Person: IBM is buying a major competitor in the Commercial Unix market Mactards: Waaah. How dare you ignore Apple?!? Person: Well, Apple doesn't really compete with IBM/Sun, see these revenue numbers Mactards: Waaah, that's not fair because Apple doesn't sell servers boohooohoo Person: Exactly the point.
Google claims they did the math and found it was cheaper with commodity hardware. I advise everyone else to do the same and run the calculations for themselves to determine the optimal hardware for their particular load.
The x-factor here is Google's proprietary clustering software. What might be cheaper for Google isn't necessarily true for an 'enterprise' that doesn't have dozens of PhDs on staff.
In my experience, traditional RDBMS software is much cheaper to scale up rather than scale out.
if this is really about FAT32 doing long and short filenames, what about that HP NewWave product from the late 80s? And didn't OS/2 provide long & short filenames for DOS programs?
Neither supported long _file_ names. The long program names were stored by the shell and not the file system.
NewWave probably used standard Windows PIF files, but I can't recall.
I have to admit i've always been at a total loss as to why redhat could have the same sort of market cap as someone like Sun (at least pre-takeover rumours).
Ahahaha, RedHat has been ridiculously priced from day 1, but this guy is a 'troll' for asking a perfectly reasonable question.
To answer, Linux is perceived as a growth market, and Intel and others have invested a ton of money in RedHat to insure that they are in a strategically dominant position in the Linux ecosystem. There is only one organization that can coordinate changes on every level of the Linux stack, and that's RedHat.
However the actual value of that position in terms of revenue is still an open question.
if you think something called "racial hygiene" is a science or ever had any claim to being a science.
IIRC, "racial hygiene" was a nazi slogan. But "Eugenics" is still very much a science and taught at your local agricultural college. Trepidity is referring to the false utility of "human eugenics" which at one time was accepted.
Bzzzt! Thanks for playing, "You Bet Your Geek Card!" Now, please hand it over.
You can't even find the word "mainframe" in most IBM quarterly earning reports. Why not? Because it's a tiny fraction of the $125 Billion in revenue that IBM generates in a year.
I've seen analyst reports that indicate that up to 75% of IBM's services revenue is directly or indirectly related to their mainframe business. IBM sells themselves to wall street as a solutions company not a computer company, so of course they put as little money as possible in the hardware column. Even their business process outsourcing is generally related to IBM payroll systems and so on, in my experience.
So I would say that IBM is still very much a mainframe company. Also stop doing the "BZZT!" thing, it makes you sound like a 12 year old that gets beat up every day in school.
You know, that has been bugging me, along with a general WTF? when it comes to why they are using a consumer OS on these machines in the first place. The stupidest part by a country mile is the fact that they have a VERY secure and reliable OS for these things that have years of real world use: OS2.
My banks have the OS2 machines(I think Diebold) and frankly they are built like tanks. They are always running 24/7(you think I'm joking but the bank down the street has the pretty Windows ATMs and there is some guy out there working on the damned thing every time you turn around) and it frankly just works. Is it pretty? Nope, just a blue and black screen with very basic function buttons. But it is a ATM. It doesn't NEED to be pretty. It just needs to be secure and work. And since eComstation still sells OS2 licenses I honestly don't see why they just don't stick with old reliable OS2. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Hah, please tell me someone copy-pasted this from a Slashdot thread circa 2001.
You're probably right, but only 1 out of 100,000 academic experiments ever become venture capital-backed firms.
In my experience, Joshes usually have some largely useless "product" that didn't become the next Google, so they wedged it into a business application where it ends up doing more harm that good.
In some alternate universe, Sergey Brin is stinking up some small-time consulting firm and everyone is complaining about his buggy homebrew database.
Well, it's a myth that these great coders are valuable, as well. High level software development requires more than the ability to manage complexity. You won't find any Josh's developing high quality, vast enterprise applications. You won't find them developing a modern RDBMS, or anything that's _truly_ complex in terms of architecture, scope, and interaction with other systems.
Actually, many established tech companies have a Josh, just that they usually have been promoted out of the way have a fancy title like "Chief Scientist" but no real management responsibility.
They probably install a background service running as System or something along those lines, because what you are describing is impossible.
Netscape plugin installers could do the same thing, but you have to restart the browser, so it's worse from a user-experience standpoint. (See the Microsoft Genuine Windows plugin for Firefox, for example.)
Actually every single IE plugin uses ActiveX (Flash, QuickTime, Java, etc.) Any future version of IE will likely have some ActiveX support for legacy plugins.
This is also the reason Google Chrome also supports ActiveX.
You are still operating under the old assumption that malware intends to be destructive. The malware industry survives on spam and stealing credit card numbers and so on.
Putting Windows into a VM doesn't solve any of these problems.
Why not? Apple did it, and people adjusted pretty well.
Most Mac users seem blissfully unaware that Classic was a gigantic security hole. The entire thing ran as suid root and could read/write anywhere on the hard drive.
Even if Classic was a reasonable way to move users to a new OS, as long as it existed OS X had all the same security issues as OS 9. In the context of discussing UAC, Apple's approach is irrelevant.
Otherwise someone could modify the Linux kernel, and while being forced to release the code, they could make it illegal for anybody else to modify and distribute the code by entangling it with a patent license.
Which is more-or-less exactly what happened when they shipped a kernel with FAT LFN support. It's not like the kernel devs were ignorant of this patent.
Slashdot Mirror
The IBM 2.88MB, the Cadillac of floppy drives ;)
IIRC, there was a beta of Windows 95 that did periodically turn on the floppy drive light.
If you had a better quality floppy drive, it was almost silent, but the cheaper models did go BZZT-CLANK-BZT every minute or so.
This chain of conversation is hilarious
Person: IBM is buying a major competitor in the Commercial Unix market
Mactards: Waaah. How dare you ignore Apple?!?
Person: Well, Apple doesn't really compete with IBM/Sun, see these revenue numbers
Mactards: Waaah, that's not fair because Apple doesn't sell servers boohooohoo
Person: Exactly the point.
And yet nobody in this thread can seem to put their finger on it without demanding something that you can do with MacOS X.
The applications that people buy UNIX systems for are for the most part not available on OS X.
Debating whether OS X is or isn't unix entirely misses the point that it's still not an adequate substitute for Solaris or AIX.
Google claims they did the math and found it was cheaper with commodity hardware. I advise everyone else to do the same and run the calculations for themselves to determine the optimal hardware for their particular load.
The x-factor here is Google's proprietary clustering software. What might be cheaper for Google isn't necessarily true for an 'enterprise' that doesn't have dozens of PhDs on staff.
In my experience, traditional RDBMS software is much cheaper to scale up rather than scale out.
if this is really about FAT32 doing long and short filenames, what about that HP NewWave product from the late 80s? And didn't OS/2 provide long & short filenames for DOS programs?
Neither supported long _file_ names. The long program names were stored by the shell and not the file system.
NewWave probably used standard Windows PIF files, but I can't recall.
I have to admit i've always been at a total loss as to why redhat could have the same sort of market cap as someone like Sun (at least pre-takeover rumours).
Ahahaha, RedHat has been ridiculously priced from day 1, but this guy is a 'troll' for asking a perfectly reasonable question.
To answer, Linux is perceived as a growth market, and Intel and others have invested a ton of money in RedHat to insure that they are in a strategically dominant position in the Linux ecosystem. There is only one organization that can coordinate changes on every level of the Linux stack, and that's RedHat.
However the actual value of that position in terms of revenue is still an open question.
if you think something called "racial hygiene" is a science or ever had any claim to being a science.
IIRC, "racial hygiene" was a nazi slogan. But "Eugenics" is still very much a science and taught at your local agricultural college. Trepidity is referring to the false utility of "human eugenics" which at one time was accepted.
If a Golf/Rabbit starts at $17K in the US (without tax), but is $50K in Norway, I can only imagine what the Tesla will cost there.
The comparison was with BMW, not the loss-leader they throw out there at $299 to bait you into buying the more profitable windows models.
Even so, 10% is pretty damn good. Ask BMW, or Steve Jobs.
Instead ask Yugo, because Linux netbooks tend to be the elcheapo models.
What's happening is that Windows users have found higher-end netbooks to be workable laptop replacements and not just internet appliances.
Bzzzt! Thanks for playing, "You Bet Your Geek Card!" Now, please hand it over.
You can't even find the word "mainframe" in most IBM quarterly earning reports. Why not? Because it's a tiny fraction of the $125 Billion in revenue that IBM generates in a year.
I've seen analyst reports that indicate that up to 75% of IBM's services revenue is directly or indirectly related to their mainframe business. IBM sells themselves to wall street as a solutions company not a computer company, so of course they put as little money as possible in the hardware column. Even their business process outsourcing is generally related to IBM payroll systems and so on, in my experience.
So I would say that IBM is still very much a mainframe company. Also stop doing the "BZZT!" thing, it makes you sound like a 12 year old that gets beat up every day in school.
You know, that has been bugging me, along with a general WTF? when it comes to why they are using a consumer OS on these machines in the first place. The stupidest part by a country mile is the fact that they have a VERY secure and reliable OS for these things that have years of real world use: OS2.
My banks have the OS2 machines(I think Diebold) and frankly they are built like tanks. They are always running 24/7(you think I'm joking but the bank down the street has the pretty Windows ATMs and there is some guy out there working on the damned thing every time you turn around) and it frankly just works. Is it pretty? Nope, just a blue and black screen with very basic function buttons. But it is a ATM. It doesn't NEED to be pretty. It just needs to be secure and work. And since eComstation still sells OS2 licenses I honestly don't see why they just don't stick with old reliable OS2. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Hah, please tell me someone copy-pasted this from a Slashdot thread circa 2001.
If not, your ATM runs Microsoft OS/2 1.3, btw.
You're probably right, but only 1 out of 100,000 academic experiments ever become venture capital-backed firms.
In my experience, Joshes usually have some largely useless "product" that didn't become the next Google, so they wedged it into a business application where it ends up doing more harm that good.
In some alternate universe, Sergey Brin is stinking up some small-time consulting firm and everyone is complaining about his buggy homebrew database.
No, his point is that a skunkworks effort allowed Microsoft to more aggressively market Windows and therefore dump OS/2.
If Windows 3.0 came out a year after OS/2 2.0 instead of a year before, the world might be a different place.
Well, it's a myth that these great coders are valuable, as well. High level software development requires more than the ability to manage complexity. You won't find any Josh's developing high quality, vast enterprise applications. You won't find them developing a modern RDBMS, or anything that's _truly_ complex in terms of architecture, scope, and interaction with other systems.
Actually, many established tech companies have a Josh, just that they usually have been promoted out of the way have a fancy title like "Chief Scientist" but no real management responsibility.
You needed a long hexagonal screwdriver or allen wrench, which is an obscure enough tool that Mac vendors made a killing selling them.
They probably install a background service running as System or something along those lines, because what you are describing is impossible.
Netscape plugin installers could do the same thing, but you have to restart the browser, so it's worse from a user-experience standpoint. (See the Microsoft Genuine Windows plugin for Firefox, for example.)
Actually every single IE plugin uses ActiveX (Flash, QuickTime, Java, etc.) Any future version of IE will likely have some ActiveX support for legacy plugins.
This is also the reason Google Chrome also supports ActiveX.
Bull-Shit
People do not tend to use "admin accounts" for day to day tasks on OSX. You have no idea what you are even talking about.
Open the "Accounts" preference pane and read what it says under your username.
Congrats, you learned something. Two-button mouse training starts next week.
You are still operating under the old assumption that malware intends to be destructive. The malware industry survives on spam and stealing credit card numbers and so on.
Putting Windows into a VM doesn't solve any of these problems.
Why not? Apple did it, and people adjusted pretty well.
Most Mac users seem blissfully unaware that Classic was a gigantic security hole. The entire thing ran as suid root and could read/write anywhere on the hard drive.
Even if Classic was a reasonable way to move users to a new OS, as long as it existed OS X had all the same security issues as OS 9. In the context of discussing UAC, Apple's approach is irrelevant.
Every camera I've owned only writes short filenames. And the patent is being broadly licensed.
Otherwise someone could modify the Linux kernel, and while being forced to release the code, they could make it illegal for anybody else to modify and distribute the code by entangling it with a patent license.
Which is more-or-less exactly what happened when they shipped a kernel with FAT LFN support. It's not like the kernel devs were ignorant of this patent.
Probably because it would make simple report querying a PITA if you had to specifically handle every nullable column.