Your missing the big picture. If the judge rules against Microsoft in the Findings of Law, then it's established that they have violated anti-trust laws. This then adds fuel to everyone else's lawsuits against Microsoft (most of which are with merit). If there is a settlement in advance of this, then the trial itself can't be used for much evidence.
So, unless your an MS stock holder, you should be hoping that we at LEAST get the ruling of law done.
QNX is an embedded OS. Cisco is likely to throw away IOS because it's become a bulky, buggy, complex mess. QNX gives them a clean and tight implementation which runs on a variety of processors.
Seldom as fast is a matter of perspective. Even for computationally intesive operations I've done several Java benchmarks that show it to be very close to native code in performance (like within %10). Given the variances in performance between native compilers, there is no guaruntee that native code will outperform a good JVM.
Similar things have been demonstrated for Smalltalk. Lisp has certainly outperformed a lot of other languages in benchmarks, but it's mostly compiled to native code anyway.
You're talking about orthoganol concepts. Emulation is what you're doing, runtime morphing is how you're doing it.
The statement that emulation has almost always been notoriously slow is very misleading. AS/400's only do "emulation". JVM's only do "emulation". Smalltalk, LISP, and any other language that defines a VM for it's runtime are all doing "emulation".
This is classic razor/razor blade marketing. It's not anti-competitive. The idea is to seed the market so that it is ready to buy your product. Zip drives are sold on the same principle.
Servlets do, in general, have scalability problems all their own.;-) That being said, here's some advice:
1) Use Weblogic or even better iPlanet. These products have much faster servlet engines than you can get elsewhere.
2) Use squid as a proxy IN FRONT of the Weblogic back end. This will signficantly improve your performance, at the cost of somewhat reducing the dynamic nature of your site.
3) Switch from using servlets.:-) Seriously, they aren't very quick. Actually, using JSP (even though it's a servlet itself) can be quite helpful as it will automatically do a lot of caching for you.
I wouldn't call it innovative, but it's clearly not symbolic links. For one thing, it's not explicit. It all happens under the hood. For another, it has all this database of hashes to enable copy-on-write symantecs. Please try not to bait people so much!!!
That being said, as a sys-admin, I would want to be able to disable this. While I'm sure the copy-on-write feature uses sufficiently unique hashes of the files to identify changes, there are definitely cases where I *want* to have physically seperate copies, particularly if files are on different partitions (maybe this is only done at a partition level, who knows?).
I did like their other "innovations": IPv6 (gee, I can get that for Linux can't I?), text-to-speech (yup, also for Linux), a statistics based trouble-shooting tool (of course, the stats would have to be setup before Win2000 was deployed, so you can imagine how accurate they'll be), etc. I mean who do they think they're kidding? Not only does Linux have similar facilities to most of their "innovations", but ALL of these innovations are available elsewhere as add ons to Windows! Oh, wait, I forgot, innovation is when Microsoft takes other's technology and bundles it with Windows.....;-)
TrendMicro has a solution. I thought MacAfee did but I can't find it. I'd recommend talking to the guys and Sendmail.com and getting a referal from them (assuming you're using Sendmail).
I'm unaware of an open-source effort in this area, which is kind of surprising really, because it's an easy project and it would benefit substancially from having lots of eyeballs. I guess the shortage of good Linux viruses (thank God) is limiting growth in this area.
The more I think about it, the more I'm ok with this approach provided one important exception that most of these laws don't currently support: there should be a way for minors to bypass this system.
I don't mean in the sense of a security flaw or technical solution. I mean that I think it's a parent's choice (not the state's) to censor their children's access to the Internet. I myself would want my kids to have wide open access, but at the same time I know there are some movies I wouldn't take them to. I see no problem with libraries having policies in place that make it easier for me to censor my children's exposure to the world out there.
Libraries are one of those few remaining places where in theory you can let your kid loose and there are no problems (provided the kid follows library rules;-). I think it's ok if the people in the community want to set up certain controls to assure that this remains the case. I DO think that parents should be able to decide that whether their children's Internet access is curtailed. To me it'd be a simple matter of having a check box on the child's library membership application, ("Do you your child's access limited by our censorware?").
This gives a parent a variety of choices. First, they can leave the Internet wide open for their kid (which is where I would go). Secondly, they can allow some arbitrary censoreware filters to limit their child's access. Finally, they can do a mix of the two by giving the child the censor filtered account, but then while spending time with the child at the library they can surf the web with them using their own account. The latter sounds pretty revolutionary I know, but hey, everyone now and then it helps to spend time with your kids.;-)
I think the sad thing is when a community arbitrarily places restrictions on what children can and cannot do regardless of their parent's wishes. Beyond what an adult isn't allowed to do and what a parent won't allow the child to do, well, I just don't see there needing to be additional rules.
Certainly, if you have 2 CPU's and your application is at all performance intensive, and has any ability to span multiple proceses or threads, 2 CPU's will help you. On Linux, there is an additional benefit with Xwindows: the GUI is all in a seperate process, so the second processor can handle the rendering of X calls for graphics intensive stuff while the first processor runs the actual software.
Additionaly, if you use things like VR then you'll have a CPU for doing the VR work while the other one actually runs the application. If you're running a server the second CPU will be a big benefit.
All that being said, the big thing to realize is that there's typically a world of difference between SMP systems an non-SMP systems that goes well beyond the CPU. SMP motherboards typically have much fancier memory and I/O subsystems because they've typically been targetted at the server market, and also because if you have 2 CPU's it's just that much easier for memory and I/O to be the bottlnecks. SMP systems have to spend extra effort to allow cache coherency between the CPU's, and that usually means fancier memory subsystems. Of course, you'll also pay more for the motherboard.;-)
My advice is this: if you're thinking of getting SCSI, go with SMP, as the benefits of SCSI and the benefits of SMP tend to align pretty well together. If you're going to play games, go for the single processor, as few of them take advantage of SMP at this point. If you're going to buy a lot of RAM, that's probably another good indicator that SMP is going to be helpful for you, as most (but not all - a lot of vector processing doesn't scale too well for SMP;-) memory intensive applications of a computer can benefit from an SMP system.
I've submit about a story every 3 months, and I don't think I've had one accepted in like 2 years.;-) Every time I find out my story was rejected, I feel a bit rejected.
Honestly though, after a few seconds, I realize you guys get a LOT of stories (every time I post there's like 400 submissions ahead of me), and I know I don't want Slashdot to be posting anything near 400 articles a day. I'm sure that there are 400 people who think there story is just as great/important/life affirming/etc. as mine, so that has to mean most people are going to get disappointed.
This isn't exactly a big leap in logic. I'd suggest to you that those who DON'T make the leap in logic are probably not worth your time and energy.
I sometimes wonder though, if it might be fun to spawn off a seperate site which just lists all the submissions you guys have rejected, if for no other reason than humor.;-)
Actually, Dell will sell you the Lucent version for $140.
The Apple card is also nice because it uses the laptop's built in antenna, so you don't have an ugly attena sticking out of your pcmcia card. That's got to be an easy thing to break.
The problem isn't developing a universal format, it's in getting everyone to support this format. I think a really good solution is already available in the OSD standard. It's a standard developed by Marimba, Microsoft, Tivoli, and Novell which has been submitted to the W3C.
It's designed to be vendor neutral, and it's been written by firms that know a lot about installing software (in particular Marimba and Tivoli bear some focus).
The other nice thing is because it uses XML it's completely extensible.
Of course, the big problem is getting everyone to support it!
Hey, I'd really like to know who moderated my post down and why they did it. That post was not a Troll at all, and I can't believe anyone would think it was.
Slashdot Mirror
Your missing the big picture. If the judge rules against Microsoft in the Findings of Law, then it's established that they have violated anti-trust laws. This then adds fuel to everyone else's lawsuits against Microsoft (most of which are with merit). If there is a settlement in advance of this, then the trial itself can't be used for much evidence.
So, unless your an MS stock holder, you should be hoping that we at LEAST get the ruling of law done.
QNX is an embedded OS. Cisco is likely to throw away IOS because it's become a bulky, buggy, complex mess. QNX gives them a clean and tight implementation which runs on a variety of processors.
Seldom as fast is a matter of perspective. Even for computationally intesive operations I've done several Java benchmarks that show it to be very close to native code in performance (like within %10). Given the variances in performance between native compilers, there is no guaruntee that native code will outperform a good JVM.
Similar things have been demonstrated for Smalltalk. Lisp has certainly outperformed a lot of other languages in benchmarks, but it's mostly compiled to native code anyway.
Actually, I also think Cisco has decided to move to QNX for their OS, so if Linux on a router makes sense they could switch to it quite easily.
You're talking about orthoganol concepts. Emulation is what you're doing, runtime morphing is how you're doing it.
The statement that emulation has almost always been notoriously slow is very misleading. AS/400's only do "emulation". JVM's only do "emulation". Smalltalk, LISP, and any other language that defines a VM for it's runtime are all doing "emulation".
....and before that people were doing it with APL...
This is classic razor/razor blade marketing. It's not anti-competitive. The idea is to seed the market so that it is ready to buy your product. Zip drives are sold on the same principle.
Servlets do, in general, have scalability problems all their own. ;-) That being said, here's some advice:
:-) Seriously, they aren't very quick. Actually, using JSP (even though it's a servlet itself) can be quite helpful as it will automatically do a lot of caching for you.
1) Use Weblogic or even better iPlanet. These products have much faster servlet engines than you can get elsewhere.
2) Use squid as a proxy IN FRONT of the Weblogic back end. This will signficantly improve your performance, at the cost of somewhat reducing the dynamic nature of your site.
3) Switch from using servlets.
This article claims AMD is going to announce their 1GHz Athlon on Monday. Of course, one can only imagine what supply is going to be like. ;-)
- Re: your performance problems. Are you using the 0.9 RAID patch (and appropriate RAID-utils)? It's much better.
- Software RAID for SCSI IMHO is better than Software RAID for IDE. It works great on my system. Perhaps the problem is with your controller?
- 2.3.3x's standard RAID is different from 2.2.14, I think... Somewhere in the recent 2.3.x tree the 0.9 RAID patches were applied.
I use Software RAID over my UW-SCSI controller, and I'm telling you, it ROCKS!I had heard this rumour long before W2K came out. However, according to this document, such interoperability is possible. I'm not sure who to believe.
I'm pretty sure URL's where just a makeshift URI and some day the IETF was going to figure out how to do URI's right. Am I wrong?
I wouldn't call it innovative, but it's clearly not symbolic links. For one thing, it's not explicit. It all happens under the hood. For another, it has all this database of hashes to enable copy-on-write symantecs. Please try not to bait people so much!!!
;-)
That being said, as a sys-admin, I would want to be able to disable this. While I'm sure the copy-on-write feature uses sufficiently unique hashes of the files to identify changes, there are definitely cases where I *want* to have physically seperate copies, particularly if files are on different partitions (maybe this is only done at a partition level, who knows?).
I did like their other "innovations": IPv6 (gee, I can get that for Linux can't I?), text-to-speech (yup, also for Linux), a statistics based trouble-shooting tool (of course, the stats would have to be setup before Win2000 was deployed, so you can imagine how accurate they'll be), etc. I mean who do they think they're kidding? Not only does Linux have similar facilities to most of their "innovations", but ALL of these innovations are available elsewhere as add ons to Windows! Oh, wait, I forgot, innovation is when Microsoft takes other's technology and bundles it with Windows.....
TrendMicro has a solution. I thought MacAfee did but I can't find it. I'd recommend talking to the guys and Sendmail.com and getting a referal from them (assuming you're using Sendmail).
I'm unaware of an open-source effort in this area, which is kind of surprising really, because it's an easy project and it would benefit substancially from having lots of eyeballs. I guess the shortage of good Linux viruses (thank God) is limiting growth in this area.
The more I think about it, the more I'm ok with this approach provided one important exception that most of these laws don't currently support: there should be a way for minors to bypass this system.
;-). I think it's ok if the people in the community want to set up certain controls to assure that this remains the case. I DO think that parents should be able to decide that whether their children's Internet access is curtailed. To me it'd be a simple matter of having a check box on the child's library membership application, ("Do you your child's access limited by our censorware?").
;-)
I don't mean in the sense of a security flaw or technical solution. I mean that I think it's a parent's choice (not the state's) to censor their children's access to the Internet. I myself would want my kids to have wide open access, but at the same time I know there are some movies I wouldn't take them to. I see no problem with libraries having policies in place that make it easier for me to censor my children's exposure to the world out there.
Libraries are one of those few remaining places where in theory you can let your kid loose and there are no problems (provided the kid follows library rules
This gives a parent a variety of choices. First, they can leave the Internet wide open for their kid (which is where I would go). Secondly, they can allow some arbitrary censoreware filters to limit their child's access. Finally, they can do a mix of the two by giving the child the censor filtered account, but then while spending time with the child at the library they can surf the web with them using their own account. The latter sounds pretty revolutionary I know, but hey, everyone now and then it helps to spend time with your kids.
I think the sad thing is when a community arbitrarily places restrictions on what children can and cannot do regardless of their parent's wishes. Beyond what an adult isn't allowed to do and what a parent won't allow the child to do, well, I just don't see there needing to be additional rules.
Certainly, if you have 2 CPU's and your application is at all performance intensive, and has any ability to span multiple proceses or threads, 2 CPU's will help you. On Linux, there is an additional benefit with Xwindows: the GUI is all in a seperate process, so the second processor can handle the rendering of X calls for graphics intensive stuff while the first processor runs the actual software.
;-)
;-) memory intensive applications of a computer can benefit from an SMP system.
Additionaly, if you use things like VR then you'll have a CPU for doing the VR work while the other one actually runs the application. If you're running a server the second CPU will be a big benefit.
All that being said, the big thing to realize is that there's typically a world of difference between SMP systems an non-SMP systems that goes well beyond the CPU. SMP motherboards typically have much fancier memory and I/O subsystems because they've typically been targetted at the server market, and also because if you have 2 CPU's it's just that much easier for memory and I/O to be the bottlnecks. SMP systems have to spend extra effort to allow cache coherency between the CPU's, and that usually means fancier memory subsystems. Of course, you'll also pay more for the motherboard.
My advice is this: if you're thinking of getting SCSI, go with SMP, as the benefits of SCSI and the benefits of SMP tend to align pretty well together. If you're going to play games, go for the single processor, as few of them take advantage of SMP at this point. If you're going to buy a lot of RAM, that's probably another good indicator that SMP is going to be helpful for you, as most (but not all - a lot of vector processing doesn't scale too well for SMP
Dammit. I've been trying to find the *old* ones for quite some time now, and now they have NEW ones!
LinuxCare should really sell these things!
Anyway, the easiest way to get them is to go to a TradeShow where LinuxCare shows up.
I've submit about a story every 3 months, and I don't think I've had one accepted in like 2 years. ;-) Every time I find out my story was rejected, I feel a bit rejected.
;-)
Honestly though, after a few seconds, I realize you guys get a LOT of stories (every time I post there's like 400 submissions ahead of me), and I know I don't want Slashdot to be posting anything near 400 articles a day. I'm sure that there are 400 people who think there story is just as great/important/life affirming/etc. as mine, so that has to mean most people are going to get disappointed.
This isn't exactly a big leap in logic. I'd suggest to you that those who DON'T make the leap in logic are probably not worth your time and energy.
I sometimes wonder though, if it might be fun to spawn off a seperate site which just lists all the submissions you guys have rejected, if for no other reason than humor.
Yeah, but for $170 you still have an external attenna to worry about.
Actually, Dell will sell you the Lucent version for $140.
The Apple card is also nice because it uses the laptop's built in antenna, so you don't have an ugly attena sticking out of your pcmcia card. That's got to be an easy thing to break.
The problem isn't developing a universal format, it's in getting everyone to support this format. I think a really good solution is already available in the OSD standard. It's a standard developed by Marimba, Microsoft, Tivoli, and Novell which has been submitted to the W3C.
It's designed to be vendor neutral, and it's been written by firms that know a lot about installing software (in particular Marimba and Tivoli bear some focus).
The other nice thing is because it uses XML it's completely extensible.
Of course, the big problem is getting everyone to support it!
Salon has an article on political web sites.
Why did you feel like I was Trolling?
I think it'd be cool if there was a record of who did what.
Hey, I'd really like to know who moderated my post down and why they did it. That post was not a Troll at all, and I can't believe anyone would think it was.