So maybe you'll see more of a tiered approach, with smaller/faster SSDs used internally to store the OS and apps, and then bigger external HD for video, backup, and archives.
And some kind of filesystem that abstracts the whole mess so that you don't have to worry about which bits of data go on which disk. Your computer probably knows which files should be on the fast disk better then you do.
That said, I would imagine it would be structure in a way that *everything* gets written to the spinning disk so you can take said disk and plug it into another device. Only unlike RAID1 it would only need to mirror the SSD when the IO system is idle.
OS support would be the best way : a smart OS could 'cache' files to the SSD or automatically remove files from the SSD when it's getting full
Bingo. The file system would basically abstract out the fact there is a really slow but huge drive and a fast but relatively small drive. You'd have a "C:" drive and the file system would hide the fact that it would be using the SSD as basically a 300+ GB cache for your 4TB disk. Only unlike your RAM, it doesn't have to worry about what happens when it loses power as the SSD doesn't lose its contents. This means it might never have to write things out to a spinning platter.
Where do you pull that figure from? How much disk space are you using *right now*?
My desktop? about 600 gb in use now. My HTPC? About 3 TB in use now.
I'd imagine the average disk space in use on a home computer is 400 to 500 gigs.
Todays $120 1.5TB drives will probably be full by the time the $120 4TB drives come out two years from now.
For them, the effective price of HD storage hasn't changed significantly in about five years.
That is an interesting way to frame it provided you dont adjust for inflation, which would make the cost lower every year. But lets just say for the sake of argument that the effective cost has not gone down. There are other things new drives offer besides space. Power consumption is less. Less heat. And most important--less noise. My new drives dont make a peep while 5 year old drives are noisy as hell.
In the end though, I think a new hard drive or SSD is always gonna cost $100 USD just like getting more memory is gonna cost about $150 or a new CPU is gonna cost $250. The performance or size will be more, but the price point will probably never change.
I live in downtown Seattle and I always drink from the tap. The lady has some damn britta filter and I think she is insane--our tap water tastes just as good, if not better, than what comes out of her filter. Better, it has none of the hassle--replacing the filter (who really does that routinely?), remembering to refill it, etc...
Now LA water or SFO water, that is a different story.
In other words we've come full circle and are back to the days when spammers were actually hosted somewhere. Only this time in a bit more of a distributed fashion.
1) Easy Refactoring. 2) Somewhat related - Easy to write an IDE for. You can't right-click on a method call in some perl code and go "show definition". This is partially the nature of this class of languages though. 3) Something better than POD. Make it XML based. Steal from Javadoc or XMLdoc. 4) One damn way to inherit and one damn way to build a class. Yeah I know Perl wasn't originally OO, and it shows.
Perl was my bread and butter for many years, but quite frankly I've been spoiled rotten by the new languages on the block. Going back to my old friend is just depressing, sadly.
Benchmarks are useless. There are way more important things to judge an operating system then "speed".
Does Ubuntu have nearly as good of documentation? No. It has that "info" nonsense.
Does Ubuntu provide a stable platform to build a server? No. It, like most linux distros, changes whole versions during updates. That isn't stable.
Does Ubuntu provide a way to strip itself down to the bare metal? Ain't as easy as the BSD's.
Is Ubuntu built around solid engineering and design, or politics? Depends--Ubuntu seems to be less afraid of the big bad FSF as other distros, but it still is steeped in an OS built for politics. FreeBSD is pretty tame and tends to focus on solid engineering rather than political maneuvering.
But really, Comparing FreeBSD to Ubuntu is like comparing OpenSolaris to Windows 7. FreeBSD is largely a server operating system were as Ubuntu is an end user operating system. And if you are comparing server operating systems, there are far more important criteria than "speed". Things like version stability are vastly more important.
Your ideas about evolution are fairly dated. It lacks our new understanding that there are other things that "want" to replicate besides genes. We know are starting to understand that ideas and culture are a replicant who is on par with genes. We call them memes.
When viewed through the idea that memes "want" to replicate--scientific discoveries and things like cooking become memes routing around meatspace constraints. In otherwords, science is not a hindrance to evolution, it *is* evolution. Just not evolution as defined by our earlier understanding of the word.
If we pulled that out into well definied modules, then the evil proprietary driver people will destroy linux! *Covers ears*I'm not listening!*Covers ears*
Seriously, you are correct. I never understood why drivers are so tightly bound to the kernel. Yeah you can load/unload them at runtime but honestly the whole mechanism feels hokey. Plus like 50% of the "drivers" seemed to require the kernel source before you can install them.
Clearly whoever modded you up has never tried what you are suggesting. I can only name a handfull of open source projects that backport security fixes to old versions and of those, they only backport to versions a few years old.
In fact, I'd say the longest lived "old version" is probably Apache 1.3. The 2.x series has been out for, what, forever and yet they continue to push out fixes for 1.3 (last was Jan. 2008).
I'd wager the biggest complaint I have with most open source is the a) dont understand what true stability means and as a result they b) rarely support old versions. It was one of the prime reasons I switched to FreeBSD. If I install FreeBSD 6.2 today, I know I'll get security fixes for at least a good half decade and probably a bit more if I track the 6.x series.
Yeah yeah yeah, debian, yeah yeah... but dont get me started on the other reasons I switched (cough crappy docs, cough, crappy unstable kernel, cough
I had no idea that stuff like this has become so cheap. Even for $300 or $400, when split between a few friends it is within reason for a badass project!
This article was cool and it would be nice of you to actually contribute to slashdot instead of whine, bitch and moan. You know, talk shop. Tell us about your time.
So please, elaborate on your adventures in (near) space photography so that others like myself might be inspired to go try some of this stuff ourselves. $150 ain't much for a project like this!
But pissed off? Why are you even here? I thought this was a nerd site. Seems to be more a "whine about new technology and pine for the good old days" website. *That* should piss you off. Or just make you move elseware.
What other website offers content like this, but has coherent, smart comments like slashdot? Seriously! I'd love to know...
And that is why I personally think IPv6 is stillborn and won't catch on. IP just doesn't work for the increasingly mesh-style networks we are using. Wifi roaming isn't a bitch because of Wifi--it is a bitch because of IPvX. All these other "3G" or "4G" aren't going to fix the problem, they have the same problem that Wifi does, they use IPvX. They are just a way for huge cell companies to charge us up the ass for internet we already pay up the ass for at home. They hack soon-to-be legacy protocols like IPvX into a mesh (plus real-time-billing). They aren't the future.
IPv6 will never catch on in a big way. Something that looks like a low-level version of bit-torrent will catch on instead. It will solve all the mesh problems we are having now. It will be peer-to-peer instead of a giant hierarchical tree where everything funnels through a few big players.
And for those thinking it will take "years"... remember how fast IPv4 was adopted. Win 3.1 was using IPX/SPX or netbeui. All the games used IPX/SPX. Nobody did TCP/IP except unix and trumpet winsock. Then within a few years all the games were TCP/IP only. Maybe I remember wrong, but did seem to be a pretty short adoption curve.
My prediction will be that the switch will be a quick one. After all, most of what we exchange is content. Most of our websites would probably not have to be re-worked much to ride on another protocol--though the new features offered might make them partially obsolete anyway.
Maybe I'm way off. My point really is Wifi isn't the problem. The problem is TCP/IP. The more mobile computing grows, the more pressure there will be to move away from IP.
Dont forget to include at least $5/mo for text messages too. After all, text messages aren't data, they are 123 byte packets containing ascii, right?
It is absolutely absurd how expensive these data plans are. Not absurd in a capitalistic sense, but absurd in that I friggen want a nice phone, but cannot justify $30/mo + $10/mo for data/text. The fact I can't have what I want at a price I'm willing to pay pisses me off:-)
Keep the comment system though. That is the only good part. Better, put your money into having a rich text editor that works like stackoverflow's.
The rest of the new stuff, what with the plus/minus garbage is an irritant. Not because of the javascript--nothing is wrong with javascript. It is because it adds no value to my use of slashdot.
The new comment system, however, does add significant value. It just happens to use javascript to make it work right.
I honestly can't tell Arial from Calibri and don't really care.
Your brain sure does. You can tell a bad font from a good one. You just can't explain the technical/psychological reasons why one font is "better" than another for a given application.
Slashdot Mirror
And some kind of filesystem that abstracts the whole mess so that you don't have to worry about which bits of data go on which disk. Your computer probably knows which files should be on the fast disk better then you do.
That said, I would imagine it would be structure in a way that *everything* gets written to the spinning disk so you can take said disk and plug it into another device. Only unlike RAID1 it would only need to mirror the SSD when the IO system is idle.
Bingo. The file system would basically abstract out the fact there is a really slow but huge drive and a fast but relatively small drive. You'd have a "C:" drive and the file system would hide the fact that it would be using the SSD as basically a 300+ GB cache for your 4TB disk. Only unlike your RAM, it doesn't have to worry about what happens when it loses power as the SSD doesn't lose its contents. This means it might never have to write things out to a spinning platter.
Where do you pull that figure from? How much disk space are you using *right now*?
My desktop? about 600 gb in use now.
My HTPC? About 3 TB in use now.
I'd imagine the average disk space in use on a home computer is 400 to 500 gigs.
Todays $120 1.5TB drives will probably be full by the time the $120 4TB drives come out two years from now.
That is an interesting way to frame it provided you dont adjust for inflation, which would make the cost lower every year. But lets just say for the sake of argument that the effective cost has not gone down. There are other things new drives offer besides space. Power consumption is less. Less heat. And most important--less noise. My new drives dont make a peep while 5 year old drives are noisy as hell.
In the end though, I think a new hard drive or SSD is always gonna cost $100 USD just like getting more memory is gonna cost about $150 or a new CPU is gonna cost $250. The performance or size will be more, but the price point will probably never change.
Hard drives - if you build it, they will come.
If you live in bumbleskunk, yeah you might find that. You live in a city on one of the coasts, then not so much. It all depends.
Hah. I just posted about Seattle water without reading yours first :-) Seriously, we are rather spoiled by our water.
I live in downtown Seattle and I always drink from the tap. The lady has some damn britta filter and I think she is insane--our tap water tastes just as good, if not better, than what comes out of her filter. Better, it has none of the hassle--replacing the filter (who really does that routinely?), remembering to refill it, etc...
Now LA water or SFO water, that is a different story.
Wow. I never knew about this phenomenon. Thanks for the link--now you've got me reading everything I can find about it. Kinda creepy, actually.
Why? Pod kinda sucks compared to the other two. I guess that is just personal though.
In other words we've come full circle and are back to the days when spammers were actually hosted somewhere. Only this time in a bit more of a distributed fashion.
1) Easy Refactoring.
2) Somewhat related - Easy to write an IDE for. You can't right-click on a method call in some perl code and go "show definition". This is partially the nature of this class of languages though.
3) Something better than POD. Make it XML based. Steal from Javadoc or XMLdoc.
4) One damn way to inherit and one damn way to build a class. Yeah I know Perl wasn't originally OO, and it shows.
Perl was my bread and butter for many years, but quite frankly I've been spoiled rotten by the new languages on the block. Going back to my old friend is just depressing, sadly.
I caught it. Futurama. The rest of the lamers here didn't but I did. Where is my free internet cookie.
Moral to your story? Dont work in a bunch of small towns. They know they can screw you because it is a pain in the ass for you to find another job.
When I had my own business, I put in a ton of work too. You've got to do it.
However, when you are a paid or salaried worker and routinely work more than 40 a week, something is wrong with you, not your employer.
Benchmarks are useless. There are way more important things to judge an operating system then "speed".
Does Ubuntu have nearly as good of documentation? No. It has that "info" nonsense.
Does Ubuntu provide a stable platform to build a server? No. It, like most linux distros, changes whole versions during updates. That isn't stable.
Does Ubuntu provide a way to strip itself down to the bare metal? Ain't as easy as the BSD's.
Is Ubuntu built around solid engineering and design, or politics? Depends--Ubuntu seems to be less afraid of the big bad FSF as other distros, but it still is steeped in an OS built for politics. FreeBSD is pretty tame and tends to focus on solid engineering rather than political maneuvering.
But really, Comparing FreeBSD to Ubuntu is like comparing OpenSolaris to Windows 7. FreeBSD is largely a server operating system were as Ubuntu is an end user operating system. And if you are comparing server operating systems, there are far more important criteria than "speed". Things like version stability are vastly more important.
Your ideas about evolution are fairly dated. It lacks our new understanding that there are other things that "want" to replicate besides genes. We know are starting to understand that ideas and culture are a replicant who is on par with genes. We call them memes.
When viewed through the idea that memes "want" to replicate--scientific discoveries and things like cooking become memes routing around meatspace constraints. In otherwords, science is not a hindrance to evolution, it *is* evolution. Just not evolution as defined by our earlier understanding of the word.
If we pulled that out into well definied modules, then the evil proprietary driver people will destroy linux! *Covers ears*I'm not listening!*Covers ears*
Seriously, you are correct. I never understood why drivers are so tightly bound to the kernel. Yeah you can load/unload them at runtime but honestly the whole mechanism feels hokey. Plus like 50% of the "drivers" seemed to require the kernel source before you can install them.
Clearly whoever modded you up has never tried what you are suggesting. I can only name a handfull of open source projects that backport security fixes to old versions and of those, they only backport to versions a few years old.
In fact, I'd say the longest lived "old version" is probably Apache 1.3. The 2.x series has been out for, what, forever and yet they continue to push out fixes for 1.3 (last was Jan. 2008).
I'd wager the biggest complaint I have with most open source is the a) dont understand what true stability means and as a result they b) rarely support old versions. It was one of the prime reasons I switched to FreeBSD. If I install FreeBSD 6.2 today, I know I'll get security fixes for at least a good half decade and probably a bit more if I track the 6.x series.
Yeah yeah yeah, debian, yeah yeah... but dont get me started on the other reasons I switched (cough crappy docs, cough, crappy unstable kernel, cough
fair enough, but realize I've never seen a story like this on slashdot. There had to be a first story, right?
This is true, but that doesn't mean it won't eventually happen. I mean, only a fool would think we'd be using IPv6 a hundred years from now, right?
But you are entirely correct. The dawn of the internet was much smaller than today. So 10 years for migration?
I had no idea that stuff like this has become so cheap. Even for $300 or $400, when split between a few friends it is within reason for a badass project!
This article was cool and it would be nice of you to actually contribute to slashdot instead of whine, bitch and moan. You know, talk shop. Tell us about your time.
So please, elaborate on your adventures in (near) space photography so that others like myself might be inspired to go try some of this stuff ourselves. $150 ain't much for a project like this!
But pissed off? Why are you even here? I thought this was a nerd site. Seems to be more a "whine about new technology and pine for the good old days" website. *That* should piss you off. Or just make you move elseware.
What other website offers content like this, but has coherent, smart comments like slashdot? Seriously! I'd love to know...
And that is why I personally think IPv6 is stillborn and won't catch on. IP just doesn't work for the increasingly mesh-style networks we are using. Wifi roaming isn't a bitch because of Wifi--it is a bitch because of IPvX. All these other "3G" or "4G" aren't going to fix the problem, they have the same problem that Wifi does, they use IPvX. They are just a way for huge cell companies to charge us up the ass for internet we already pay up the ass for at home. They hack soon-to-be legacy protocols like IPvX into a mesh (plus real-time-billing). They aren't the future.
IPv6 will never catch on in a big way. Something that looks like a low-level version of bit-torrent will catch on instead. It will solve all the mesh problems we are having now. It will be peer-to-peer instead of a giant hierarchical tree where everything funnels through a few big players.
And for those thinking it will take "years"... remember how fast IPv4 was adopted. Win 3.1 was using IPX/SPX or netbeui. All the games used IPX/SPX. Nobody did TCP/IP except unix and trumpet winsock. Then within a few years all the games were TCP/IP only. Maybe I remember wrong, but did seem to be a pretty short adoption curve.
My prediction will be that the switch will be a quick one. After all, most of what we exchange is content. Most of our websites would probably not have to be re-worked much to ride on another protocol--though the new features offered might make them partially obsolete anyway.
Maybe I'm way off. My point really is Wifi isn't the problem. The problem is TCP/IP. The more mobile computing grows, the more pressure there will be to move away from IP.
Dont forget to include at least $5/mo for text messages too. After all, text messages aren't data, they are 123 byte packets containing ascii, right?
It is absolutely absurd how expensive these data plans are. Not absurd in a capitalistic sense, but absurd in that I friggen want a nice phone, but cannot justify $30/mo + $10/mo for data/text. The fact I can't have what I want at a price I'm willing to pay pisses me off :-)
Keep the comment system though. That is the only good part. Better, put your money into having a rich text editor that works like stackoverflow's.
The rest of the new stuff, what with the plus/minus garbage is an irritant. Not because of the javascript--nothing is wrong with javascript. It is because it adds no value to my use of slashdot.
The new comment system, however, does add significant value. It just happens to use javascript to make it work right.
Your brain sure does. You can tell a bad font from a good one. You just can't explain the technical/psychological reasons why one font is "better" than another for a given application.