruction set versus x86 instruction set
http://www.st.com/stonline/products/families/computer/microprocessors/loongson.htm
As shown in the above marketing link at STMicroelectronics, the Loongson processor has historically been (throughout its development by the China Academy of Science's Institute of Computing Technology and throughout its initial marketing by STMicroelectronics) a MIPS-based instruction set, not x86.
Is this claim of x86 instruction set a misleading factual error in the article or is this actual news that x86 instruction set has been somehow added to the not-fully-revealed Loongson III processor? The Register, please correct/retract or more fully reveal more information to justify the x86 claim.