In the scheme of enterprise storage, 75 TB isn't very much. In the scheme of home storage it becomes more complicated and would involve using a SAS cabinet and at least 16, 6TB drives in RAID-5.
No, it means a small mobile phone capturing pictures, recording videos and uploading to Microsoft OneDrive via a good internet connection. Probably shared between multiple people, but not necessarily.
If they DIDN'T use Microsoft OneDrive, it might mean all that SAS cabinet, RAID-whatever etc. But the whole point of OneDrive is that you don't have to do all that, just store it on the "cloud".
Ok, that is good. But doesn't it happen very frequently that his problem can indeed be solved only making it worse for others? Because others have a whole different way of using that part, reasons of which belong in history, which take hours to explain? And this particular problem finder's ability and willingness to learn about other people's use cases is low in the first place?
And one fake problem finder's opinion is frequently diametrically opposite to another's?
How much time per fake problem finder can you spend, and how many such people do you encounter?
So people never report problems to you which are not really problems but they didn't take the time to learn how to use the software so they think it is a problem with the software?
This isn't to excuse shoddy software but let's be honest about it: we get what we pay for, and generally we as a society don't care to pay enough for quality, be it a secure OS or a car that doesn't burst into flames if you tap it gently on the rear bumper;-)
What? This is completely false. We pay for software like we do for nothing else. We've made the maker of a highly popular operating system the largest company in the world, twice in a row. We've given them obscene margins - something close to 80% on software. (Apple's easily crosses 40% in spite of selling hardware, but if you could count the margin on software alone it would cross 80%).
On top of that we pay software companies by
1. allowing EULAs, 2. allowing BSA to hold dreaded "raids" on other businesses 3. allowing them to sell something with "no warranty express or implied", 4. law enforcement of various countries upholds our software companies' business model because the business model doesn't hold by itself, 5. we are increasingly paying for software by our privacy which might soon mean our security
Which other industry is paid half as much by the society? Software has beaten petroleum in taking the largest toll on human society for last 25 years. If you want to make the argument of "you get what you pay for", we should get millions of times better software.
We need to make the argument of "you get what you have the guts to demand". Our guts turn to water when dealing with software companies.
That is insecure in itself because one time vulnerability in triggering a false update to itself chrome now becomes a trojan forever. An application should never have write privilege on its own executable.
It doesn't work like that. Maintenance cost indeed might be twice as much, but life span of a car can be extended hugely by maintaining professionally.
Even with 4 hours per day usage, much of the retiring of cars takes place due to accidents, newer technology, bad maintenance etc. With 4 times as much usage, the retirement rates can be roughly kept the same in automatic cars due to much lower accident rates, same rate of newer technology, good maintenance.
Software that does not fit the Open Source Definition.
No, I didn't ask about Open Source. I asked about open source.
2. Audit is being touted as an "advantage" of open source software over what other kind of software?
Probably software that does not fit the Open Source Definition.
No, source visible and some sort of verification that same source code is actually creating the executing code is enough for touting audit as an advantage.
3. Can "advantage " ever stand without comparing with a disadvantage?
The question appears to be whether the advantage is valid at all.
Appears wrong to you then. I am not asking that question.
But there has to be some bigger picture thinking too. Individually, the polls for reducing taxes on medicine, reducing taxes in food, and increased spending on education might all get favourable response. But together they might not add up.
If only revenue neutral proposals are polled, there needs to be someone to craft the proposal who will have a huge power which can be abused.
So since I studied my choices adequately enough to safely predict a good future for my employment, but some other people didn't, the only fair thing to do is to make me suffer as though I made those bad choices?
But in that same event your prediction turns out to be not so safe, right?
Yes, the cars which are idle 20 hours out of 24. With automation, they might be able to make the car work 16 hours (+2 hours for context switch so total 18 hours) out of 24 i.e. 4 times current utilization. So the market for cars falls to 25% of current market.
Irrelevant, the question you failed to answer said nothing about "advantage":
That is why I didn't ask the aforementioned "even more basic questions" until this, where you did say something about "advantage". In fact you used this word in its entirety with correct spelling.
So after you did mention "advantage", I ask this to see if you have any clue about what "advantage" means. I do this because from your other sentences it appears you don't have such a clue, but appearances can be deceptive. And until you do acquire such a clue, making any statement to you about this subject which includes a concept of advantage as you demonstrate yourself by using the word will be fruitless.
Ok, so you probably haven't read TFA or TFS. This particular/. story is not about someone telling others about the dangers of meat. It is almost the opposite.
You are welcome. Save your "W. H. O. is promoting vegetarianism" posts for some other day.
So you're actually saying that you can't answer my question until I answer your question which is just repeating my question but replacing "open" with "closed"?
No, I am asking even more basic questions because you are demonstrating ignorance of even more basic points. So tell me, can an "advantage" ever exist without comparison with a "disadvantage" ?
People are more used to the word "observe" with sad occasions than "celebrate". "Celebrate" isn't wrong, but are you sure you Swedes are using the correct English term when communicating with people from other countries?
Slashdot Mirror
2.5 MB/s for a year is too much? Even Microsoft is saying it's an outlier.
75 Terabytes is the complete contents of 1,172 smartphones with 64 GB of storage
Or one tiny smartphone which doesn't retain it after uploading to OneDrive.
In the scheme of enterprise storage, 75 TB isn't very much. In the scheme of home storage it becomes more complicated and would involve using a SAS cabinet and at least 16, 6TB drives in RAID-5.
No, it means a small mobile phone capturing pictures, recording videos and uploading to Microsoft OneDrive via a good internet connection. Probably shared between multiple people, but not necessarily.
If they DIDN'T use Microsoft OneDrive, it might mean all that SAS cabinet, RAID-whatever etc. But the whole point of OneDrive is that you don't have to do all that, just store it on the "cloud".
First sentence contradicts rest of the post.
Ok, great. In the context where you used the word "advantage", can advantage be relevant without comparison with a disadvantage?
Have you recalled using the word "advantage" yet?
That makes sense, thanks.
Ok, that is good. But doesn't it happen very frequently that his problem can indeed be solved only making it worse for others? Because others have a whole different way of using that part, reasons of which belong in history, which take hours to explain? And this particular problem finder's ability and willingness to learn about other people's use cases is low in the first place?
And one fake problem finder's opinion is frequently diametrically opposite to another's?
How much time per fake problem finder can you spend, and how many such people do you encounter?
If he suddenly stops ranting, people wouldn't think such code is unacceptable.
So people never report problems to you which are not really problems but they didn't take the time to learn how to use the software so they think it is a problem with the software?
and I have never met one who when ....
If you wanted to "meet" one, you could have read Linus' posts. But I am not holding my breath.
This isn't to excuse shoddy software but let's be honest about it: we get what we pay for, and generally we as a society don't care to pay enough for quality, be it a secure OS or a car that doesn't burst into flames if you tap it gently on the rear bumper ;-)
What? This is completely false. We pay for software like we do for nothing else. We've made the maker of a highly popular operating system the largest company in the world, twice in a row. We've given them obscene margins - something close to 80% on software. (Apple's easily crosses 40% in spite of selling hardware, but if you could count the margin on software alone it would cross 80%).
On top of that we pay software companies by
1. allowing EULAs,
2. allowing BSA to hold dreaded "raids" on other businesses
3. allowing them to sell something with "no warranty express or implied",
4. law enforcement of various countries upholds our software companies' business model because the business model doesn't hold by itself,
5. we are increasingly paying for software by our privacy which might soon mean our security
Which other industry is paid half as much by the society? Software has beaten petroleum in taking the largest toll on human society for last 25 years. If you want to make the argument of "you get what you pay for", we should get millions of times better software.
We need to make the argument of "you get what you have the guts to demand". Our guts turn to water when dealing with software companies.
That is insecure in itself because one time vulnerability in triggering a false update to itself chrome now becomes a trojan forever. An application should never have write privilege on its own executable.
It doesn't work like that. Maintenance cost indeed might be twice as much, but life span of a car can be extended hugely by maintaining professionally.
Even with 4 hours per day usage, much of the retiring of cars takes place due to accidents, newer technology, bad maintenance etc. With 4 times as much usage, the retirement rates can be roughly kept the same in automatic cars due to much lower accident rates, same rate of newer technology, good maintenance.
1. What kind of software is NOT open source?
Software that does not fit the Open Source Definition.
No, I didn't ask about Open Source. I asked about open source.
2. Audit is being touted as an "advantage" of open source software over what other kind of software?
Probably software that does not fit the Open Source Definition.
No, source visible and some sort of verification that same source code is actually creating the executing code is enough for touting audit as an advantage.
3. Can "advantage " ever stand without comparing with a disadvantage?
The question appears to be whether the advantage is valid at all.
Appears wrong to you then. I am not asking that question.
But there has to be some bigger picture thinking too. Individually, the polls for reducing taxes on medicine, reducing taxes in food, and increased spending on education might all get favourable response. But together they might not add up.
If only revenue neutral proposals are polled, there needs to be someone to craft the proposal who will have a huge power which can be abused.
So since I studied my choices adequately enough to safely predict a good future for my employment, but some other people didn't, the only fair thing to do is to make me suffer as though I made those bad choices?
But in that same event your prediction turns out to be not so safe, right?
Yes, the cars which are idle 20 hours out of 24. With automation, they might be able to make the car work 16 hours (+2 hours for context switch so total 18 hours) out of 24 i.e. 4 times current utilization. So the market for cars falls to 25% of current market.
One glucose molecule in the body stays along with 36 water molecules. Do the math.
Irrelevant, the question you failed to answer said nothing about "advantage":
That is why I didn't ask the aforementioned "even more basic questions" until this, where you did say something about "advantage". In fact you used this word in its entirety with correct spelling.
So after you did mention "advantage", I ask this to see if you have any clue about what "advantage" means. I do this because from your other sentences it appears you don't have such a clue, but appearances can be deceptive. And until you do acquire such a clue, making any statement to you about this subject which includes a concept of advantage as you demonstrate yourself by using the word will be fruitless.
One lung at a time?
Ok, so you probably haven't read TFA or TFS. This particular /. story is not about someone telling others about the dangers of meat. It is almost the opposite.
You are welcome. Save your "W. H. O. is promoting vegetarianism" posts for some other day.
So you're actually saying that you can't answer my question until I answer your question which is just repeating my question but replacing "open" with "closed"?
No, I am asking even more basic questions because you are demonstrating ignorance of even more basic points. So tell me, can an "advantage" ever exist without comparison with a "disadvantage" ?
People are more used to the word "observe" with sad occasions than "celebrate". "Celebrate" isn't wrong, but are you sure you Swedes are using the correct English term when communicating with people from other countries?
1. What kind of software is NOT open source?
2. Audit is being touted as an "advantage" of open source software over what other kind of software?
3. Can "advantage " ever stand without comparing with a disadvantage?