Comments for And I thank God for...

Comment on A blog for the New Year by Albina-eb

Albina-eb — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 18:11:24 +0000

Comment on Three ways to Parallelize a Raytracer by Bookmarks about Maps

Bookmarks about Maps — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 22:15:04 +0000

[...] – bookmarked by 3 members originally found by benrasmusen on 2008-11-07 Three ways to Parallelize a Raytracer http://mtfulmer.wordpress.com/2008/07/08/three-ways-to-parallelize-a-raytracer/ – bookmarked by 4 [...]

Comment on DeltaStreams 0.1.1 in the works by Dancer

Dancer — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:49:15 +0000

Мне нравятся Ваши посты, заставляет задуматься)

Comment on Three ways to Parallelize a Raytracer by Zekdapsegada

Zekdapsegada — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 22:46:17 +0000

Thanks !

Comment on E Concurrency model by Three ways to Parallelize a Raytracer « And I thank God for…

Three ways to Parallelize a Raytracer « And I thank God for… — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 23:08:23 +0000

[...] well the approach maps to the E Concurrency model , which I also call the vat model, [...]

Comment on E Concurrency model by Counterrevolution

Counterrevolution — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 15:53:08 +0000

Somehow i missed the point. Probably lost in translation Anyway … nice blog to visit.

cheers, Counterrevolution!

Comment on E Concurrency model by Toby

Toby — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 15:22:04 +0000

Another good reference is Mark Miller's Phd Thesis

Comment on E Concurrency model by Ron Welch

Ron Welch — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 15:18:49 +0000

Nice work. I am hoping that you will expound on the relationship to Croquet’s TeaTime at some point….

Comment on E Concurrency model by Mark

Mark — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 05:02:42 +0000

Really good explanation. Thanks!

Comment on Should I work on proprietary software? by Patrick Logan

Patrick Logan — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 03:33:49 +0000

Good post on your deliberations. As someone who worked for Intel for over ten years, here’s my two cents…

In this case I think there is some logic to keeping the software internal. There were several situations in my career there where some seemingly innocuous software could divulge to someone information about Intel’s business, e.g. it could have divulged, or appeared to, information about fab yields in one case and product orders in some other cases.

In the case of testing products, the software structure itself could divulge information about what Intel is testing, how they’re testing, etc. Maybe that’s harmless, maybe not. But Intel is a competitive company and has an obligation to its shareholders to protect its interests. Sometimes those interests are served by open source, and sometimes the decision has to be made the other way, hopefully wisely.