All this will do is evoke the wrath of the people who actually purchase the starter version as I'm sure most people who do purchase it, will do so because it's cheaper that the other versions.
It's amazing to me that considering how intelligent these guys are supposed to be, yet they make boneheaded decisions on a daily basis.
I started this idiot thread and I'm on your side, but being a commodity trading platform, it's not always "ok" to give the access they (F5 or whoever) ask for. So to that point, I understand.
Still, if I need that type of performance, I go F5. If you are having major issues with F5, chances are it's your network that is the problem and not the F5. F5 works period. Sure there are some things it has issues with, but nothing is perfect. If it doesn't work with F5, I'm not going to roll my own unless it's the only option. I seriously doubt that will be ever the case considering the price of an F5 and what is required before I purchase one.
First off, if I'm handling 25k+ SSL TPS, point blank, I pay the money for an F5. A home built solution will only get you fired when something goes seriously wrong.
Secondly, if an F5 is out of your budge and you aren't handling 10s of thousands of SSL TPS, look elsewhere. Kemp Technologies makes a solution that support up to 10k SSL TPS for less than half the price and even cheaper if you handle even less. If you're not even handling a thousand of TPS, let your Apache servers handle SSL and be done with it.
Sometimes you pay it in other forms like shipping costs. Of course, it will be companies like UPS, Fedex, and the USPS that will take a hit from this. Well, and the consumers of course. I guess it's still better paying 60% of a books price than paying full price at brick and mortor stores like Barns and Noble for the more expensive books. (hardback or tech books)
+5 Insightful? There are too many Mac fanboys here. I'm sure he/she was referring to enterprise Unix. OSX is still a home desktop / toy server until further notice. It amazes me that people actually have the nerve to install OSX servers in the Enterprise. At the absolute BEST I would install a OSX server to serve Mac files and nothing more. Give me Linux, Solaris or BSD. (yes, I know OSX is based on BSD, but they are NOT the same!)
Exactly. I would throw it out because they didn't protect their patent earlier. These guys were waiting for someone else to pay for the proliferation of the technology before they decided to collect.
If the courts should pay them, it should be minimal.
I'm implementing OpenSolaris in my all Linux environment so that I can use zfs to ease backing up my MySQL databases that can't handle lock table locks. LVM snapshots (and restoring them) suck something fierce, and zfs is a thing of beauty in comparison.
You are an idiot if you say Linux->fuse->zfs for backing up MySQL for this purpose, so keep your karma points from taking a dip and don't respond.
Yep, I know Btrfs is coming, and I'm damn happy it is and have extremely high hopes for it. Though, Dtrace and Solaris Zones ability needs addressing too. Those are the BIG three that Solaris has to offer over Linux.
I'm not sure but, I will say this. Some memory brands definitely have more issues that others. I bought (2) 1GB sticks of Patriot memory and had to RMA both after about six months and the pair I got back lastest two months before they too started crashing my machine. I finally just yanked them and am running the original (2) sticks of 1GB Crucial that I've had since the beginning. I had bought them to run VMs, but I'm not running them now so I don't need the extra memory now anyhow.
They didn't have to give anything to open source. The fact that they did help prolong their existence. Sun had great technologies, but the rest of the world not only caught them, but surpassed them any many technologies. Where they didn't, commodity hardware and software did them in. They still wanted the big bucks from before the dot.com bust.
Sun had the chance to change with the times, but it chose not to. Thats all I'm saying. Sun was on top of the world with some of the best technologies in the business, then selfishness toppled them.
Rather there were a portion of the engineers that felt that releasing under the GPL would be bad for Sun since Linux could take parts of Solaris and then destroy Sun. In any case it was not the engineers that made the decisions about the CDDL and not for those reasons (Sun could do whatever it wanted with the code its employees wrote), rather it was a committee with involvement from many other groups as well including many lawyers and most of everyone VP level and up with roots in the ON tree.
This is exactly what I was talking about. Sun chose (created) the CDDL to be incompatiable with Linux by way of the GPL. It was clearly done due to fear that Linux would kill Sun. Both the developers, VPs, and obviously lawyers all felt the same way. From what I've seen happen, it hurt Sun more than helped them. Combine that with todays economy, maybe it just killed them. While IBM hasn't opened all their products (which isn't necessary anyhow), but they have given a whole lot more to open source than Sun has, and they did it with less restrictions that barred some from using them.
To make decisions out of fear can kill you. As FDR said, "Only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
What I found most amusing was the fact that Sun would sell Linux as a major part of their business, but made their products incompatible with the very product they are basing a hugh portion of their revenue on! Thats like building a car, but saying the more enhanced break pedal that we make cannot be used with this product. If you want the enhanced break pedal, you must used this car that might be incompiable with the application you want to use it with.
The creation of the CDDL license was based on the Mozilla license for one reason. Because it was GPL-incompatible. That came straight from the mouth of Danese Cooper. An ex-Sun employee. Sun only accepted Linux once they figured out they couldn't beat them. So, they started selling Linux so they could make money, yet they still did things like create the CDDL and license their software under it to spite Linux. At least, thats my take on it.
Sun has created some great things, but I won't cry once their gone, because there is always a boat load of smart people looking to change the way the world works. They (along with Larry and Oracle) have always have giant egos. Egos don't sustain business. Oracle didn't buy Innodb because for nothing. They did it to have some control over a growing competitor.
While Sun has finally come around on open source. They still seem to do it with trepidation and even hamper some of their own works. If IBM purchases them, hopefully that will change. I would love to see them take the cuffs off of Java, OpenSolaris, MySQL, and zfs. By cuffs, I mean different things about different projects. (licensing, open up development, etc)
It's Cisco. Their product won't be cheap. As an infrastructure engineer that is having to stretch the hell out of the dollar. I've found myself purchasing far less Cisco products and a lot more of the alternatives. Today, small scale scaling out for the most part has become pizza box servers and Juniper networking. Pizza box because I can get far more bang for the buck buying a full rack of dual quad core Dell PE1950s for less than I can buy a decked out IBM S chassis for. That consists of 6 servers and 12 drive SAN setup with an internal switch. (pretty much a networking/storage/server all-in-one architecture that Cisco is releasing) I'm not sure why they are making this out as if Cisco is the first to do this. They aren't. Bang for the buck is what I'm looking for. Not just a fully packaged solution. They are nice, but if I need 80 cores, thats going to be damn expensive.
I use Kemp Technologies load balancers. (http://www.kemptechnologies.com) I pad about $5k for a active passsive clustered pair of LM-1500s. Understand, they aren't F5s but if you need basic load balacing or failover these guys are great and for a fraction of the cost. They support round robin, weighted round robin, least connection, weighted least connection, adaptive, and fixed weighted load balancing and L4/L7 sticky sessions.
The Kemp's support ssl acceleration though I don't use it for web ssl. I mainly use the ssl acceleration for other protocols like FIX and others though I'm sure it handles https just fine. As I noted, we use the LM-1500s which are the smallest ones they have. We have an AJAX platform that streams data and we handle about 350+ requests per second during busy periods and these guys hardly register any load. They are Linux based and very simple to setup and use.
I was looking at pound and other load balacing options, and I can tell you. Those work, but for simplicity and ease of setup, the Kemp's are golden. Another place to look is loadbalancer.org. They are Linux based too. They are a little more pricy, but I know people that have used them and like them also.
As for the back in, I'm thinking a cluster isn't what you need. If your website is completely dynamic, you probably just need to replicate your database to second server and have two web servers handling requests. The only reason you need two webservers is if one fails. From what I'm seeing, you don't even need all the virtual servers (xen, etc) That would just complicate everything. Use a single ftp server and keep your FTP files rsync'ed to the second server in case you need to fail over. The Kemp's can do the failover stuff for you. If setup properly, you can use two servers for everything and if one fails, the Kemp's can completely failover everything without you doing anything.
All I have to say is I can now watch MLB.tv in Linux without the freaking hassle I used to have. It's getting very close to the point of not having to dual boot much longer.
No, it doesn't reduce consumer choice. Many consumers are just to lazy to look or even care. IE does what they want, and IE is on the desktop and doesn't require downloading and installation. Those words alone terrify some users even though they should be more terrified of actually using IE.
Slashdot Mirror
All this will do is evoke the wrath of the people who actually purchase the starter version as I'm sure most people who do purchase it, will do so because it's cheaper that the other versions.
It's amazing to me that considering how intelligent these guys are supposed to be, yet they make boneheaded decisions on a daily basis.
I started this idiot thread and I'm on your side, but being a commodity trading platform, it's not always "ok" to give the access they (F5 or whoever) ask for. So to that point, I understand.
Still, if I need that type of performance, I go F5. If you are having major issues with F5, chances are it's your network that is the problem and not the F5. F5 works period. Sure there are some things it has issues with, but nothing is perfect. If it doesn't work with F5, I'm not going to roll my own unless it's the only option. I seriously doubt that will be ever the case considering the price of an F5 and what is required before I purchase one.
You must be smart when buying stuff like this.
First off, if I'm handling 25k+ SSL TPS, point blank, I pay the money for an F5. A home built solution will only get you fired when something goes seriously wrong.
Secondly, if an F5 is out of your budge and you aren't handling 10s of thousands of SSL TPS, look elsewhere. Kemp Technologies makes a solution that support up to 10k SSL TPS for less than half the price and even cheaper if you handle even less. If you're not even handling a thousand of TPS, let your Apache servers handle SSL and be done with it.
Sometimes you pay it in other forms like shipping costs. Of course, it will be companies like UPS, Fedex, and the USPS that will take a hit from this. Well, and the consumers of course. I guess it's still better paying 60% of a books price than paying full price at brick and mortor stores like Barns and Noble for the more expensive books. (hardback or tech books)
Easy, GOTO riddled COBOL! :-P
+5 Insightful? There are too many Mac fanboys here. I'm sure he/she was referring to enterprise Unix. OSX is still a home desktop / toy server until further notice. It amazes me that people actually have the nerve to install OSX servers in the Enterprise. At the absolute BEST I would install a OSX server to serve Mac files and nothing more. Give me Linux, Solaris or BSD. (yes, I know OSX is based on BSD, but they are NOT the same!)
Go ahead and mod me down fanboy. :P
Exactly. I would throw it out because they didn't protect their patent earlier. These guys were waiting for someone else to pay for the proliferation of the technology before they decided to collect.
If the courts should pay them, it should be minimal.
I'll be a critic
I'm implementing OpenSolaris in my all Linux environment so that I can use zfs to ease backing up my MySQL databases that can't handle lock table locks. LVM snapshots (and restoring them) suck something fierce, and zfs is a thing of beauty in comparison.
You are an idiot if you say Linux->fuse->zfs for backing up MySQL for this purpose, so keep your karma points from taking a dip and don't respond.
Yep, I know Btrfs is coming, and I'm damn happy it is and have extremely high hopes for it. Though, Dtrace and Solaris Zones ability needs addressing too. Those are the BIG three that Solaris has to offer over Linux.
So stop linking to their content.
I'm not sure but, I will say this. Some memory brands definitely have more issues that others. I bought (2) 1GB sticks of Patriot memory and had to RMA both after about six months and the pair I got back lastest two months before they too started crashing my machine. I finally just yanked them and am running the original (2) sticks of 1GB Crucial that I've had since the beginning. I had bought them to run VMs, but I'm not running them now so I don't need the extra memory now anyhow.
Throw them in boiling water and they scream like a girl! :D
Didn't I just read something about Redhat moving back into the desktop?
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/24/1721248
What'll we do with a pirated program, :)
Earl-aye in the morning?
I didn't say that should have GPL'ed it. I only said they intentional avoided anything GPL compatiable because of Linux.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses
They didn't have to give anything to open source. The fact that they did help prolong their existence. Sun had great technologies, but the rest of the world not only caught them, but surpassed them any many technologies. Where they didn't, commodity hardware and software did them in. They still wanted the big bucks from before the dot.com bust.
Sun had the chance to change with the times, but it chose not to. Thats all I'm saying. Sun was on top of the world with some of the best technologies in the business, then selfishness toppled them.
Rather there were a portion of the engineers that felt that releasing under the GPL would be bad for Sun since Linux could take parts of Solaris and then destroy Sun. In any case it was not the engineers that made the decisions about the CDDL and not for those reasons (Sun could do whatever it wanted with the code its employees wrote), rather it was a committee with involvement from many other groups as well including many lawyers and most of everyone VP level and up with roots in the ON tree.
This is exactly what I was talking about. Sun chose (created) the CDDL to be incompatiable with Linux by way of the GPL. It was clearly done due to fear that Linux would kill Sun. Both the developers, VPs, and obviously lawyers all felt the same way. From what I've seen happen, it hurt Sun more than helped them. Combine that with todays economy, maybe it just killed them. While IBM hasn't opened all their products (which isn't necessary anyhow), but they have given a whole lot more to open source than Sun has, and they did it with less restrictions that barred some from using them.
To make decisions out of fear can kill you. As FDR said, "Only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
What I found most amusing was the fact that Sun would sell Linux as a major part of their business, but made their products incompatible with the very product they are basing a hugh portion of their revenue on! Thats like building a car, but saying the more enhanced break pedal that we make cannot be used with this product. If you want the enhanced break pedal, you must used this car that might be incompiable with the application you want to use it with.
The creation of the CDDL license was based on the Mozilla license for one reason. Because it was GPL-incompatible. That came straight from the mouth of Danese Cooper. An ex-Sun employee. Sun only accepted Linux once they figured out they couldn't beat them. So, they started selling Linux so they could make money, yet they still did things like create the CDDL and license their software under it to spite Linux. At least, thats my take on it.
Sun has created some great things, but I won't cry once their gone, because there is always a boat load of smart people looking to change the way the world works. They (along with Larry and Oracle) have always have giant egos. Egos don't sustain business. Oracle didn't buy Innodb because for nothing. They did it to have some control over a growing competitor.
While Sun has finally come around on open source. They still seem to do it with trepidation and even hamper some of their own works. If IBM purchases them, hopefully that will change. I would love to see them take the cuffs off of Java, OpenSolaris, MySQL, and zfs. By cuffs, I mean different things about different projects. (licensing, open up development, etc)
It's Cisco. Their product won't be cheap. As an infrastructure engineer that is having to stretch the hell out of the dollar. I've found myself purchasing far less Cisco products and a lot more of the alternatives. Today, small scale scaling out for the most part has become pizza box servers and Juniper networking. Pizza box because I can get far more bang for the buck buying a full rack of dual quad core Dell PE1950s for less than I can buy a decked out IBM S chassis for. That consists of 6 servers and 12 drive SAN setup with an internal switch. (pretty much a networking/storage/server all-in-one architecture that Cisco is releasing) I'm not sure why they are making this out as if Cisco is the first to do this. They aren't. Bang for the buck is what I'm looking for. Not just a fully packaged solution. They are nice, but if I need 80 cores, thats going to be damn expensive.
The more people that use IE, the more work there is for the support tech industry. This is Colorado's contribution to the American stimulus package. :)
...after completing that download and finding out how easy it was. He had absolutely no right to download the entire Slayer discography. :D
I use Kemp Technologies load balancers. (http://www.kemptechnologies.com) I pad about $5k for a active passsive clustered pair of LM-1500s. Understand, they aren't F5s but if you need basic load balacing or failover these guys are great and for a fraction of the cost. They support round robin, weighted round robin, least connection, weighted least connection, adaptive, and fixed weighted load balancing and L4/L7 sticky sessions.
The Kemp's support ssl acceleration though I don't use it for web ssl. I mainly use the ssl acceleration for other protocols like FIX and others though I'm sure it handles https just fine. As I noted, we use the LM-1500s which are the smallest ones they have. We have an AJAX platform that streams data and we handle about 350+ requests per second during busy periods and these guys hardly register any load. They are Linux based and very simple to setup and use.
I was looking at pound and other load balacing options, and I can tell you. Those work, but for simplicity and ease of setup, the Kemp's are golden. Another place to look is loadbalancer.org. They are Linux based too. They are a little more pricy, but I know people that have used them and like them also.
As for the back in, I'm thinking a cluster isn't what you need. If your website is completely dynamic, you probably just need to replicate your database to second server and have two web servers handling requests. The only reason you need two webservers is if one fails. From what I'm seeing, you don't even need all the virtual servers (xen, etc) That would just complicate everything. Use a single ftp server and keep your FTP files rsync'ed to the second server in case you need to fail over. The Kemp's can do the failover stuff for you. If setup properly, you can use two servers for everything and if one fails, the Kemp's can completely failover everything without you doing anything.
All I have to say is I can now watch MLB.tv in Linux without the freaking hassle I used to have. It's getting very close to the point of not having to dual boot much longer.
wget http://download.mozilla.org/?product=firefox-3.0.6&os=linux&lang=en-US
ultimately reduces consumer choice
No, it doesn't reduce consumer choice. Many consumers are just to lazy to look or even care. IE does what they want, and IE is on the desktop and doesn't require downloading and installation. Those words alone terrify some users even though they should be more terrified of actually using IE.
This just in, Charter Cable customers are capping monthly cash payments made to Charter Cable.