This technique is also called IBOC, for In-Band On-Channel, since it coexists with existing analog signals. The brand name for the service is HD Radio.
Can it be "CD-quality" at about 96 kbps? We'll see.
While GPS-based systems like those from Truetime are some of the best sources of network time, probably the least expensive alternatives are WWVB-based systems from Ultralink (assuming you're in the continental US), starting at $150.
You should seriously consider using hardware from Sun. Sun has the SunVIP program, whereby Sun has agreements in place with several vendors to work together to solve problems, including Oracle, IBM (for DB2), BEA, and several others. Finger pointing is a thing of the past.
Why would anybody give credibility to some guy's random, uninformed speculation about a company's motives? His sole source is this "one person" who had bad things to say about Sun. Everybody's a conspiracy theorist these days.
Look, for its entire existence, Sun has built systems based on open standards. A large amount of the free software (like most GNU stuff) we're now running on Linux was first developed on Suns and later ported to Linux, proving the openness of both systems. Microsoft, on the other hand, has avoided openness all it can. Please stop comparing the two companies. Sun could never dominate the way Microsoft does now.
And even if Sun becomes an "enemy" of Linux, what possible impact could that have on Linux itself? Will it hurt Linus' feelings such that he shuts down kernel development? Why all the fear and loathing?
Anyone who believes there's not a market for thin clients has never:
1) Worked for a large corporation, where desktop costs are enormous; or,
2) Tried to teach their parents or grand parents how to get around Windows simply to use E-mail.
Finally, the Sun Ray 1 is a **WAN** product. It has nothing to do with home use. Nothing. Sun isn't trying to take your toys away. It's trying to reduce corporate desktop expenses.
The Sun SPARCserver 4/470 is an old system, introduced in 1990. It is VME bus based, and Sun dropped OS support for it at Solaris 2.5.1. It is not a "sun4c" or "sun4m" architecture, which are the 32-bit SPARC architectures listed as supported by Linux.
So the IBM workstation broke the price cap, didn't meet the minimum requirements for disk space, and needed two CPUs to match the performance of the Sun with only a single CPU, yet it wins the comparison?
Haven't we heard this before? First, Sun and AT&T got together to create a unified Unix to be called System V Release 4.
Rather than go along, IBM, HP, and DEC created the OSF and pledged that they would create a single Unix, OSF/1, and that they all would run it. Whoops! They lied. Only DEC followed through and shipped OSF/1, er, Digital Unix, um, Tru64.
So now we have IBM, which dissed the SVR4 effort and misled with the OSF effort, claiming it will lead yet another effort. Why should we believe them this time?
Slashdot Mirror
Can it be "CD-quality" at about 96 kbps? We'll see.
A good site for learning more about IBOC is Radio World Online.
While GPS-based systems like those from Truetime are some of the best sources of network time, probably the least expensive alternatives are WWVB-based systems from Ultralink (assuming you're in the continental US), starting at $150.
All you have to do is maintain the proper level of support contract with each of the companies involved. For more information on SunVIP, check out http://www.sun.com/ser vice/support/servicealliance/sunvip.html.
Disclaimer: I work for Sun.
Sun made a pledge and how much of Sun's engineering are you using on your Linux box?
Let's see:
RPC/XDR
NFS
PAM
ELF
StarOffice
Java
Name Service Switch (/etc/nsswitch.conf)
Duh, that should read **LAN** product. The Sun Ray 1 is NOT a WAN product.
Why would anybody give credibility to some guy's random, uninformed speculation about a company's motives? His sole source is this "one person" who had bad things to say about Sun. Everybody's a conspiracy theorist these days.
Look, for its entire existence, Sun has built systems based on open standards. A large amount of the free software (like most GNU stuff) we're now running on Linux was first developed on Suns and later ported to Linux, proving the openness of both systems. Microsoft, on the other hand, has avoided openness all it can. Please stop comparing the two companies. Sun could never dominate the way Microsoft does now.
And even if Sun becomes an "enemy" of Linux, what possible impact could that have on Linux itself? Will it hurt Linus' feelings such that he shuts down kernel development? Why all the fear and loathing?
Anyone who believes there's not a market for thin clients has never:
1) Worked for a large corporation, where desktop costs are enormous; or,
2) Tried to teach their parents or grand parents how to get around Windows simply to use E-mail.
Finally, the Sun Ray 1 is a **WAN** product. It has nothing to do with home use. Nothing. Sun isn't trying to take your toys away. It's trying to reduce corporate desktop expenses.
The Sun SPARCserver 4/470 is an old system, introduced in 1990. It is VME bus based, and Sun dropped OS support for it at Solaris 2.5.1. It is not a "sun4c" or "sun4m" architecture, which are the 32-bit SPARC architectures listed as supported by Linux.
So the IBM workstation broke the price cap, didn't meet the minimum requirements for disk space, and needed two CPUs to match the performance of the Sun with only a single CPU, yet it wins the comparison?
Haven't we heard this before? First, Sun and AT&T got together to create a unified Unix to be called System V Release 4.
Rather than go along, IBM, HP, and DEC created the OSF and pledged that they would create a single Unix, OSF/1, and that they all would run it. Whoops! They lied. Only DEC followed through and shipped OSF/1, er, Digital Unix, um, Tru64.
So now we have IBM, which dissed the SVR4 effort and misled with the OSF effort, claiming it will lead yet another effort. Why should we believe them this time?