I've got a SparcStation IPX from 1990 with 64MB of RAM, running 2.6.9 and debian woody... Runs like a charm:)
Really, it performs nice as dhcp server and web server for moderate volume static pages.
I've also got a 486 with 16MB RAM and debian woody acting as a log server. Works just fine. Though that box is from 1995...
Why wouldn't they just walk into a record shop and steal the CD?
If caught, it'd be cheaper than being caught as a filesharer... After all, stealing a cd means that they actually do lose money. Filesharing means that they in worst case won't earn that money, they've not lost it, as the money never has excisted. Interesting tactics...
This is kinda interesting. Well, the user need to use my installer, but it might infect them, and they have no way to tell. But the interesting thing is... A couple of script/programs use md5sum, like rpm and such. How much work is it to change into sha1? AFAIK SHA1 is 160bits, whilst md5 is 128bit, so a bit more space in the rpm is needed. Apart from that?
The solution to all this is gpg signing. I've heard little fuss about that...
Yes, it is simply a longer signature, making it more difficult to break, but still..
There is nothing new here. The article says that MS studies is bullshit, and that Linux-vendors funded might be bullshit too... This is the only thing close to a neutral study I've seen about Linux and Windows, and that is about security, not TCO. TCO is not easy to measure.
There's also the excellent report on Total Cost of 0wnership, which concludes that it's less work to 0wn a windows-based computer. Mac scores good on the scale of 0wnership.
This may be a stupid question, but I wonder: what reference clock is used. It appears the values compared are obtained from simply reading the MHz-value in a Windows dialogue. What says 200MHz on one board is exactly the same as 200MHz on another board anyways? How accurate are the clock-cycle-generator on a MB? I can just tell that the clock of my PC is very inaccurate, compared to my waist-watch.
You clearly have no knowledge of what you speak about. A crystal can give a very accurate clock. Also, it is no problem to check frequency (count how many pulses you see in one second). A computer depends on accurate timings, so the clock is likely to be very finely tuned. So my guess is the 2MHz is 2MHz.
And while they can use a cheap clock source for the RTC; they can't use a cheap clock source for the cpu and NB and so on.
I can see that this will be a nice help, but neverthless, I'm in doubt about units that do monitor people like this. Maybe people that ill should be in a hospital, not walking around in the streets? What is important is at least that people are knowing of what those devices do, and to their consequences.
I also think it should be stated by law that doctors do not need to report any data gathered by this to police, except in case of warrant order. There's enough surveilance methods as-is.
And most important: Don't misuse it. Use it for what it is worth, but ensure that it is the best solution.
No more mish-mash of site lists, etc. All legal adult sites must be moved within a given time-frame (say 1-2 years, basically long enough to get the word out and leave up re-directs).
Oh, and you're going to enforce it? Bet how many of those that would simply move their company to Bahamas Islands? All of 'em. Problem solved for their part. Or should USA go to war against Pr0n? I doubt it. Realise that internet is multinational, not the fucking sandbox of the US christian lobby.
I'm curious on what possible motives IBM would have for doing this. I mean, they're a business, there to make money and all. How does this help them in the short or long run?
A universal client for their dhtml applications? That is my guess
Firefox works on many OSes, which is their strength. As more and mroe is moving to the web platform, IBM sees this as a easy way to strengthen their position in the web-app market.
Usually IBM has got good code, so there is hope that this will make a better browser. Certainly, it will be a great merit for firefox. Branding IBM code is a quality sign in my eyes, and might lead to wider acceptance of Firefox, as IBM seems to have noticed the browser.
The Recording Industry Ass. of America has acknowledged that P2P file-sharing is less of a threat to music sales than bootleg CDs.
Anyone think this is on purpose?
Yes. They're very consistent, and always write it that way...
If I where google, I'd go for a solution based on Jabber, as this allows
Connectivity with other nets (MSN/AIM/Yahoo!)
Connectivity with other jabber users
Allows a p2p structure, which is cheap for google
The fact that the technology is there, might be impotrant for google, since it is a solution that just has to be deployed. Only problem might be how servers cope when they get 100K users, and how google will ensure connectivity with MSN et al without being sued for something...
so you triple the number of drives and you can read stuff faster...
shocking... now lets triple the number of these drives. oops still twice as fast.
My point was indeed that if read performance was the important thing, it would be cheaper to use multiple, small drives. Which holds true. 2x200GB would cost less, nearly same capacity and quicker (normal sata drives, 7.2KRPM).
So this ain't a competetive disk for price/capacity ratio.
Hmm, I've had fine expirence with some of their newer products (touched them again this year). In particular I've tried the 80GB Deskstars, which have performed fine in a lot of machines I've built. And the scsi UltraStar drives has also worked fine for me...
Ah, ok. I'm wrong then. I thought it was that they used 5 platters. I've had three disks fail, a 60GB, and two 75GB, and all where 5 platters, and so was all others I heard of.
Btw, I'm norwegian too...
I haven't read your linked article yet, but I gotta say I've seen many 40GB DeathStars fail. I don't know what they were called exactly though..
Might be. I recall there was a 60GiB, and a 120GiB version that was also 5-platter. Might be a 40 too, but I'm not sure of that. The best advice is to check how many platters there is.
RAID can increase MB/s but as I've allready said that isn't a big deal. What we need is lower latency Hard drives. We have enough storage. I don't need 500GB I want good latency.
Mirroring two (or having identical content on many disks will decrease latency, since the disk with the heads closest to the content can hand it out. Besides, those shiny new 147GiB 15KRPM drives have 3.5ms average seek time, around 35% of that of a normal 7.2KRPM disk. This is a huge difference. If you have two of those in mirror, you have 1.75ms seektime, which is quite good.
Deathstar disks was a problematic series. It was the DeskStar 75GXP, the 75GB disks from IBM. They was using 5 platters, instead of the normal 4, in the same height. This meant denser packed plates, which ment less space for heads. This crashed. But other disks from IBM was entirely fine.
Here is a page with more info on the DeathStars. And Yes, I've been using many IBM/Hitachi disks, and never had problems with the 4-platter versions. It was just that 5 platters was kinda exprimental...
AnandTech has a nice little article about SATA(-II), that clears those details. It is reccomended reading. In fact, SATA-II is renamed SATA-IO, but it is a official standard.
3 gbps? Is that 375 MB/s? IDE/SATA doesn't support that! What's the point?
SATA-II indeed supports that. So does the disk. From cache.. No way it reaches more than 50MiB/sec from the platters, which is what counts. So I think it should be dead easy to rival speed with raid. My 6 year old IBM 18.2GB UltraStar drives read 25MiB/sec, so 3 of them would outperform in read/write. But would not take that much data...
So, indeed, it is a large disk, but it is not extraordinarily fast. Of course, bigger disks means more data per second, since the platter size is the same. Then data has to be packed more densily, and more data passes under head per second. So the disk can read more, in a sequential read.
This can only go on as long as few enough do. When enough people start doing this, google can tell sites wanting to much money for their adspace to go stic it up. Then, legitimate sites will get hurt, advertising in general will be hurt since those fake sites is mainly a hoax.
Further, it is quite irritating, as most of those sites don't have a single piece of information. I remember a while ago a blog set up to earn money. The blog was about asbestos damage. Quite OK if they can provide content in addition to the ads. However, my guess is that google will ban sites not having any content/other/ than their ads.
[Licensure for possession of HDTV camcorders] will be completely clear as a attempt to deprieve them of dual-use techonologies, with the big difference that the good use (family film, documenting illegal events in the community etc.) will outweigh the negative (bootleg) uses by far.
And how are standard-definition DV camcorders not sufficient for such uses?
They is sufficient. But some people want the best. And they're typically the people with money, that'll make noise if they can't get one. Besides, how are you to control this? A foreign TV-team going into the USA? What about a us citizen that buys one while he's off to japan for a trip?
Until the major publishers of copyrighted motion pictures talk the Congress (and foreign counterparts) into outlawing possession of high-definition camcorders without a license. Do you remember the SSSCA or CBDTPA bills? Next time they might not get defeated as easily.
That day, I hope the public will rise! And I think they will. That will be completely clear as a attempt to deprieve them of dual-use techonologies, with the big difference that the good use (family film, documenting illegal events in the community etc.) will outweigh the negative (bootleg) uses by far.
An open community such as that operating the various PGP/GPG key servers would handle the software key side, the hardware keys would be made to adhere to an open standard using well documented public key encryption standards and algorithms, and the IP owners handing out encrypted copies would have no control over either. They'd not be able to unilaterally revoke your right to usage of the copy you paid for and you'd not get that encrypted copy until you paid.
A open DRM standard can never work, because anyone would be free to decrypt and share the content once someone had a key. A open API allows you to dechipher a pgp message, and forward it as plaintext to someone else... This is exactly the same problem as with normal DRM, it only takes one person breaking it, before everyone has access. And the fact that there is _always_ the analogue hole.
But no, it'd not work better because it was open. Think a bit about what you say. A open interface lets anyone with the proper key dechipher the content for any purpose, not just playback!
Intel probably puts in serious bucks to R&D of their compilers so their chips look the fastest. This is logical; they'd want to do what they could do enhance speed regardless of if it was hardware or software doing the speedup.
Quite clearly. And I accept that they optmize their compiler for their chips, and the other way around. But it is still a long way from optimizing for your own, to de-optimizing for the competitor, as long as the cpu calls is supported by both, which pretty much is the case with amd and intel. It is not the optimizing that is illegal...
But, the operative question is, who uses the Intel compiler anyway? If I was going to compile something, and I needed really fast results, I would probably use the compiler of the hardware manufacturer- be it Intel or AMD. I'm sure AMD has a compiler tuned to exploit every possible speedup you could ask for on an AMD chip.
A lot. It is the quickest compiler for x86 around. So people use it. And no, AMD has no compiler. They've made contributions to gcc, but they do not have one of their own
Further, they'd be wise (if they don't do this already) to sell/give away technical manuals for compiler writers telling them how to squeeze every little bit of extra performance out.
No, not interesting. Intel makes their own. AMD does not, but there is no market for what you suggest. People who make compilers will have to look at what the compiler should do, then figure out what chips to run it on, and then start optimizing for that chip using instructions. All the instructions is public, you can easily get them from amd.com or such.
Commercial compiler vendors include (my estimation, please reply with additions):
* Intel
* AMD
* GCC
* Microsoft
* Watcom (still in business?)
* Borland (still doing this?)
Intel - Yes.
GCC - Commercial? No.
Microsoft - Yes.
This obviously leaves out the computer science students worldwide. But, my point is, maybe this is a wake up call to anyone using an Intel compiler that they need to switch to one of the others above (GCC especially).
you show complete lack of knowledge. GCC is dead slow against icc. Have a look at this article for some more information.
Slashdot Mirror
I've got a SparcStation IPX from 1990 with 64MB of RAM, running 2.6.9 and debian woody... Runs like a charm :)
Really, it performs nice as dhcp server and web server for moderate volume static pages.
I've also got a 486 with 16MB RAM and debian woody acting as a log server. Works just fine. Though that box is from 1995...
If caught, it'd be cheaper than being caught as a filesharer... After all, stealing a cd means that they actually do lose money. Filesharing means that they in worst case won't earn that money, they've not lost it, as the money never has excisted. Interesting tactics...
This is kinda interesting. Well, the user need to use my installer, but it might infect them, and they have no way to tell. But the interesting thing is... A couple of script/programs use md5sum, like rpm and such. How much work is it to change into sha1? AFAIK SHA1 is 160bits, whilst md5 is 128bit, so a bit more space in the rpm is needed. Apart from that?
The solution to all this is gpg signing. I've heard little fuss about that... Yes, it is simply a longer signature, making it more difficult to break, but still..
There is nothing new here. The article says that MS studies is bullshit, and that Linux-vendors funded might be bullshit too... This is the only thing close to a neutral study I've seen about Linux and Windows, and that is about security, not TCO. TCO is not easy to measure.
There's also the excellent report on Total Cost of 0wnership, which concludes that it's less work to 0wn a windows-based computer. Mac scores good on the scale of 0wnership.
You clearly have no knowledge of what you speak about. A crystal can give a very accurate clock. Also, it is no problem to check frequency (count how many pulses you see in one second). A computer depends on accurate timings, so the clock is likely to be very finely tuned. So my guess is the 2MHz is 2MHz. And while they can use a cheap clock source for the RTC; they can't use a cheap clock source for the cpu and NB and so on.
So those speeds is correct.I can see that this will be a nice help, but neverthless, I'm in doubt about units that do monitor people like this. Maybe people that ill should be in a hospital, not walking around in the streets? What is important is at least that people are knowing of what those devices do, and to their consequences.
I also think it should be stated by law that doctors do not need to report any data gathered by this to police, except in case of warrant order. There's enough surveilance methods as-is.
And most important: Don't misuse it. Use it for what it is worth, but ensure that it is the best solution.
Oh, and you're going to enforce it? Bet how many of those that would simply move their company to Bahamas Islands? All of 'em. Problem solved for their part. Or should USA go to war against Pr0n? I doubt it. Realise that internet is multinational, not the fucking sandbox of the US christian lobby.
A universal client for their dhtml applications? That is my guess
Firefox works on many OSes, which is their strength. As more and mroe is moving to the web platform, IBM sees this as a easy way to strengthen their position in the web-app market.
Usually IBM has got good code, so there is hope that this will make a better browser. Certainly, it will be a great merit for firefox. Branding IBM code is a quality sign in my eyes, and might lead to wider acceptance of Firefox, as IBM seems to have noticed the browser.
Yes. They're very consistent, and always write it that way...
- Connectivity with other nets (MSN/AIM/Yahoo!)
- Connectivity with other jabber users
- Allows a p2p structure, which is cheap for google
The fact that the technology is there, might be impotrant for google, since it is a solution that just has to be deployed. Only problem might be how servers cope when they get 100K users, and how google will ensure connectivity with MSN et al without being sued for something...My point was indeed that if read performance was the important thing, it would be cheaper to use multiple, small drives. Which holds true. 2x200GB would cost less, nearly same capacity and quicker (normal sata drives, 7.2KRPM). So this ain't a competetive disk for price/capacity ratio.
Hmm, I've had fine expirence with some of their newer products (touched them again this year). In particular I've tried the 80GB Deskstars, which have performed fine in a lot of machines I've built. And the scsi UltraStar drives has also worked fine for me...
3Gbps is indeed 375MB/sec... But yes, sata is 150MB/sec, so I'd guess that 300MB/sec would be more correct.
Ah, ok. I'm wrong then. I thought it was that they used 5 platters. I've had three disks fail, a 60GB, and two 75GB, and all where 5 platters, and so was all others I heard of. Btw, I'm norwegian too...
Might be. I recall there was a 60GiB, and a 120GiB version that was also 5-platter. Might be a 40 too, but I'm not sure of that. The best advice is to check how many platters there is.
Mirroring two (or having identical content on many disks will decrease latency, since the disk with the heads closest to the content can hand it out. Besides, those shiny new 147GiB 15KRPM drives have 3.5ms average seek time, around 35% of that of a normal 7.2KRPM disk. This is a huge difference. If you have two of those in mirror, you have 1.75ms seektime, which is quite good.
Deathstar disks was a problematic series. It was the DeskStar 75GXP, the 75GB disks from IBM. They was using 5 platters, instead of the normal 4, in the same height. This meant denser packed plates, which ment less space for heads. This crashed. But other disks from IBM was entirely fine.
Here is a page with more info on the DeathStars. And Yes, I've been using many IBM/Hitachi disks, and never had problems with the 4-platter versions. It was just that 5 platters was kinda exprimental...
AnandTech has a nice little article about SATA(-II), that clears those details. It is reccomended reading. In fact, SATA-II is renamed SATA-IO, but it is a official standard.
SATA-II indeed supports that. So does the disk. From cache.. No way it reaches more than 50MiB/sec from the platters, which is what counts. So I think it should be dead easy to rival speed with raid. My 6 year old IBM 18.2GB UltraStar drives read 25MiB/sec, so 3 of them would outperform in read/write. But would not take that much data...
So, indeed, it is a large disk, but it is not extraordinarily fast. Of course, bigger disks means more data per second, since the platter size is the same. Then data has to be packed more densily, and more data passes under head per second. So the disk can read more, in a sequential read.
This can only go on as long as few enough do. When enough people start doing this, google can tell sites wanting to much money for their adspace to go stic it up. Then, legitimate sites will get hurt, advertising in general will be hurt since those fake sites is mainly a hoax.
Further, it is quite irritating, as most of those sites don't have a single piece of information. I remember a while ago a blog set up to earn money. The blog was about asbestos damage. Quite OK if they can provide content in addition to the ads. However, my guess is that google will ban sites not having any content /other/ than their ads.
[Licensure for possession of HDTV camcorders] will be completely clear as a attempt to deprieve them of dual-use techonologies, with the big difference that the good use (family film, documenting illegal events in the community etc.) will outweigh the negative (bootleg) uses by far. And how are standard-definition DV camcorders not sufficient for such uses? They is sufficient. But some people want the best. And they're typically the people with money, that'll make noise if they can't get one. Besides, how are you to control this? A foreign TV-team going into the USA? What about a us citizen that buys one while he's off to japan for a trip?
That day, I hope the public will rise! And I think they will. That will be completely clear as a attempt to deprieve them of dual-use techonologies, with the big difference that the good use (family film, documenting illegal events in the community etc.) will outweigh the negative (bootleg) uses by far.
A open DRM standard can never work, because anyone would be free to decrypt and share the content once someone had a key. A open API allows you to dechipher a pgp message, and forward it as plaintext to someone else... This is exactly the same problem as with normal DRM, it only takes one person breaking it, before everyone has access. And the fact that there is _always_ the analogue hole.
But no, it'd not work better because it was open. Think a bit about what you say. A open interface lets anyone with the proper key dechipher the content for any purpose, not just playback!
Quite clearly. And I accept that they optmize their compiler for their chips, and the other way around. But it is still a long way from optimizing for your own, to de-optimizing for the competitor, as long as the cpu calls is supported by both, which pretty much is the case with amd and intel. It is not the optimizing that is illegal...
But, the operative question is, who uses the Intel compiler anyway? If I was going to compile something, and I needed really fast results, I would probably use the compiler of the hardware manufacturer- be it Intel or AMD. I'm sure AMD has a compiler tuned to exploit every possible speedup you could ask for on an AMD chip.A lot. It is the quickest compiler for x86 around. So people use it. And no, AMD has no compiler. They've made contributions to gcc, but they do not have one of their own
Further, they'd be wise (if they don't do this already) to sell/give away technical manuals for compiler writers telling them how to squeeze every little bit of extra performance out.No, not interesting. Intel makes their own. AMD does not, but there is no market for what you suggest. People who make compilers will have to look at what the compiler should do, then figure out what chips to run it on, and then start optimizing for that chip using instructions. All the instructions is public, you can easily get them from amd.com or such.
Commercial compiler vendors include (my estimation, please reply with additions): * Intel * AMD * GCC * Microsoft * Watcom (still in business?) * Borland (still doing this?)Intel - Yes. GCC - Commercial? No. Microsoft - Yes.
This obviously leaves out the computer science students worldwide. But, my point is, maybe this is a wake up call to anyone using an Intel compiler that they need to switch to one of the others above (GCC especially).you show complete lack of knowledge. GCC is dead slow against icc. Have a look at this article for some more information.