It wouldn't matter whether I had bought it or not, and nothing I said had anything to do with fanboyism. Get off the podium before it breaks under the immense weight of the chip on your shoulder.
So, what you're saying is, if you want to create the ultimate battle creature, start lighting beetles on fire? In that case, I knew this kid growing up who must have a 50 year lead on nature by now; maybe I'll see if he needs saddles or crossbows.
Yeah, I actually hate Apple with every fiber in my body, and have since before the Macintosh even existed. Nice try at guessing an explanation, though, Cap'n Clueless (well, okay, that's a lie, it wasn't actually a skillful attempt at slander.) You don't have to be an Apple fanboy to laugh at Microsoft's mistakes. And before you bother calling me a Linux zealot, a BSD fanatic, a BeOS evangelist, a NeXTstep bigot, a DOS dogmatist, a Palm Pinhead, a Web 2.0 wonk or whatever random damn thing pops into your head, I write Windows software on a Dell laptop running Vista. So, simply, kindly shut your claptrap hole. You don't know me, you don't know what you're talking about, and I'd be surprised if you knew the time of day.
People like you make me want chlorine in the gene pool.
Wait... so, you're saying you actually have a library of PlaysForSure music? Because if not, then your complaint is peurile.
Puerile means "of little consequence in the fashion of a child's worries," and properly applies to things like the monster under the bed, cooties and so forth. Whether or not I own PlaysForSure music does not affect whether the Zune is hiding in my closet waiting to eat me. That said, of course, it's not at all unreasonable to point out processional flaws in an item one doesn't own. Yes, I actually do have one song in PlaysForSure, which I bought that way by accident, but frankly I think that's quite moot. Are you supposing, sir, that my ability to comment on commercial devices hinges upon that seventy five cent accidental sale?
To be plain, sir, your attempt to look smart at other people's expense failed the second you started using words you didn't actually understand.
If you have a subscription service, there's no reason you can't get that same library of music through the Zune's subscription service.
At extra cost. It's worth pointing out that the entire purpose of PlaysForSure was to guarantee that would not happen. Uninformed corporate apologism is tiresome.
If, like me, you don't "do" DRM'd music, then why care?
Does it bother you how many false assumptions you made in such a short piece of text? (Somehow I'm betting that it doesn't, and further that you won't grasp what that means about you.)
Ok, so it's only one order of magnitude faster, with no seek time. The difference is still enormous, and it's still not in the favor of 10k drives like you suggested. As far as drives saturating busses, it wouldn't be the first time that drive bandwidth had outpaced system bandwidth (if you were around for the switch to vesa local, you know what I'm talking about; if you're scratching your head trying to figure out what video standards have to do with it, nevermind.)
"[Fusion io's CTO David Flynn] set the benchmark for the worst case scenario.."
By which he means, set up a completely unrealistic benchmark which shows his flash drive in the best possible light, and a traditional drive in the worst possible light.
No, the scenario he set up is a classic worst case scenario for drives, one which is well known to large disk usage corporations: near-random access by hundreds-or-thousands of concurrent users. This is what SANs are built to address, this is what parallel RAID is so good at, and yes, it so happens that this new drive is also good for it, because there's no seek time.
Just because they've successfully approached a real problem doesn't mean that describing the real problem is flimsy propoganda. Knee-jerk reactions don't happen because you're a knee.
You would think being a "geek" new site, one could at least get their GB's and Gb's correct.
What are you, new here?
If the drive is running at 800Mb a second, that's hardly what I would call *impressive* or *extremely fast*. That's not even as fast as most 10k rpm scsi or sata drives.
You don't know what you're talking about. Depending on fragmentation, a Maxtor 15krpm SCSI drive typically gets 42-68 megabytes per second throughput, which would indicate an order of magnitude improvement. Amusingly, the drive is running 160 pipelines, EACH capable of 800 meg per second sustained. Getting hundreds of gigabytes of throughput is three orders of magnitude performance increase. For someone getting up on the soapbox about the case of units, you sure don't seem to check your own research much.
Of course, the *real* issue here is that high load drives undergo extreme seek fragmentation. As the article points out, the major issue to corporate customers is operations per second, which is marketer for "holy crap there's no seek time, random access is just as fast as linear access." If you're thinking about this in terms of dropping the read time of a single item, you're missing the point. The issue here is that that drive can sustain that throughput no matter what random thing your thousand active users want this millisecond.
The performance impact of that kind of difference is borderline unmeasurable, it's so huge.
And when you look at the power bill, you'll make all that money back in about four months. What's your point? (By the way, this drive will still be faster.)
Yeah, and compared to a wagon, a skateboard is fast; you still wouldn't make a shipping company on them. That's why it's called naïveté: it only seems like a good idea or a correct assessment if you have no idea what your other options are.
The bottleneck for a web app is always going to be database queries.
Sure, if you're using a standalone daemon which isn't part of your application to do your database work. Looks like you have the same problem the article author does: you don't know what your options are. Embedded databases like SQLite, modular databases like Mnesia, stream-query databases like Kdb, in-database execution like NetRexx and so on all provide databases fast enough that the script becomes the most common saddle. The reason you're used to thinking of databases as slow is that you're used to spending immense overhead on the upkeep needed for SQL style relationality, the cross-process invokation, the data copies, the opening and closing of pipes-or-sockets, and all that enormous unnessecary allocation thrash. Wake up, guy: there's more to database work than SQL. When you find yourself saying something like "the bottleneck is always going to be," nine times in ten you just need to learn what your alternatives are.
Almost all PHP/SQL work requires nothing more complex than DETS, which has an average throughput two orders of magnitude higher than MySQL. Maybe you should stop evaluating the field when you only know about the trees over in that one little grove near the lake.
Don't get me wrong - I'm no fan of Ruby. That said, Derek Sivers doesn't really say anything about Ruby here, except to complain that he doesn't understand it, doesn't know the standard library very well, didn't want to retrain his existing PHP staff, and has finally discovered how little of a difference the underlying language makes. He also makes the point that learning something teaches him things elsewhere, which makes it sound like Ruby is maybe his third language or so; he seems genuinely surprised that lessons learned in Language 1 carry on to Language 2. Next, he exposes his naïveté by calling PHP fast, and finally he cites his love of SQL as if it somehow has bearing in PHP vs Ruby.
Way to go, Derek, you're becoming less of a noob today. How it is that you got onto Slashdot with that little diary note is beyond me.
I don't know them (they're the same person btw.) What I do know is that the anonymous coward to whom I replied is exactly what he's accusing of others.
The thing is, American customer service is much like American insurance -- it's nothing but a financial black hole in the eyes of the bean counters.
That depends a whole lot on where you shop. The kind of service you want is expensive; you can't get it at value stores because there isn't enough margin to support the cost. There are a lot of companies out there who know how important customer service is, and who provide it in order to keep customers like you.
It's about saving a little money now.
It turns out that there are companies smart enough to take the $5 hit now to profit $2 off you every month. Keep the faith: when you stop looking only for value outfits, you will no longer be treated like a value customer. Do some shopping.
This is foresight that I wish American companies had.
If the rate of lost sales because of individual angry customers is less than the money saved from denial of service, it's a win.
Well, that's a pretty big "if." It's true for the top-tier companies, who get customers just on their name; that's why you see this across the board in cell phone companies, but not from the little ones that people don't know about, like US Cellular and Cricket. That's why you see this at big chains like the retail outfit in question; if you were spending the extra $5 to go to the local mom and pop store, you wouldn't. This is why you never see this at a resteraunt, big chain or not - there's too much competition, even in the top throughput tiers like McDonalds' and Outback. Too many choices.
Try your local small businesses. They won't treat you this way.
Entrapment only applies to the police. There's no such thing as corporate entrapment. Stop learning your legal terminology from Sam Waterson. He's a TV actor.
It gets really tiresome to see stories with enormous flaws like this on Slashdot. You guys make more than enough money to hire an editor. Maybe it's time. All they'd have to do was once-over the stuff that made it to the front page. You could pay some college kid $25k/y, and you'd make it back on not paying for bandwidth for people like me who've been begging you to come up to the journalistic standard of a small-town arts newspaper for ten years now.
You know, AC, you're the actual troll here. You're hiding your identity, following someone around, making accusations against their name without evidence. You're boring. Let it go. Nobody cares if twitter and erris are the same person. You're contributing nothing but grief. Be a man and use an account, or stop wasting everyone's time.
Erris: stop responding to people like this. All they want is to be noticed. It doesn't matter if you're right or wrong: if they think you're paying attention to them, they're getting exactly what they want, and they'll just keep it up. Positive or negative response, doesn't matter - it's a response.
That depends. It's not the internet that fixed this, so much as having high quality leverage. If you know how, you can turn these things around in other ways. For example, I would simply go get a pad of paper and a pencil, then go back to the manager, get his full name, the precise title of his official position, the store number, and the name of his boss, in that specific order. If he refused to give any of that data, I'd simply say "sir, if I don't get your boss' name through you, I'll get it through corporate; are you sure that's how you want them to find out about your choices?" Then, I would ask for things in writing, just as did the person in the article; if Mr. Tank refused, I'd take note of the fact. In the United States, I'd point out that you cannot refuse a warranty without giving reason in writing by law, and given that the US inherited its laws from Britain, it seems likely that there's a similar law there; if he refused again, I'd simply note this fact, and while writing, "absent mindedly" mumble under my breath "Mr. Tank refuses to follow warranty law, and either honor warranty or explain why not in writing."
Now, at that point I haven't done much differently than the article author. This is where it changes. While he's standing there as if I'm going to talk to him, I'd get my cell phone out of my pocket and call corporate. If Mr. Tank tried to walk away, I'd say "don't walk away, sir, this call is for you." (If he walked away again, that's fine; just get an employee to re-summon him, and be sure to tell the employee that their manager is avoiding calls from the manager's boss.)
It's one thing to call corporate. It's another thing entirely to call corporate in front of the offending employee, with their name, position and store number in hand. It's relatively easy to ignore a customer; almost impossible to ignore your boss.
The fact that Torvalds says "open source" instead of "free software" shows where he is coming from.
Yeah, an unambiguous place not filled with phrases carefully overloaded to hide the destructive downside of the agenda. If you value your freedom, phear the man who gave you the free thing in the first place. (cough)
Since when is a column store database and a relational database mutually exclusive concepts?
Uh, since always. It's kind of like how noobs always get confused by the difference between a map and a hash: why, they both store key->value pairs, how are they different? Just because they serve the same end goal doesn't mean the underlying implementation is remotely similar. For example, column tables - which, amusingly, are actually older than RDBMSes, showing exactly the depth of the expertise of the original author, whose sole reason for thinking RDBMSes are old hat is because of when they were invented - store data by column. "This file contains all the address 2 fields." "This file contains all the phone numbers." That's how most databases worked in the Really Old Days. Then in the 1970s, someone realized that most data was fetched a row at a time, and started orienting the databases towards identity fields that were tagged by field correlation - relationships.
The difference is this: you have a 20x2000 table. Are you going to store horizontal stripes, vertical stripes or something fancy? Column is vertical, almost all RDBMSes are horizontal, and the real database evolution is taking place in products the article author has never even heard of.
If there are four propellors with separate tanks, and one empties early, borrow from other tanks so you don't have to throw the whole thing out! What a brilliant idea! I think that's worthy of a patent.
Try reading the patent, UbuntuDope. The thing being covered is the algorithm to use the other three engines to do what the almost-empty one would have. There is no "borrowing from other tanks," as they can't be connected; if they were, one rupture would dunce them all. By the way, I realize you have a deep background in rocket physics, so I'm not going to point out the obvious, that the math to get three undesirably aligned rockets to pretend to be a fourth is actually tremendously complicated, and several pages long.
Because you obviously already understand this. (cough)
Slashdot Mirror
It wouldn't matter whether I had bought it or not, and nothing I said had anything to do with fanboyism. Get off the podium before it breaks under the immense weight of the chip on your shoulder.
So, what you're saying is, if you want to create the ultimate battle creature, start lighting beetles on fire? In that case, I knew this kid growing up who must have a 50 year lead on nature by now; maybe I'll see if he needs saddles or crossbows.
Yay assumption-driven statistics.
Yeah, I actually hate Apple with every fiber in my body, and have since before the Macintosh even existed. Nice try at guessing an explanation, though, Cap'n Clueless (well, okay, that's a lie, it wasn't actually a skillful attempt at slander.) You don't have to be an Apple fanboy to laugh at Microsoft's mistakes. And before you bother calling me a Linux zealot, a BSD fanatic, a BeOS evangelist, a NeXTstep bigot, a DOS dogmatist, a Palm Pinhead, a Web 2.0 wonk or whatever random damn thing pops into your head, I write Windows software on a Dell laptop running Vista. So, simply, kindly shut your claptrap hole. You don't know me, you don't know what you're talking about, and I'd be surprised if you knew the time of day.
People like you make me want chlorine in the gene pool.
To be plain, sir, your attempt to look smart at other people's expense failed the second you started using words you didn't actually understand.At extra cost. It's worth pointing out that the entire purpose of PlaysForSure was to guarantee that would not happen. Uninformed corporate apologism is tiresome.Does it bother you how many false assumptions you made in such a short piece of text? (Somehow I'm betting that it doesn't, and further that you won't grasp what that means about you.)
Does it do Plays For Sure yet? No, no, sorry, nevermind, I don't want to ruin the slashvertisement.
That it doesn't work.
Ok, so it's only one order of magnitude faster, with no seek time. The difference is still enormous, and it's still not in the favor of 10k drives like you suggested. As far as drives saturating busses, it wouldn't be the first time that drive bandwidth had outpaced system bandwidth (if you were around for the switch to vesa local, you know what I'm talking about; if you're scratching your head trying to figure out what video standards have to do with it, nevermind.)
Just because they've successfully approached a real problem doesn't mean that describing the real problem is flimsy propoganda. Knee-jerk reactions don't happen because you're a knee.
Of course, the *real* issue here is that high load drives undergo extreme seek fragmentation. As the article points out, the major issue to corporate customers is operations per second, which is marketer for "holy crap there's no seek time, random access is just as fast as linear access." If you're thinking about this in terms of dropping the read time of a single item, you're missing the point. The issue here is that that drive can sustain that throughput no matter what random thing your thousand active users want this millisecond.
The performance impact of that kind of difference is borderline unmeasurable, it's so huge.
And when you look at the power bill, you'll make all that money back in about four months. What's your point? (By the way, this drive will still be faster.)
Almost all PHP/SQL work requires nothing more complex than DETS, which has an average throughput two orders of magnitude higher than MySQL. Maybe you should stop evaluating the field when you only know about the trees over in that one little grove near the lake.
Don't get me wrong - I'm no fan of Ruby. That said, Derek Sivers doesn't really say anything about Ruby here, except to complain that he doesn't understand it, doesn't know the standard library very well, didn't want to retrain his existing PHP staff, and has finally discovered how little of a difference the underlying language makes. He also makes the point that learning something teaches him things elsewhere, which makes it sound like Ruby is maybe his third language or so; he seems genuinely surprised that lessons learned in Language 1 carry on to Language 2. Next, he exposes his naïveté by calling PHP fast, and finally he cites his love of SQL as if it somehow has bearing in PHP vs Ruby.
Way to go, Derek, you're becoming less of a noob today. How it is that you got onto Slashdot with that little diary note is beyond me.
Depends. How much tin foil ya got? Start with the hat and work from there.
I don't know them (they're the same person btw.) What I do know is that the anonymous coward to whom I replied is exactly what he's accusing of others.
Try your local small businesses. They won't treat you this way.
Bruce Eckel is looking for Erlang. That's not what Python is for.
Entrapment only applies to the police. There's no such thing as corporate entrapment. Stop learning your legal terminology from Sam Waterson. He's a TV actor.
It gets really tiresome to see stories with enormous flaws like this on Slashdot. You guys make more than enough money to hire an editor. Maybe it's time. All they'd have to do was once-over the stuff that made it to the front page. You could pay some college kid $25k/y, and you'd make it back on not paying for bandwidth for people like me who've been begging you to come up to the journalistic standard of a small-town arts newspaper for ten years now.
You know, AC, you're the actual troll here. You're hiding your identity, following someone around, making accusations against their name without evidence. You're boring. Let it go. Nobody cares if twitter and erris are the same person. You're contributing nothing but grief. Be a man and use an account, or stop wasting everyone's time.
Erris: stop responding to people like this. All they want is to be noticed. It doesn't matter if you're right or wrong: if they think you're paying attention to them, they're getting exactly what they want, and they'll just keep it up. Positive or negative response, doesn't matter - it's a response.
That depends. It's not the internet that fixed this, so much as having high quality leverage. If you know how, you can turn these things around in other ways. For example, I would simply go get a pad of paper and a pencil, then go back to the manager, get his full name, the precise title of his official position, the store number, and the name of his boss, in that specific order. If he refused to give any of that data, I'd simply say "sir, if I don't get your boss' name through you, I'll get it through corporate; are you sure that's how you want them to find out about your choices?" Then, I would ask for things in writing, just as did the person in the article; if Mr. Tank refused, I'd take note of the fact. In the United States, I'd point out that you cannot refuse a warranty without giving reason in writing by law, and given that the US inherited its laws from Britain, it seems likely that there's a similar law there; if he refused again, I'd simply note this fact, and while writing, "absent mindedly" mumble under my breath "Mr. Tank refuses to follow warranty law, and either honor warranty or explain why not in writing."
Now, at that point I haven't done much differently than the article author. This is where it changes. While he's standing there as if I'm going to talk to him, I'd get my cell phone out of my pocket and call corporate. If Mr. Tank tried to walk away, I'd say "don't walk away, sir, this call is for you." (If he walked away again, that's fine; just get an employee to re-summon him, and be sure to tell the employee that their manager is avoiding calls from the manager's boss.)
It's one thing to call corporate. It's another thing entirely to call corporate in front of the offending employee, with their name, position and store number in hand. It's relatively easy to ignore a customer; almost impossible to ignore your boss.
Wow. Grab Mr. Peabody's Wayback machine and go get yourself hired by Oracle in 1981.
The difference is this: you have a 20x2000 table. Are you going to store horizontal stripes, vertical stripes or something fancy? Column is vertical, almost all RDBMSes are horizontal, and the real database evolution is taking place in products the article author has never even heard of.
Welcome to 1960s tech.
Because you obviously already understand this. (cough)