Slashdot Mirror


Yahoo! Orders Wikipedia Hardware

Edit This Page writes "Jimmy Wales announced today that Yahoo! has ordered 23 HP servers for the Wikimedia Foundation. The three database servers are model DL 385, and will come with dual Athlons, 8GB of RAM, and 6x 146GB 15K RPM drives each. They will also provide rackspace and bandwidth. The announcement comes four months after Google's announcement of support, and two months after Yahoo's own. Google has not yet made their intentions clear. You can read more about the specifications of what will soon be a 100+ server cluster at the Wikimedia Servers wiki article."

240 comments

  1. This sounds like by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    a me-too move. Good for the Wikipedia guys tho...

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:This sounds like by Karma+Sucks · · Score: 4, Insightful

      All Google has done is hand-waving so far.

      On the other hand, Yahoo has been one of the earliest Wikipedia supporters according to TFA.

      --
      (Please browse at -1 to read this comment.)
    2. Re:This sounds like by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 4, Funny

      Theres nothing wrong with hand-waving.
      Obi-wan did ok by it.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    3. Re:This sounds like by Jugalator · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If Yahoo is a "me too" move, Google was a "look how good we are" move.
      Regardless, it's good for not only the administrators, but obviously for their large user base too.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    4. Re:This sounds like by Jamesday · · Score: 4, Informative
      Yahoo was first, about a year before the Google thing Yahoo arranged some content linking. Then ON THE SAME DAY both Google and Yahoo agreed to provide hardware. The Google news leaked, making it appear as though Google was first when it was actually as close to simultaneous as these things can be. Each is being accepted and used in the order which works out most conveniently for Wikipedia.

      Both Yahoo and Google deserve approximately equal kudos for being helpful to the projects. Thanks!

    5. Re:This sounds like by nz17 · · Score: 1

      [quote]Theres nothing wrong with hand-waving.
      Obi-wan did ok by it.[/quote]

      Are you kidding, dude? He totally got killed for hand waving! From now on, I'm just going to grunt in people's general direction instead of being cut down for being Jedi scum! ;)

      --
      Most men are not thought unwise until they speak.
    6. Re:This sounds like by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      [quote][/quote] doesn't work on /. because /. doesn't use []-style BBcode.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    7. Re:This sounds like by SEWilco · · Score: 1

      That is not the hand-waving you seek.
      Move along.

  2. Also! by Raul654 · · Score: 5, Informative

    As I write this, our developers are switiching the entire site over to Mediawiki 1.5 (from 1.4), and most of the changes will make it run faster. So we're lowering the per-transaction cost of the software and increasing the server capacity -- this is a good thing.

    --


    To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
    --E.C. Stanton
    1. Re:Also! by slavemowgli · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Out of curiosity, why are you switching to 1.5 yet when the last release is still listed as "not recommended for use in a production environment"?

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    2. Re:Also! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any reason your developers are doing this and not your sysadmins?

    3. Re:Also! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it makes for a good beta testing of course!

      Betas of MediaWiki have always gone live on the Wikimedia sites to iron out the bugs as quickly as possible. As probably on the most complex wiki software out there, it's needed too.

    4. Re:Also! by Jon+Chatow · · Score: 5, Informative
      Because the devs and the sysadmins are one and the same (generally), and they like playing fire with fire. :-)

      Seriously, "not recommended" is because it hasn't been properly tested yet in a large-scale environment; this is what is being done right now. If this version of MediaWiki works for Wikimedia, it should work for everyone else, too (barring the funny odd bits we don't use).

      --
      James F.
    5. Re:Also! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the good people at Yahoo could teach your developers how to upgrade a site without shutting it down.

    6. Re:Also! by midom · · Score: 1

      sysadmins are developers. developers are sysadmins. this is the way to make site running low budget and high profile.

    7. Re:Also! by Jon+Chatow · · Score: 1

      Yes, perhaps there are some amazing people at Yahoo! who using only MySQL can cause a database to switch schemas instantly over many tens of millions of rows whilst not being in read-only state. And no cheating like using multiple database servers and switching from one set to another - we don't (yet) have the hardware to achieve that.

      --
      James F.
    8. Re:Also! by D+H+NG · · Score: 1

      Any word on when the English version can handle Unicode?

    9. Re:Also! by Jon+Chatow · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Unicode is assumed for 1.5, so all wikis will be converted as part of the transition process, including the English Wikipedia.

      --
      James F.
    10. Re:Also! by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Yes, perhaps there are some amazing people at Yahoo! who using only MySQL can cause a database to switch schemas instantly over many tens of millions of rows whilst not being in read-only state.

      Of course there are. I'm not even an amazing person, nor do I work at Yahoo!, but I could do it.

      And no cheating like using multiple database servers and switching from one set to another - we don't (yet) have the hardware to achieve that.

      You don't have two servers?

    11. Re:Also! by midom · · Score: 1

      in two or three days... ;-)

    12. Re:Also! by midom · · Score: 1
      :-) hey, come and help doing that! all input is greatly appreciated. if you managed to sync data between two schemas without any downtime, it would be great. no sarcasm, we need that functionality.

      and... regarding db servers. we have like... 6 working boxes, dealing with 6000-9000 sql queries per second. and we have got 200gb of data.

    13. Re:Also! by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      hey, come and help doing that! all input is greatly appreciated.

      Not mine. Wikipedia's arbitration committee has already made it clear that they don't want my input.

    14. Re:Also! by Jamesday · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because the technical team at Wikipedia includes the developers and we know that there are sure to be problems as it is introduced to full service. Anything from outright bugs to database queries with unacceptable load properties. It'll probably be released for a general audience in four to eight weeks, once it's been very thoroughly tested at its biggest user site.

    15. Re:Also! by njyoder · · Score: 0

      And this is exactly why Wikipedia has so much down time. You guys need admins who aren't so damn incompetent. I'm surprised by the number of "oopses" they make and their lack of experience with high bandwidth sites.

    16. Re:Also! by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      or to put it another way they got the system completed to allow them to switch a wiki to utf-8 without block-converting the body text with the wiki offline.

      this was very important to allow converting a wiki the size of the english wikipedia with downtime for the conversion being kept to a reasonable level.

      i don't know if mediawiki still allows you to run an iso-8859-1 wiki or not.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    17. Re:Also! by Tofino · · Score: 1

      Because "not recommended..." is carny for "we are covering our asses with this caveat." It's usually fine, and cowboy admins love this shit! And it makes me very happy that wiki has cowboy admins.

    18. Re:Also! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a good news. I had to convert characters to numeric entities each time before submitting on Safari. And that was getting old. ISO-8859-1 with numeric entities takes up more space than UTF-8 and the diff logs were illegible as well.

    19. Re:Also! by brion · · Score: 1

      MediaWiki is our in-house software, which we develop specifically for Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia sites. We declare a new version to be 'beta' when we're satisfied it's time to put it live on the Wikimedia sites.

      Experience on the live sites picks out remaining problems that weren't quite found through prior testing, and irons out kinks in the upgrade procedure which need to be cleaned up prior to a 'public-ready' point-zero release.

      --

      Chu vi parolas Vikipedion?

  3. Not Just Software... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wikipedia Hardware?! I didn't know they make hardware. Does anyone have the Wikipedia link for this? ;)

    1. Re:Not Just Software... by Seindal · · Score: 5, Funny

      Everybody can add their own transistors.

      --
      René Seindal
    2. Re:Not Just Software... by Donniedarkness · · Score: 1

      Nothing about it here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia/

      --
      Earn a % of cash back from Newegg, Tiger Direct, Walmart.com, and more: http://www.mrrebates.com?refid=458505
    3. Re:Not Just Software... by FidelCatsro · · Score: 1

      But then your FPU unit gets locked awaiting moderation because of a dispute about its accuracy.

      --
      The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    4. Re:Not Just Software... by jrockway · · Score: 2, Funny

      Not if you're Intel. Then you just ship a broken one.

      --
      My other car is first.
    5. Re:Not Just Software... by khromatikos · · Score: 0

      Are you telling me they make FPGAS?

  4. Imagine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A beowulf clus... er, nevermind.

  5. required? by cryptoz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Does wikipedia seriously need all that? I thought the data they were serving up was mostly just text and wasn't really a huge problem. As in, weren't their current servers enough? Or am I missing something?

    1. Re:required? by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 0, Redundant

      They're not going to refuse are they? :-)

      Besides, if they keep growing at the rate they are as a service, it they don't need all that now, they will soon. Just look at Google: they started as a dinky little service, and now they require tens of thousands of servers for what is, essentially, just a search engine.

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    2. Re:required? by xMilkmanDanx · · Score: 5, Informative

      Just think of all the links that get posted in slashdot to wikipedia and it doesn't falter under the load. That and it's not just static pages, between building, rebuilding, keeping reversion history, indexing for searches and constant slashdotting...

    3. Re:required? by nomadic · · Score: 1

      It's a horribly laggy site; obviously a lot of this is probably bandwidth problems, but I'm sure some of it is CPU lag. Also, in terms of size it's growing enormously; look at the recent articles link and you'll see that dozens of new articles are being added a day.

    4. Re:required? by Jon+Chatow · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, no, bandwidth (I'll assume here that you meant "throughput" ;-)) problems are not significant, it's much more the actual server hardware. Wikis are very database- and CPU-heavy.

      --
      James F.
    5. Re:required? by slavemowgli · · Score: 1

      Why does Google need more than 100,000 boxes? All they do is serve (mostly) text, too, after all.

      You underestimate the sheer number of hits that Wikipedia gets.

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    6. Re:required? by teslatug · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Have you looked at the MediaWiki features? There's tons of dynamic features. What doesn't hit he cache, goes to the DB. Wikipedia is 67th in the Alexa ratings (Slashdot is 1,441th, of course not too many slashdotters use Alexa, but check some of the other sites, CNN is in the 20s, and Wikipedia gets more traffic in a day than /. gets in a month).

      Additionally, Wikipedia's lag is a dampening factor to its popularity. As more servers are added, it becomes more responsive, servers go to capacity again, and yet more hardware is needed.

    7. Re:required? by midom · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, first of all, everything grows. Number of user increases all the time - doubles every two or three months. Number of pageviews increases as well. And last but not the least, there are more and more, bigger and bigger articles with more and more of history. Wikipedia is growing and it is running on really low-budget hardware. And... every time we make a site running faster, more users come and use available resources. Therefore, we can do two things. Optimize our software platform and increase our hardware capacity. There are questions why are boxes added in Seul. We're trying to bring content as close to people as possible. Light speed means slow in information age. We already have donated cluster in Amsterdam, which serves all Europe, we want to have same or better capabilities in Asia. And sure, we're improving constantly our main cluster in USA. Why we really need that much cpus? Wiki means a website with a content that could be edited last second. It cann't be desynced, as editing outdated content isn't that sane. Also, it doesn't simply serve HTML content. In wiki all documents are related, links tracked, document quality observed, etc. Therefore, for a task, that might look quite simple, we need quite lots of servers. We could serve those poor 2500 requests / second (~1500 pageviews per second) with two or three web servers, but.. hey, EDIT THIS PAGE.

    8. Re:required? by m50d · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Slashdot links barely touch the database. Any popular links are handled by the squid caches. It's the zillions of people all looking at different pages that stress the database.

      --
      I am trolling
    9. Re:required? by Canadian_Daemon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      According to Netcraft, /. is ranked 33, while Wikipedia is ranked 117.

      --
      This sig is definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate.
    10. Re:required? by teslatug · · Score: 1

      That's cause you're looking only at en, try looking at all the other languages and projects which also run on the same hardware.

    11. Re:required? by bobbozzo · · Score: 2, Informative

      FWIW, they have Squid caches in front of the web farm, so there are cached static copies of busy pages.

      --
      Nothing to see here; Move along.
    12. Re:required? by Jamesday · · Score: 1

      Wikipedia doesn't need that. It needs more - those aren't enough to handle the full load.:) They should be enough for the Asia-Pacific region for a few months at least. Wikipedia growth is still limited by performance when it comes to viewing pages not in cache and editing (adding and changing content).

    13. Re:required? by denelson83 · · Score: 1

      Oh, I think Wikipedia will need as many servers as it can accept. Even with the number of servers Wikimedia has right now, and because Wikipedia also includes profound quantities of images and sound files, the project still has a significant amount of downtime once in a while (which I have observed, given that I am a regular contributor), and I hope this action will reduce that downtime considerably.

    14. Re:required? by mpcooke3 · · Score: 1

      Surely with decent caching the expensive thing is going to be the bandwidth. certainly over the course of a few years

    15. Re:required? by njyoder · · Score: 0

      And all you have to go on is Alexa ratings, which isn't exactly a good measure. Most people don't use Alexa and most people don't even know what Wikipedia is. Try a better measurement and you might have a good argument.

    16. Re:required? by Pendersempai · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I saw a presentation by Jimbo Wales in which he compared the readership of Wikipedia, Slashdot, and NYTimes.com. Wikipedia recently passed NYTimes, and slashdot doesn't even compare. In fact, he noted with something of a smile that Wikipedia would probably bring Slashdot to its knees with a front-page link.

      Slashdot ain't got squat on Wikipedia.

    17. Re:required? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, measuring people who install Alexa spyware is a ridiculous biased sample.

    18. Re:required? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I keep hearing these wikipedia is slow complaints. For gods sake get some perspective, people. 20 years ago you were lucky to have a real encyclopedia at your house, and would have had to hoof it to the local freakin library and then actually find what it is you were looking for. Now you just type some words into a box, wait 30 seconds while puffing on your american spirit light, thinking, god this site is soooooo slooooow. I know the response to this will be the old walking uphill in the snow type response, but I do say get some freaking perspective.

    19. Re:required? by Red+Alastor · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'd seriously love to see that. Maybe if we expend the page about Slashdot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slashdot) and make it a featured article... :)

      --
      Slashdot anagrams to "Sad Sloth"
    20. Re:required? by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      even if wp did direct link /. on the front page (which goes against thier way of doing things) i doubt it would have that much effect. /. is story orientated. folks go to whatever pages are listed in the current story. wikipedia is an encyclopedia, people generally go there looking for something in particlar and might look at the other stuff on the homepage if they are boared.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    21. Re:required? by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      i don't think we have seen a slowdown in a month or so actually. mostly the really major slowdowns/timeouts are caused when some resource gets contended because something else is running a little slower than normal (think database locks etc)

      has anyone else tried to scale a wiki to the kind of usercounts wikipedia is running on? i doubt it.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    22. Re:required? by kesuki · · Score: 1

      it's not the number of readers.. it's the bandwith of the readers ;) do you know anyone on slashdot with LESS than a 3 megabit connection? who reads the main page? I don't. I know people with less who read journals here, on less but not front page readers. how many dialup users are using wikipidia? how many aol users are reading nytimes?

      but you've got a point, a slashdotting just isn't what it used to be. It hasn't been for a long time, in the golden days of tech tv TSS was slashdotting sites that slashdot had failed to bring down...

    23. Re:required? by shark72 · · Score: 1

      "Does wikipedia seriously need all that? I thought the data they were serving up was mostly just text and wasn't really a huge problem. As in, weren't their current servers enough? Or am I missing something?"

      You're not missing anything. It's because they're generally proactive in adding servers that you tend to think of Wikipedia as being fast. All else being equal, this is the proper way to do it... to add more iron before you need it, and not adopting an interrupt-driven hardware acquisition policy.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    24. Re:required? by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      it *would* be the expensive thing if they weren't growing at such an insane rate.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    25. Re:required? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      do you know anyone on slashdot with LESS than a 3 megabit connection?

      OK I'll own up. I've only got a 2 megabit connection.

    26. Re:required? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1Mbit here (both ways though)

    27. Re:required? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if that's not wireless you should be ashamed.

    28. Re:required? by Dave2+Wickham · · Score: 1

      512/256 here.

    29. Re:required? by bbtom · · Score: 1

      What about abroad? Here in the UK, I can only think of one person out of my whole network of friends and associates who's got more than 512k at home. Reason? Shitty phone companies with shitty monopolistic practices and high prices.

      I'm sitting here on a virtually unused 2Mb pipe (office) but at home, like everyone else I know (bar one person) I'm on 512k. And most of the people I'm talking about do read /.

      In the UK, especially out in the suburbs and rural areas, 512k is the standard. 1Mb is a rarity and 2Mb is just nonexistent at the residential level.

      Of course, YMMV.

      --
      catch (HumourFailureException e) { e.user.send("You, sir, are a humourless idiot."); }
    30. Re:required? by potat0man · · Score: 1

      HA! 112kb/s cellular

    31. Re:required? by Dave2+Wickham · · Score: 1

      /me smashes ADSL modem

      HAH! 56k dial-up.

    32. Re:required? by cpeterso · · Score: 1


      Funny, that Wikipedia page did load rather slowly! Of course, they would probably blame "software upgrades" for the performance slowdown.. ;-)

    33. Re:required? by kesuki · · Score: 1

      To be honest most of my friends are journal people they read journals, a few do the main page, but most of them are here for the journal community... So I already excempted people here primarily for journal usage ^^;

      but nonetheless my point was slashdot has very few people using slow connection, and very many with very fast connections. whereas the readership of the nytimes is probablly more reflective of actual internet demographics, with over 50% of it's user base still using dial-up modems.

  6. Some companies are just too cool for words by Council · · Score: 4, Funny

    So it seems now that Wikipedia has more street cred than either Yahoo OR Google, since they're both clammering to be seen as being in support.

    And with Google at aproximately 211 street cred units as of the last survey, Wikipedia is definitely doing well.

    --
    xkcd.com - a webcomic of mathematics, love, and language.
    1. Re:Some companies are just too cool for words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what's the name for street cred units?

    2. Re:Some companies are just too cool for words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what's the name for street cred units?

      Kudos.

    3. Re:Some companies are just too cool for words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  7. wikihardware by mz001b · · Score: 4, Funny

    The trouble of course with wiki-hardware is that the system adminstration is left to the community.

    1. Re:wikihardware by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 0, Troll

      The trouble of course with wiki-hardware is that the system adminstration is left to the community.

      That worries me sometimes too. I mean, I've yet to see this in the Britannica yet, and that's why I use the Britannica more often than Wikipedia for serious work.

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    2. Re:wikihardware by hunterx11 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That is not an example of a bad article at all. It is not a GNAA troll, but rather a descriptive an informative article on what the GNAA is. Wikipedia has many faults, but that fact that it covers topics that other encyclopedias don't is one of its strengths. If you are doing serious work, Wikipedia is not the place to go, but neither is Britannica.

      --
      English is easier said than done.
    3. Re:wikihardware by suitepotato · · Score: 1

      The trouble of course with wiki-hardware is that the system adminstration is left to the community.

      So not that much different that driver development on Linux.

      More seriously, I am not sure what the wikimania online is about since having had to read whole sections of school encyclopedias was enough in junior high. I have no interest in writing articles in them. I also don't find myself to be enough of an expert on anything to do it with a straight face. Much of it seems to be ego boosting more than truly contributing to the breadth of mankind's knowledge.

      OTOH, much of what the government does is no different and this isn't costing me any money, so go to it people. Have your wiki fun.

      --
      If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
    4. Re:wikihardware by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I mean, I've yet to see this in the Britannica yet, and that's why I use the Britannica more often than Wikipedia for serious work.


      So you use Britannica more often than Wikipedia for serious work because Wikipedia contains articles on things that Britannica doesn't? That doesn't make much sense to me. If your "serious work" doesn't have anything to do with the GNAA, then you're not going to type GNAA into Wikipedia's search field, and you're never going to see that page in the first place.

    5. Re:wikihardware by Vegeta99 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Also, in addition to HunterX11's comment, Wikipedia articles almost always have relevant links and sources listed. It's meant more as a starting point for research - it gives you a rather verbose summary of the information, and then points you in the right direction for more involved, serious research.

      If you use it correctly, you won't find a better encyclopedia anywhere.

    6. Re:wikihardware by gardyloo · · Score: 0, Troll

      Just like most Windows systems. ;)

    7. Re:wikihardware by m50d · · Score: 1

      There must be something you have an interest in. I found I was able to meaningfully contribute to the page on cdrom bootloaders, just because it's something I've fiddled about with a lot. Also the page on BoA (the singer) (which someone has subsequently come and done a better rewrite of, but for a time mine was the best version so far), again just because that's something I have an interest in. There is almost certainly a subject, however narrow, that you know more about than everyone who's contributed so far.

      --
      I am trolling
    8. Re:wikihardware by EpsCylonB · · Score: 1

      Yep, if your doing anything serious like a report or research then you shouldn't be referencing an encyclopedia anyway. BTW believe it or not there have been incidents of mistakes in printed encyclopedias.

    9. Re:wikihardware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Much of it seems to be ego boosting more than truly contributing to the breadth of mankind's knowledge.

      The goal of Wikipedia doesn't have to do with contributing to mankind's knowledge. Like all encyclopedias, really, the purpose of Wikipedia is to organize knowledge, not to create it. In many ways, Wikipedia is another form of search - you've got search engines, then you've got directories, then you've got Wikipedia.

      As for much of it being ego boosting, I don't how that matters, really. Whether someone is editing Wikipedia for ego or not as long as they're not deleting anything or adding things in completely irrelevant place, Wikipedia is getting better at doing its job.

    10. Re:wikihardware by slavemowgli · · Score: 1

      Of course, one might still argue that the topic is too limited in scope to deserve a Wikipedia article of its own - it's a specific trolling phenomenon on a specific site only, after all. I'm generally very much for inclusiveness, but with this article, I always have the feeling that it blows the whole thing out of proportion and gives unfamiliar readers the feeling that they're really more important/widely-known/relevant than they really are.

      I do agree that outside of that, the article's well-written and a good example of the differences between the Ivory Tower approach and the Bazaar approach, though.

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    11. Re:wikihardware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wikipedia is not the place to go ...

      On the contrary I think that Wikipedia is the place to start. It usually offers a good overall view on the issue at hand. One may not want to directly refer to Wikipedia on his/her scientific research paper, but the knowledge, opinions, thoughts and the links that Wikipedia offers are useful.

      I'm NANES (Not A Native English Speaker)

    12. Re:wikihardware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If you are doing serious work, Wikipedia is not the place to go, but neither is Britannica."

      Just a philosophical aside. Is not the 'truth' defined by poular concensus, or does there exist some separate, objective truth that only the privilaged may know? We still live in the age of soothsayers, only now they run databases.

    13. Re:wikihardware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, why not? Is the internet going to run out of room?

    14. Re:wikihardware by alienw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The whole point of a Wiki is that people can write about what they feel is important. This is what makes Wikipedia so good -- many articles are written by people who know what they are talking about first-hand, and not English majors trying to explain how something works. The quality of the writing isn't as good as a commercial encyclopedia, but the quality of the information is much higher.

      Considering that the GNAA has been trolling slashdot (which is one of the most popular sites on the 'net) for the last few years, they may as well have an article of their own. If someone took the time to write and update it, it's important enough to be in there. Plus, that page is hilarious!

  8. YES! by Donniedarkness · · Score: 0

    I love Wikipedia...hate the big guys supporting (influencing) them... but in the end, it'll only be good for Wikipedia, I suppose.

    --
    Earn a % of cash back from Newegg, Tiger Direct, Walmart.com, and more: http://www.mrrebates.com?refid=458505
    1. Re:YES! by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      yeah god, I hate donations. JEEZ, so terrible.

    2. Re:YES! by pcmanjon · · Score: 1

      "I love Wikipedia...hate the big guys supporting (influencing) them... but in the end, it'll only be good for Wikipedia, I suppose."

      Care to elaborate on your logic there?

      Just look at how corporations (influence) the government. Is that good for the Government? (Or more directly, the citizens/users of the Government?)

      RIAA/MICROSOFT/MPAA/DISNEY/INDTSUTRIAL/GEOLOGICA L BASED COMPANIES come to mind.

      Corporate influence is usually always bad, and [in the end.., it'll only] usually turn out bad for the customer/citizen [I suppose]

      Surely good for wikipedia, surely bad for the users. The whole purpose of corporate interest can be determined by literal meaning. Corporate interest is just that, interest for the corporation. If corporate interest "influences" wikipedia, wikipedia will be influenced to interest the corporation.

      This usually can't be good, for the users.

    3. Re:YES! by Donniedarkness · · Score: 1

      That's what I meant...good for Wikipedia...not neccessarily for the users.

      --
      Earn a % of cash back from Newegg, Tiger Direct, Walmart.com, and more: http://www.mrrebates.com?refid=458505
    4. Re:YES! by dumbfounder · · Score: 1

      If it were that simple that corporations are always wrong then there may not be lobbyists at all. Lobbyists are there to convince politicians that laws to support the corporation can actually benefit the consumers. Lobbying usually happens in very gray areas, but obviously sometimes they aren't so gray, hence the dirty reputation lobbyists have earned.

      Your simplistic definition of corporate interest can also extend to benefitting consumers too. If the corporation can make a greater profit on a product, then they can afford to reduce the price of the product, and make the product better, etc. Thus doing what is in best interest to the corporation is very often what is in the best interest of the consumer. Take a look at Gmail. Sure some people are crying about privacy issues (then don't use it) but the rest of us are weeping with joy about 2 gigs of space and superior features. It wouldn't exist unless they had a business case to create it. And the people that advertise there are very happy about having another medium to reach their audience.

      Advertising makes a lot of things free or much cheaper and/or better, I happen to think that is good for both the corporation and the consumer.

  9. Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The new servers are on fire already.

    Some slashdotting

    Shameless Plug!

  10. Hopefully.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They get their servers sooner than me.. I ordered a Opteron DL145 from hp.com over a month ago and it won't ship until next week.

    In the meantime, we've had three Dell servers go through.. each delivered withing 5 business days.

    We just ordered 25 more boxes from Dell, the original order was to compare the two types of systems before we placed our big order and Dell won by default 'cause HP just couldn't deliver(the Dell boxes are 20% cheaper as well).

    No brainer.

    1. Re:Hopefully.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just use Xserves. The TCO is amazingly low.

    2. Re:Hopefully.. by chez69 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      the mac power PC hardware is also a dead end

      --
      PHP is the solution of choice for relaying mysql errors to web users.
    3. Re:Hopefully.. by HermanAB · · Score: 1

      Yup, HPs problems are deeper than just replacing the CEO. They have trouble executing and delivering orders. That doesn't make HP products bad, but it does make it hard to deal with them.

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
    4. Re:Hopefully.. by Pinback · · Score: 1

      Any time I see an HP win in the press, I think of the 9000 or 3000 series sytems. Instead, this is just a bunch of Compaq boxes. Nothing really HP about that.

    5. Re:Hopefully.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe he wants to spend less money and get hardware that he knows for sure will be supported in a few years time.

    6. Re:Hopefully.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the G5 is a dead end. Great processor, but apple has given up on it. Oh, and by the way if you buy a dell server it'll be faster then the xserve and also be supported for the next few years.

    7. Re:Hopefully.. by AJWM · · Score: 1

      While ProLiant was indeed a Compaq line, IMHO the HP ProLiants are better hardware than the Compaqs were. X86[-64] architecture sure, but definitely server grade.

      --
      -- Alastair
  11. FYI: Those Are Opteron Servers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Not Athlon

    1. Re:FYI: Those Are Opteron Servers by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      I was wondering about that... Wikis are *very* CPU intensive and a busy one would bury a dual athlon.

    2. Re:FYI: Those Are Opteron Servers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh my God ! Bring on the Slashdot anti-Intel brigade !

  12. Heh by aftk2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Only on Slashdot would Yahoo's donation be compared unfavorably to Google, when Yahoo has actually provided something, and Google has merely mentioned it.

    --
    concrete5: a cms made for marketing, but strong enough for geeks.
    1. Re:Heh by BReflection · · Score: 1

      There was nothing unfavorable insinuated regarding Google here. It is actually the opposite, in my opinion. Google has provided and Yahoo hasn't, even though Google was the first to have the idea. Any perceptions that Yahoo was compared unfavorably to Google was yours, not mine.

      --
      python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
  13. broken images? by Karma+Sucks · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Am I the only one seeing broken images all over Slashdot? It's been going on for days now.

    --
    (Please browse at -1 to read this comment.)
    1. Re:broken images? by rbarreira · · Score: 1

      If you mean that the images don't even load, yes. But it only happens in one of my pc's, it's really weird!!

      --

      The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
    2. Re:broken images? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes.

    3. Re:broken images? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. I've been seeing it, too.

    4. Re:broken images? by thedak · · Score: 1

      I have it too but I've been thinking it's been safari's fault. Glad to hear I'm not crazy.

    5. Re:broken images? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, Adblock does that.

    6. Re:broken images? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check that your adblock aren't blocking the upload-subdomain. I did that mistake once.

  14. South Korea? by s0rbix · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Does anyone know why they are being set up in South Korea?

    1. Re:South Korea? by Jon+Chatow · · Score: 4, Informative

      'Cos Yahoo! offered to host them at their facility there, and our overall global reach has a bit of a paucity in Asia.

      --
      James F.
    2. Re:South Korea? by Punboy · · Score: 1

      inexpensive, fatty bandwidth pipes. MUCH less expensive than in the US.

      --
      If you like what I've said here, and want to read more, go to http://www.krillrblog.com
    3. Re:South Korea? by commodoresloat · · Score: 4, Funny

      Because only old people will administer the servers.

    4. Re:South Korea? by midom · · Score: 1

      we want to deploy global reach. pages from a server 1000km away load _much_ faster than from 10000km. hey, light speed is there, and packets travel back and forth and cause delays, etc. a new cluster was deployed in Amsterdam, which serves whole Europe, thus by reducing page loads multiple times.

    5. Re:South Korea? by cheungpat · · Score: 1

      Okay. Suppose they are trying to build some servers to serve Asia... but still... why South Korea?

    6. Re:South Korea? by m50d · · Score: 1

      The current server farms (US and Paris) are far away from around there, it's nice if there's a server nearby for most users and this will improve that. As to why South Korea specifically, it's a country with very high internet connectivity (IIRC they have the greatest proportional broadband coverage for any decent-sized country) and also a strong interest in democracy (because they've got North Korea right next to them), so I'd imagine there are a lot of wikipedia users there.

      --
      I am trolling
    7. Re:South Korea? by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Why are the US servers located in Tampa? Why not?

    8. Re:South Korea? by TorKlingberg · · Score: 1

      Yahoo probably have spare rackspace there. I suppose S. Korea has fast lines to Japan anyway.

    9. Re:South Korea? by Jamesday · · Score: 1

      The donor has a data center and people to look after the servers there. I assume that they looked carefully and concluded that it wass an excellent site form which to serve the region for their own operations and getting the benefit of their operational experience is a good thing.

    10. Re:South Korea? by hunterx11 · · Score: 1

      It's great that they are setting up in Korea, but I just hope that they don't forget Poland.

      --
      English is easier said than done.
  15. faulty facts in summary by TERdON · · Score: 3, Interesting
    As I noticed, the summary says dual athlon, and they're not really actual anymore (as far as I know the Opteron was introduced about two years ago). AMD did make Athlon MP processors earlier, which was why I reacted (why buy three year old tech?).

    The server hardware spec link said the "athlons" in fact are opterons. *sigh*

    --
    I have a really elegant proof for Fermat's last theorem. If this sig was only a bit longer...
    1. Re:faulty facts in summary by BReflection · · Score: 1

      Sorry about that...flashback to the past...I knew better =)

      --
      python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
  16. Looks like Wikipedia isn't just slow for me by theurge14 · · Score: 1

    Seriously, that site needs the extra juice.

  17. All over little ol' me! by stimpleton · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is sort of like those school yard spats over a girl.

    Wiki is the girl. Google and Yahoo are the two guys.

    My mother's advice surely applies to this situation(that I got many years back):

    "Stay away from that little trollop! Anyone that causes a fight is not worth it."

    Of course, I did hang round that girl. Pretty wee thing. It was all fruitles of course.

    Bitch! You whore Wiki!

    *begins to cry*

    --

    In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
    1. Re:All over little ol' me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You're an utter moron.

    2. Re:All over little ol' me! by slavemowgli · · Score: 1

      I don't know.. I think a better analogy would have Wikipedia as the school's football team, and Google and Yahoo competing to become quarterback, knowing that they'll both get respect from the larger community if they do. The only difference is that in this case, there is room for more than one quarterback.

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    3. Re:All over little ol' me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did she have really big tits?

    4. Re:All over little ol' me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is sort of like those school yard spats over a girl.

      Wiki is the girl. Google and Yahoo are the two guys.


      Not really... it's more like this:

      Wiki is Michael Jackson. Google and Yahoo are his two cell mates after Michael's conviction in the pedophelia trial in 2017.

    5. Re:All over little ol' me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell are you talking about?

    6. Re:All over little ol' me! by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      I think the best analogy would be that Wikipedia is like a slutty teen cheerleader whose going to take anything google and yahoo have to offer. More than one quarterback indeed!

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    7. Re:All over little ol' me! by zobier · · Score: 2, Funny
      Interesting, the analogy between trollop and wiki is fitting:

      Everyone puts their bit in.

      --
      Me lost me cookie at the disco.
    8. Re:All over little ol' me! by jred · · Score: 1

      I tried to find out what a trollop is, but there was no page there. It must be really bad for wikipedia to censor it...

      --

      jred
      I'm not a mechanic but I play one in my garage...
    9. Re:All over little ol' me! by N1KO · · Score: 1

      Wrong site. Use the dictionary

  18. and i thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...wikipedia is making hardware now and yahoo needs some...

  19. Cool. by Vegeta99 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Since I can't think of anything really insightful to say, I'll just say thanks.

    Thanks to Yahoo, for supporting the Wikimedia Foundation, and thanks to the Wikimedia folks and all of their contributors for their great contributions to what I hope will become (and is already on its way) one of the world's best disseminators of human knowledge. It's meant to be free, at least as in speech, but they're pulling it off as in beer, too.

    Much kudos to them - One day when I'm not a poor college student, I'll help out. They've certianly made themselves worthy.

  20. AMD Opteron (supercomputer favoured) or Athlon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder whether you could check out whether these are AMD Opteron - or AMD Athlon. I'll hazard a guess that you are referring to AMD Opteron, the really powerful ones Cray are now offering in their "Red Storm" supercomputers.

    http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_servers

    If you really mean Athlon then perhaps they have yet to be added to the breakdown in the above link.

    For those interested in supercomputers based on Opteron then search engine submit for cray opteron red storm

  21. Great Support for the Wikipedia Blog by ThreeE · · Score: 0, Troll

    Hey this is great! Nice to see Yahoo! supporting the largest blog on the net!

  22. Don't forget the Dutch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The governmental Dutch education organization also helped wikimedia set up servers in Amsterdam. It is unclear who paid for what but wikipedia is very happy about serving Europe straight from the big internet hub in Amsterdam.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Announcemen ts/

  23. Take That, Google! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Sounds like Yahoo! has decided to go above and beyond Google's "do no evil" pledge by actually making good.

  24. Not Athlons, Opterons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Athlon MP chips can work in dual but wouldn't support 8 GB. Athlon 64 and Athlon FX chips do support 8 GB but can't work in dual. The servers in question use AMD Opteron chips.

  25. Headline Writers: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

    The headline is misleading. How bout... Yahoo! orders hardware for Wikipedia.

    I read it thinking "wiki sells hardware? wtf?!"

    just a note.

    1. Re:Headline Writers: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sarah Orders John Burger

      They made a burger out of John! OMG!

  26. Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Wikipedia was a great idea in theory but it is just too tainted with nonsense, girly egos, waffle and noise to be of any real benefit to those seeking information.

    Generally speaking (but certainely not always), the technical and computing articles are of a fairly good quality, however other areas are little more than fan pages or adverts for the things they are describing. If you try and correct anyone about them they get all uppety with a kind of "Don't like it don't read it" or "This is how we do things around here" attitude. That's a real shame.

    1. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny... "Don't like it don't read it" are not on any pages on wikipedia. The only time I've ever seen people told anything like that is when they try to censor the articles on sexuality and remove things that go against the teaching of their closed minded religion.

    2. Re:Bad idea by marcello_dl · · Score: 5, Insightful

      True, but think about it, what is the truth for non technical things?

      Before wiki and the 'net in general made content become alive, and coming from whatever source, all such discussions were lost. The winner of the argument, or more likely, the one with the arguments that were more pleasing for the ones in charge, would win and get published and later become part of what is taught in schools.

      With wikipedia the argument is part of the content and being critic of what you read is a good exercise for the mind.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    3. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes good point, and no one is saying only stuffy old doctrine as rubber stamped by government or religion is the truth. Of course not.

      But there are rather a lot of pages on Wikipedia which instead of offering relevant information (never mind the truth) are marred by what I would call fan speak and tittle-tattle posing as information. It's this lack of restraint and lack of will to tackle it which I find a tiresome.

      To me Wikipedia is in some danger of descending into a blog about 'what I like' at times. That is shame.

    4. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it is just too tainted with nonsense, girly egos, waffle and noise to be of any real benefit

      You must be new here.

    5. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I agree, but you're supposing it was ever worthwhile in the first place.

      I could use it if it had 1000th of the articles it has today, but the quality was 10 times better. Many of the contributors simply can't write to save their lives, and shouldn't be near a keyboard. Put a committee of the together and you get... Wikipediase.

  27. Yahoo/Google war by BonoLeBonobo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Seems to be a war to be the best "opensource" helper. See Google wants to help wikipedia, Yahoo helps wikipedia, Google makes Google summer code ...

    What's next ;-) ?

    --
    Bonjour !
    1. Re:Yahoo/Google war by suwain_2 · · Score: 1

      Googlepedia?

      --
      ________________________________________________
      suwain_2 :: quality slashdot p
    2. Re:Yahoo/Google war by kihjin · · Score: 2, Funny
      In other news...
      • Microsoft announced today the Windows platform source code will be released onto the SourceForge under a OSI-compatible license...
      • Duke Nukem Forever date was moved forward, and not back. According to developers, the game is complete, they are "just trying to beat it first"...
      --
      This slashdot-related signature is a stub. You can help kihjin by expanding it.
  28. Typo by BReflection · · Score: 1

    Google has provided --> Yahoo has provided.

    --
    python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
  29. "from the big-whoop dept." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google's announcement that maybe they might possibly be providing some kind of support was probably from the 'omgilovetehgoogle!" dept.

    Oh, and you got Google and Yahoo! mixed up there.

  30. Very nice by Thomas+DM · · Score: 1

    I hope this will make WikiPedia a little bit faster. Sometimes they're just way too slow because they can't handle the load.

  31. Re:Using Goodwill to Hide Rot by Gherald · · Score: 1

    Microsoft, Yahoo, and Google can do more good for China if they do not get blocked.

  32. not funny by presroi · · Score: 1

    Dear Moderators. This sentence is currently rated 4, Funny.

    Actually, mz001b made a valid point and all the donated hardware (which wikimedia is of course very thankful) has to be maintained by volunteers.

    So if HP or IBM or whatever company feels like, they should consider donating a full-time-employee-equivalent-sponsorship to someone who is doing this great job. IMHO.

  33. Re:Don't forget the Belgians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I read Belnet offered 22U rackspace, and bandwidth. Agreement is signed.

  34. Wikipedia's total bandwidth ? by Wills · · Score: 1
    Out of interest, does anyone know how much total bandwidth Wikipedia is consuming ?

    I wonder if there is somebody somewhere working on a peer-to-peer variant for distributing Wikipedia content and cutting some of the bandwidth costs.

    1. Re:Wikipedia's total bandwidth ? by BReflection · · Score: 2, Informative

      Up until recently when they moved to a new co-lo this data was out there, but it is unfortunately no longer available. I can say as a fact though that they are currently pushing out about 17 terabytes per month and growing strong. There's a bandwidth graph and instructions to read it on this page of my site.

      --
      python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
    2. Re:Wikipedia's total bandwidth ? by midom · · Score: 1
      AAA! Every time someone suggests peer2peer wikipedia, we bang our heads against the wall. think of lag times... How fast do you get a .jpg file from BitTorrent? Or... Kazaa, or whatever.

      Total bandwidth now at peak times is ~200mbps (our text content is usually compressed).

      We need distributed caches for speedy content delivery, not some bloated and overhyped p2p's.

    3. Re:Wikipedia's total bandwidth ? by kfg · · Score: 1

      Yer never going to earn your ISO buzzword compliance certificate that way.

      KFG

    4. Re:Wikipedia's total bandwidth ? by Jamesday · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Averaging 60-70 megabits per second over a whole month. Peaks at 320 megabits per second in extreme cases. Typical daily peaks in the 120 megabit per second range. 6 months ago it was more than 200 million database queries per day and it's probably several times that today.

      I'm wondering about setting up a network of boxes running the Coral software. Those have built in fault tolerance so it wouldn't take lots of admin work and would allow accepting many small bandwidth offers, in countries with comparatively low traffic. Makes most content even closer to the end users and spreads the bandwidth load around. Nothing actually happening on this front yet, though.

      A very large number of places witih full database servers and page builders, like this Yahoo announcement, would have too much admin overhead - 3-6 of those places is about right.

      P2P is a security problem. People can always modify P2P programs to add nasty content and Wikipedia has already seen people trying to upload that and has filters in place to catch and block some things.

    5. Re:Wikipedia's total bandwidth ? by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      A peer-to-peer Wikipedia would be a completely different project. It'd be a great project, in my opinion, but the way to go about it would be to build a P2P publishing network first, and then to just upload Wikipedia to it.

      Basically, you'd need to create a version of freenet which isn't ungodly slow, and probably wouldn't have all the encryption/anonymity features so as to accomplish that goal. Once you had that, like I said, it'd be a simple matter of uploading Wikipedia (and re-uploading it on a regular basis).

      I don't know of any fast alternative to freenet, which uses a web model rather than just individual files. If you know of one, let me know, and I'll upload Wikipedia :).

    6. Re:Wikipedia's total bandwidth ? by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      P2P is a security problem. People can always modify P2P programs to add nasty content and Wikipedia has already seen people trying to upload that and has filters in place to catch and block some things.

      I think the point is to transfer the content via P2P, not to let anyone create the P2P software itself. Wikipedia's wiki syntax has become extremely complicated, and maybe a P2P version would have to scale that down at least until some people could go through with a fine-toothed comb and ensure that it can't represent unsafe HTML, but this is a problem which is already faced by Wikipedia. I'm not sure I'd phrase the solution as putting filters in place, you really need to create a formal syntax definition which doesn't allow malevelovent code in the first place. But I'm probably just misinterpreting what you said; as I understand it Wikipedia has already begun working on formalizing its syntax, and by now it's probably finished (I haven't been following in months).

      And now that I think about it, this problem is already probably being resolved by the folks who make freenet. I'm not sure exactly how they do it, but I'm also not aware of any security holes with browsing freenet sites.

      Of course, in the longer run you'd probably want to have a custom browser anyway, then you could turn off javascript, java, and whatever else could lead to that bad stuff. From my understanding something like this is already being worked on by the KDE crew.

    7. Re:Wikipedia's total bandwidth ? by Jamesday · · Score: 1
      The problem isn't filtering it at source but preventing a modified peer client from inserting bad things which it then sends on to end users. Hard to prevent that because the attacker has control of everything which is being sent from the peer.

      Wikipedia is useful enough that we'd probably end up with the major ISPs hosting a Coral-type cache on their own network, if it was a plug it in and forget about it arrangement.

    8. Re:Wikipedia's total bandwidth ? by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      The problem isn't filtering it at source but preventing a modified peer client from inserting bad things which it then sends on to end users.

      If you send wiki source between clients, or even if you just filter bad html before displaying it, then this wouldn't be a problem. Like I said, freenet is doing it, so it's not something that hasn't already been solved.

      Of course, if you were running a modified peer client, then you'd be vulnerable, but as long as you get the client from a trusted source you'd be fine. I mean, if you download a modified version of Firefox you're vulnerable when you go to Wikipedia, too.

      Hard to prevent that because the attacker has control of everything which is being sent from the peer.

      Maybe I just don't understand what you're saying. Do you know how freenet works? The peer client is a webserver, and you access it by connecting to localhost using your web brower. So the attacker can send anything to the peer client, the peer client is just going to filter out any of the nasty stuff before sending it to the web browser.

    9. Re:Wikipedia's total bandwidth ? by Famanoran · · Score: 1

      The problem isn't filtering it at source but preventing a modified peer client from inserting bad things which it then sends on to end users. Hard to prevent that because the attacker has control of everything which is being sent from the peer.

      Agreed. But the same thing can be accomplished with a malicious proxy server just on content delivered via the web.

      It's one thing to try and modify the content itself stored on the Wikipedia servers, but is anyone really bored enough to bother with creating a proxy or P2P client/server which does that kind of malicious activity?

      Not likely, unless Encyclopedia Britannica is worried about Wikipedia...

      (Note: I said not likely. Not that it's impossible.)

  35. Yeah by kakashiryo · · Score: 1, Interesting

    It's nice they're all donating new hardware and such, but really...

    who's gonna be paying those killer power bills?!?!

    1. Re:Yeah by eldawg · · Score: 1

      Since its being hosted in Y!'s data centre, I would assume they'll pick up that tab.

  36. Can't say why, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  37. WooHoo! (or should I say Yahoo!) by paulius_g · · Score: 1

    Finnaly, it seems that Yahoo is willing to help Wikipedia. Good job!

  38. HAHAHAHAHA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Awesome joke, I'm in tears.

    1. Re:HAHAHAHAHA by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      The alternative punchline (a Batman reference to hardware): Does it come in black?

  39. Uh, hardly ... by dustmite · · Score: 4, Informative

    RTFA - it is the Wikipedia guys who are holding up Google's donation, not Google:

    "Wikimedia's planned facilities in Amsterdam (The Netherlands), Belgium, and Asia are not online yet, so it would be premature at this juncture to ask Google for something specific when we don't yet have good technical knowledge of what we will need in the coming months following the introduction of these new facilities. Google are eager to help us, and Wikimedia are eager to accept their help, but the Board want to be good stewards of donor money, and this requires them to move carefully"

    1. Re:Uh, hardly ... by glitch23 · · Score: 0

      Without reading the article I'm going to ask, how did they know what they wanted yahoo to get them if they don't know what they would ask from Google?

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    2. Re:Uh, hardly ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Without reading the article I'm going to ask, how did they know what they wanted yahoo to get them if they don't know what they would ask from Google?

      AFAICS, Google said "we'll give you money to buy servers and hosting" whereas Yahoo said "we'll give you servers in our datacentres" - so Google's gift is more flexible but requires decisions from Wikipedia what's best to do with the money which they haven't worked out yet. Yahoo's, on the other hand, is a no-brainer "yes please we're happy to accept".

  40. fedora... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it just me, or do you cringe when you see servers running fedora core X ....*shudder*

  41. Re:Using Goodwill to Hide Rot by Mr+Ambersand · · Score: 1

    All three are public companies, and therefore obligated BY LAW to maximise shareholder profit. By taking a stand against china (and, therefore risking their financial stability) they would be BREAKING the law.

    If you've been involved in politics for so long, this is something that you should already know.

    --
    "Your admirers in the street
    Got to hoot and stamp their feet
    in the heat from your physique" -King Crimson
  42. Why did Google merit a mention at all? by jbn-o · · Score: 1

    While I don't see how the story summary makes Google out to be somehow better than Yahoo! here, I do think that this was a gratuitous Google mention for promotional value (name-dropping, albeit not mentioning famous people but instead famous organizations).

  43. Who said TANSTAAFL? by zsau · · Score: 1

    Oh wait, now we have to be careful to avoid the Yahoo! View of History being predominant on Wikipedia!

    --
    Look out!
  44. Incorrect processor, but still AMD. by mjuarez · · Score: 1

    The three database servers are model DL 385, and will come with dual Athlons, 8GB of RAM, and 6x 146GB 15K RPM drives each.

    AFAIK, the DL385 is a quad-Opteron model. Athlon64 is only for desktops. Just saying.

    Marcos

    1. Re:Incorrect processor, but still AMD. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Close, DL385 is Dual Opteron (DL585 is Quad) although you can now use the dual-core so DL385 is a 2P4C and the DL585 is a 4P8C.

    2. Re:Incorrect processor, but still AMD. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      since we are being nitpicky, the dual core opteron is not yet available for the 385, it is only single core for now. Although DC support is expected in the next few months.

    3. Re:Incorrect processor, but still AMD. by Peartree · · Score: 1

      I think your observation is correct

    4. Re:Incorrect processor, but still AMD. by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, you're thinking of the DL585, which is quad-Opteron (up to 8-cores). The DL385 is dual-processor (though you can install dual-core Opterons to get 4 total cores).

  45. Wiki Quality by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 1
    I think the point about using a wiki as a reference for a reserch paper is not about Wikipedia's potential content quality, but rather that not only can the content itself change at anytime, the quality of that content at any time can very from total crap to high quality.

    Reserch papers need to reference static content of a known quality, and published encyclopedias don't change every few minutes depending on the whim of some random reader who disagrees with a particular point.

    And, other than pre-college schools, why would you use an encyclopedia or wiki anyway?

    --
    "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
    1. Re:Wiki Quality by cheesybagel · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hello? Wikipedia keeps all versions of an article. Just refer to the specific version in that case.

    2. Re:Wiki Quality by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 1

      That's not a good solution for research paper references. Sorry, doesn't cut it. Wikipedia is good for fun and discussion, but not academic project references.

      --
      "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
    3. Re:Wiki Quality by cheesybagel · · Score: 1
      No generalist encyclopedia is good for research paper references. For those, you read survey papers in that field, or generalistic books in that field, fish interesting papers out, then follow those up to see where the trail leads.

      There are also many paper search engines. Or you can just do it the old fashioned way and go to the departmental library at your university (assuming you are aggregated to one).

    4. Re:Wiki Quality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Refer to a specific version of the article, then!

  46. Multiple sites.... by imsabbel · · Score: 1

    They have a big cluster in the USA, they got just a few weeks ago 10 or so dual opteron servers in the netherlands (that will serve europe more or less completely), and these servers could take the asian part of load (plus increase redundance).

    Its just wastefull routing everything around large parts of the globe, plus keeping the database in different phyiscal locations cant hurt, either.

    --
    HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
  47. Maybe Dell will start taking notice of Opteron by manno · · Score: 0

    With public design wins like this sooner or later Dell will have to drop the "when our customers ask for Opterons we'll sell them Opterons" BS... I dobt it, But one can always hope that the world cheapest PC company will start stocking the wolds best desktop processors... some day.

  48. Re:Using Goodwill to Hide Rot by todd10k · · Score: 1

    Damn, and here was me thinking that when you operate in any given country, you are bound by their laws. thank you for showing me the light! *cough* if you have problems with chinese policy, take it up with the chinese government. dont take it out on companys that are only doing their jobs.

  49. hardware compensating for poor software by njyoder · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is a classic case of considering the hardware to be the problem rather than the software. The software has serious issues when it comes to performance and the developers are very slow to address it. Hell, Tim Starling, a lead developer, even stated that one of the design goals of the MediaWiki software was to spend as little time as possible developing it. I kid you not, that's paraphrasing something (with NO exaggeration) that was said in a presentation document which I can find if anyone doesn't believe me.

    I've heard some whining from some of the developers because they didn't have a ready made solution for certain things, meaning they would have to put actual *effort* into making their own. The idea of writing glue code (to C code) to make up for a feature lacking in existing php libraries was considered an abhorrent thing.

    Their best response to me pointing out flaws in their "development philosophy" was to them retort with the oh-so-clever "well why don't you write something better yourself?" Of course, that phrase is just a code word for "we know it sucks and we're just not willing to put all the extra effort into rewriting major portions of it." Really, it's sad when you have to define your software in terms of someone else (your opponent specifically) not writing something better.

    This isn't just unfounded complaints either. The developers have often complained that the existing implementation (and especially the choice to write the original code in PHP) needs to be rid of. They've said it has "everything and the kitchen sink" and that it degrades performance, but aren't trying that hard to get rid of it. They know this as a matter of fact through testing--Mediawiki has a massive overhead in setup time compared to other wiki software.

    Not just that, but the Wikipedia admins are all volunteers and aren't exactly the cream of the crop. They took them as volunteers since they were the best ones to devote that much time to it and unfortunately that means they're mediocre and they REALLY are not experienced for such a high traffic website.

    If they actually had a paid full time admin who had considerable background in sites like this, you'd suddenly see a massive drop in down time and other problems.

    1. Re:hardware compensating for poor software by GerardM · · Score: 1

      Well actually, you must not have followed things because closely; Wikimedia now has one paid full time admin. The 1.5 implementation which will give us huge benefits from a performance point of view is possible because of this.

      Your suggestion that paid full time administrators are always superior is your POV and given Wikimedia's policies on POVs you know where you stand.

      Your suggestion that no effort is put into Mediawiki is horrible. The developpers are volunteers and as such they work on the things that they want to work on. Being volunteers that is there right. When someone wants particular features, he can either do it himself or find someone willing to do it for him. If only a paid programmer can be found, than it is up to the person who wants it to make the money flow.

      Your suggestion that the Mediawiki developers do not have experience with high traffic websites is stupid. The Wikimedia servers are high traffic websites.

      As far as I am concerned the Mediawiki developers do an amazing job and if what you say is true how come the Wikimedia services are doing so well ??

      Thanks,
      GerardM

    2. Re:hardware compensating for poor software by njyoder · · Score: 1

      I'm impressed, you actually have a paid full time position now (excluding Jimbo himself).

      Your suggestion that paid full time administrators are always superior is your POV and given Wikimedia's policies on POVs you know where you stand.

      First of all, that's a strawman argument, I never said paid full time admins are ALWAYS superior, but this is clearly a case where they are needed. That said, you are also expressing your POV here, so following your own strange logic, what you say isn't valid on the basis that it's a POV.

      The paid full time admins who have PRIOR experience working on large sites and actually have a better work ethic due to the threat of being fired/demoted if their job isn't up to par. Instead you have what are essentially hobbyists who've studied this at home, but really have little or no prior experience in running a large scale website and all the logistics that go with it (which you can't learn from reading online manuals).

      The developpers are volunteers and as such they work on the things that they want to work on. Being volunteers that is there right.

      That's true, but at the same time if you criticize their work they suddenly get very defensive and act like no one (aside from people who walk on egg shells around them and suck up) could do better.

      If you have stated that your goal is to work a minimum amount of time on it, then at least be willing to accept criticism and acknowledge that it has serious problems when criticized and don't pretend like it's anything more than it is--something with minimal volunteer time put into it.

      Your suggestion that no effort is put into Mediawiki is horrible.

      Oooh, more strawman. I never said that, I was simply paraphrasing something Tim Starling himself said in a presentation regarding MediaWiki. He specifically stated that the design was to be made so the minimal work possible has to be done on it, which is quite startling because usually OSS projects will at least *pretend* to strive for more than the bare minimum.

      If only a paid programmer can be found, than it is up to the person who wants it to make the money flow.

      That sounds like an issue that could be resolved with corporate sponsorship, oh wait, that idea gets continually rejected with various excuses. "wah wah, we'll have to put ads up" even though clearly there are sponsors willing to do that without them. Even now with the whole google thing they are rejecting the idea because they are too sloppy and disorganized to come up with a proposal for what exactly they're going to do with the funding.

      This can also be resolved by realizing that they can optimize mediawiki a lot better, reduce a lot of overhead and result in less dependency on constant hardware upgrades (oooh save money!)

      Your suggestion that the Mediawiki developers do not have experience with high traffic websites is stupid. The Wikimedia servers are high traffic websites.

      Actually I said wikipedia admins, not mediawiki developers, but ok. They clearly don't have any background in this, at their own admittance (on IRC), a lot of what they do is trial and error because they haven't done it before.

      The admins also totally rejected the idea that anyone else in the world could possibly have similar experience running high traffic websites because there are none running a wiki that big, even though there's a lot of cross-over in experience from other types of sites.

      Basically, they admint they don't really know what they're doing and at the same time come off with the arrogant attitude that they know better than everyone else in the world. Kind of a contradiction, but who expects incompetent morons who can't even place an order for hardware far enough in advance to be logical?

      Oh yeah, did I mention that they're easily offended if you offer help? They're very stubborn, but also have their egos easily bruised if you challenge them. This is true of the programmers

    3. Re:hardware compensating for poor software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a classic case of considering the hardware to be the problem rather than the software. The software has serious issues when it comes to performance and the developers are very slow to address it.

      Standard reply: if you know the software has serious issues why don't you start fixing it yourself? Afterall, it's FOSS stuff.

    4. Re:hardware compensating for poor software by njyoder · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's a standard reply and a very naive one at that. People don't have all the time nor interest/motivation to fix every single piece of FOSS software they come across. Heck, you don't even need to have a problem with FOSS software, it can be with commercial software too. "If the commercial software has serious issues, why not write new software from scratch?"

    5. Re:hardware compensating for poor software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even though you provide a good set of criticisms, I think this is a case of 'Put up or shut up'.

      Help them improve else you are just being a small minded moron.

      If you think you can help them, then help them. It is a FOSS solution - anyone can get involved. Or do you only do stuff that will earn you some money (hence the constant banter regarding full time staff)?

      ---
      RAAWZNF?? What's RAAWZNF?

    6. Re:hardware compensating for poor software by GerardM · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Again, you do not know what you are talking about. Jimbo is not a payed employee of the Wikimedia Foundation.

      The difference with my POV and yours is that I put my money where my mouth is.

      There are many ways of looking at the quality of developers. I am sure that there will be few websites running as cheaply as the WMF does. Just compare the hardware costs for instance. Another way is looking at the number of developers and look at the amount of traffic is served. I am sorry but you provide no metrics to back up your claim why the quality is substandard.

      This is not to say that the quality of the code could not be improved. I am not convinced that money is the only answer. The big advantage that the WMF developers have is intrinsic motivation. Often missing with hired hackers.

      You characterise one of my arguments as a strawman. Well, you hide behind the back of someone else. That is cheap.

      About corporate sponsorship; we have some of it. We have payed for projects but then again, would you know. The argument that some people are against it is just that. When development is needed and someone is willing to pay for it, it can be done.

      Your suggestion that professional programmers do not work with trial and error is .. based on what ? Often software does not work as advertised in manuals.. Certainly when you are scaling outside known terroty you need new methods, clever hacks.

      When the amount of servers go up, you find that at the same time the usage of the servers goes up. The demand for information is such that throwing hardware at the problem gives an equal amount of new users. As to software, the last software versions have made this growth possible. The notion that it is only hardware that is seen as a solution is false if you consider the statistics.

      Then again, why am I arguing - you know better.. this is slashdot :)

      Thanks,
      GerardM

    7. Re:hardware compensating for poor software by njyoder · · Score: 1

      Again, you do not know what you are talking about. Jimbo is not a payed employee of the Wikimedia Foundation.

      He's paid, he's just not paid by the WMF.

      The difference with my POV and yours is that I put my money where my mouth is.

      What the heck is supposed to mean? If you're going to make the dubious claim that you put your money where you mouth is, you better damn well specify how you're doing it.

      I am sure that there will be few websites running as cheaply as the WMF does.

      What you meant to say was that there are few high traffic websites run as cheaply as the WMF is. However, I'm not sure what your point is since it's primarily through donated hardware, bandwidth and man-hours. Those donations aren't cheap by any means and if you want to count voulunteer man-hours then you have to count it in terms of the commercial cost required to employ them.

      Just compare the hardware costs for instance.

      Huge? Wikipedia runs quite a few opteron based servers, they're not exactly cheap. The hardware costs are higher than they should be due to problems with the software.

      Another way is looking at the number of developers and look at the amount of traffic is served.

      How is the number of developers a good judgement of quality?! More does not necessarily mean better and Mediawiki doesn't have that many dedicated developers in the first place. That would mean Microsoft makes some of the best software in the world and you're forced to agree following your own silly argument.

      And traffic, how is that a judgement of the quality of the developers or admins? Any idiot can keep buying more and more hardware to compensate for ineffeciencies in software in order to serve more bandwidth.

      I am sorry but you provide no metrics to back up your claim why the quality is substandard.

      Actually I did, but you ignored it and then proceeded to provide these absurd metrics. I judged by *gasp* the quality of the code. Who would have thought that when judging a website you would judge its code?! Or the amount of time spent working on it, is that a bad metric? I also judged based on the unreliability and slowness of the website, who would have thought those were good measures?!

      You characterise one of my arguments as a strawman. Well, you hide behind the back of someone else. That is cheap.

      Huh? Your two arguments were a strawman, you suggested I said something which I mostly definitely did not say. Who am I hiding behind the back of? You're not making any sense.

      About corporate sponsorship; we have some of it.

      Yeah, not nearly as much as you could have and certainly enough to cause enough problems that you needed to fire a full time employee in the past.

      The argument that some people are against it is just that.

      Huh???

      Your suggestion that professional programmers do not work with trial and error is .. based on what ?

      WTF?! I said the admins do, not that the programmers do. Geez, talk about a strawman. All your poor arguments here and extremely poor grasp of mine make me doubt that English is your native language. Seriously, what is your native language?

      Often software does not work as advertised in manuals..

      You mean their own software that they wrote doesn't work as they advertised it? Buh? That's not the problem anyway, the software does work as advertised, they just didn't test it before hand to see what kind of load it could handle.

      When the amount of servers go up, you find that at the same time the usage of the servers goes up.

      No, that's completely backwards. They buy new servers because the usage has gone up too far.

      The demand for information is such that throwing hardware at the problem gives an equal amount of new users.

      Equal to what? Do you have some statistics to back that up? The usage

  50. Who to thank at Yahoo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What address can I write an email to so that I may thank Yahoo for their donation? I'm a regular Wikipedia user and appreciate their gift, I think we should all give them some kudos.

  51. Soup's On! by SEWilco · · Score: 1
    Yahoo! Orders Wikipedia Hardware

    Servers for you!
    No servers for others!

  52. Wikipedia Servers by silverz · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here is their servers list.

  53. they will provide rackspace and increase bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    don't servers take up rack space? and isn't the amount of bandwidth you have available reliant on the pipe running to your servers and not the actual servers themselves?

  54. Re:required?..yes...for.. by POWuhuru · · Score: 1

    ..serving ads. I looked up a word on wikipedia and got long list of web/commercial results.

    Am all pro-business, but if i need a web search i dont go to wikipedia.

  55. Re:Using Goodwill to Hide Rot by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1

    All three are public companies, and therefore obligated BY LAW to maximise shareholder profit.

    I keep hearing this, but I've never seen any statute which says that a public company has to do anything of the sort. How would it fit in with a company constitution which says "Do no evil"? Can you point out a link to this infamous law?

    --
    "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
  56. It's written in PHP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm very impressed that they are managing to pull off the performance they are getting, considering the tools they have to work with.

    To start with, the software is written in PHP, and still has pointless DB accesses and dynamism on every page. For example, having to hit the DB if you are logged in in order to fetch your page prefs, display "You are logged in as so-and-so", and have the custom links to watchlist and user page. In my opinion the whole site should be static except when actually editing, checking login status, or performing some other function that must vary per-user.

    But, they do many layers of caching (both whole-page and partial) already, and they do say that the vast majority of their load comes from users who aren't logged in, so maybe it is fine the way it is.

    I'm still impressed, though.

  57. This should draw some ire... by aminorex · · Score: 2, Informative

    Since I presumably have moderation to burn, I'll say frankly that I'm appalled. Wikipedia is enormously valuable as a resource in objective domains such as hard science and mathematics, but its articles in politically and culturally sensitive areas are abyssmal reflections of popular delusion and political correctness that do an enormous disservice to us all. The cockles of my heart not not warmed.

    --
    -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    1. Re:This should draw some ire... by duane_robertson · · Score: 1

      Then who should we turn to for an objective view of sensitive subjects? Does such a thing exist? Even history books tend to be subjective.

  58. In soviet Russia... by the_raptor · · Score: 1

    In Soviet Russia site brings down Slashdot. Obligatory begging for high moderation: I know Im going to be modded troll..., mod me down, +5 funny.

    --

    ========
    CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
  59. Ah. by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 1

    So that explains why the database is locked.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  60. Someone mod this up. by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 3, Informative

    That's a Wikipedia server admin that's speaking.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  61. Oh? By any means I suppose... by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 1

    ... what a load of crap. What about publicly list ethical funds? Please, when you get a clue will you let us all know? We'd very much appreciate it.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  62. Hmmm... by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 1

    ... I'm about to become an admin... should I edit the front page? Nah :-)

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    1. Re:Hmmm... by xaaronx · · Score: 1

      Yesyesyesyesyes!!!

      C'mon, please?

      --
      It's amazing how much "mature wisdom" resembles being too tired. - Robert Anson Heinlein
  63. How is that a troll? by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 1

    Thanks for marking that as a troll mods. Thanks to marking a non-troll comment -1, I had no idea what was being replied to until the mod forced me to review comments at -1.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    1. Re:How is that a troll? by N1KO · · Score: 1

      You're right, it should have been -1 flamebait.

  64. Crap. by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 1

    Standard citation procedure for websites is to provide the URL and the date and time you accessed it. With Wikipedia you can give the time and date you accessed it, along with the actual page you viewed. Can't think of anything more reliable than that.

    If you want to reference the unstable latest copy, go ahead. That's the risk you will take when the one marking your paper looks at Wikipedia.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  65. Wrong by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 1

    Can't argue that: we've done that three times already. That particular article was submitted to votes for deletion 3 times, and each time Wikipedia editors voted to keep the article.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  66. Re:Incorrect processor, but still AMD Opteron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can somebody please edit the original post to say Opteron. This site is run by a load of iLovers who don't want to see any postitive PR for something more powerful and superior to XServe boxes.

    If you moderate this then you just confirm this to be true.

    Come on slashdot, you're editorial is factually incorrect and you are looking like having a bias against AMD by misreporting.

  67. php by smallguy78 · · Score: 1

    of course it doesn't helping running it off mysql and php, you could probably half your hardware costs running it off asp.net and sql server, but obviously shift the price up for Sql Server/w2k server. Which then starts the argument hardware/software, having used php for years and seen its lack of power compared to j2ee,asp.net,compiled cgi I know which i prefer.

    --
    Nothing costs nothing
    1. Re:php by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WHAT?? ASP.net cheaper? No. Not at all. Wrong.

      Don't buy into the stupid Microsoft chatter.

      The system would run better if it were written in C and use Postgresql but not ASP.net.

  68. Why x86, that's such a poor choice for big things! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    PC machines multiply like rabbits. Big database projects should run on one or a few damn big zSeries or iSeries iron instead of a wabbit-farm of x86. Those run databasing from firmware and have buses that are up to CPU performance, unlike PCs.

    It is so much el cheapo to run big projects on PCs. Not to mention hackers who can 0wn Linux PCs in minutes but couldn't hold a candle to monster mainframes.

  69. Re:required?..yes...for.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bull... It is not a search engine. It is an encyclopedia. It sends you to the most relevant article available. ie. if you search for animal rights, it sends you to 'Animal Rights'...

  70. Grandpa game by DragonHawk · · Score: 1

    HAH! 300 baud acoustic coupler! ;-)

    --

    dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
    I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
  71. Performance is a problem for contributors by DragonHawk · · Score: 1

    The problem with Wikipedia performance isn't so much for readers (although, certainly, fast page loads are desired) but contributors. Wiki's depend on people adding content, editing things, discussing things, following links and doing random fixups and all sorts of other things like that. Sometimes, Wikipedia's performance gets so bogged that this becomes near-impossible. So yah, it's a real problem, and one the admin's are constantly having to deal with.

    --

    dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
    I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
  72. So much for an open forum by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 1

    Clearly it wasn't, but if you like making slashdot viewers surf at -1, who am I to complain? After all, who cares if a genuinely interesting discourse is entered into on an issue that many people have pointed out as a flaw of Wikipedia?

    Perhaps we should mark your comment as flamebait?

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.