I would add to this: even if you CAN add the functionality without significantly increasing / size. Why? What problem are they trying to solve here? Because there better be a fucking good reason to break compatibility (both in terms of tools, and sysadmin knowledge) with 30 years of unix development.
DRAM is not persistent across reboots, and the first load of the data into DRAM is going to be slow. Every time you preload your ram drive. SSD or Hybrid drives get around that issue. I don't particularly care how fast a drive is once i've already had to sit through waiting for the data to load that i was working on.
8 gigs is more than enough for the components in windows that you actually load on a regular basis. A windows install may be 17 gigs, but that includes all the utilities you use once in a blue moon, a heap of desktop wallpapers, drivers for all the hardware in the Windows world you DONT own, sound themes, etc. The actual base OS that is loaded into RAM on boot is likely nearer 1/3 to 1/2 a gig.
Hybrid has no place? How about your average laptop with one hard drive bay? If you can get near SSD performance and actually carry around a decent amount of data, i reckon its a winner.
Your resume` should be online. A decent website. You should perhaps create a few template sites to use as a portfolio of your work.
Once you've got those, then go chasing companies for work whether they are hiring or not. If you've got good skills you will find work. There are plenty of web "developers" out there who don't know shit from clay.
if you still can't find salary based work, then use our portfolio of sites to pimp yourself out freelance. Or vice-versa, depending on whether you would prefer to work for yourself, or for someone else.
Hmm.. thought i saw someone else comment that it has VT instructions. If not, then too bad.
Still, point remains I guess. Even if its pushed at low end physical servers - CPU these days just isn't required. Even less so if you aren't virtualising multiple servers onto one machine. Just retired a couple of blades last year that were pentium III 1.3ghz single cores. They were still running around 90-99% idle most of the time (web server for internal app + db server to go with it).
If you have a proprietary project including closed source, then yes, the GPL denies you the ability to use GPL code. This is by design. Some people think this is a good thing. BSD people don't.
This will likely be aimed at the small 10-20 employee shops to run vmware (or hyperV - blech) on. Free copy of ESXi, low end cpu like this with plenty of RAM = win. Add nodes/vcenter license and CPU/RAM as you grow.
A mate had a bugged P90 that he got cheap. For 99.9% of users, there was no issue. It certainly made for a cheap machine that kicked arse at quake, back when he got it for about the price of a 486.
Depending on the company, this would even be fine for an ESXi host to run 5-6 VMs on, given enough ram. As any ESX admin will tell you, you'll run out of IO and memory LONG before you get anywhere near running out of CPU these days, for all but the most cpu-demanding tasks (like VDI, code breaking, rendering, etc).
Given the ability of objective-c to pass messages around to any object whether or not it was designed to accept that message or not, and the ability of objective c to extend classes that you don't even have the source to via categories, i think they nailed it.
No, and this is that fundamental difference again. BSD code is released as BSD, because THE OWNER believes that it is better for anyone to be able to use it rather than invent the wheel. The OWNER has made the conscious decision to enable this. Not everyone in the open source world subscribes to the GNU philosophy of denying a subset of people the ability to make use of their code.
I regularly switch between analog and digital on my monitor and notice no such difference (as i have 2 machines using 1 input each). The only advantage i get out of digital on a 22" widescreen 1680x1050 display is that the digital signal auto adjusts faster. there is zero blurriness on my Samsung LCD (similar to pictured in the dell image)
Heh. I remember pricing up 16mb of RAM of my early 486dx with 30 pin SIMMs. It was cheaper to buy a pentium:D Can only guess at how expensive a 16 meg 386-SX would have been.
Or sound. Does linux actually have reliable multichannel working without whatever bullshit flavour of the month daemon running yet? FreeBSD had fairly seamless multichannel audio back in the early 2000s if not previous.
BSD code remains available to everyone. Modifications, however are up to the modification author to release as THEY see fit.
Ability to use BSD in commercial closed source is a FEATURE.
No one is "wrapping up others work in a black box" by importing BSD code into a closed source project. The code taken is still publicly available - it HAS NOT been removed from circulation. However, the license DOES allow those working on projects that are no attractive to unpaid development to make money, and spend more time writing code that DOESN'T exist, to make the world a better place.
The only code that is hidden from public view is that which is written by the commercial developer. Now, we can force commercial developers to re-invent the wheel instead of using perfectly good and well tested open source code, which will drive up the price of software development, increase bugs and make some projects commercial unfeasible, or we can release under BSD.
Do you want high quality low cost commercial software, or not? Free software isn't the solution to every single problem in the world, and the BSD license recognises this.
Sure. However i'd argue the point that in the GENERAL case, a microkernel is a win. It's only specialised tasks (such as high speed networking, in your example) that the overhead is prohibitive. In which case, you're probably better off not using a general purpose OS/hardware, but something built to do the job from the ground up.
One OS / design philosophy is not suitable for all cases.
Slashdot Mirror
No, its about hot grits and petrification.
I would add to this: even if you CAN add the functionality without significantly increasing / size. Why? What problem are they trying to solve here? Because there better be a fucking good reason to break compatibility (both in terms of tools, and sysadmin knowledge) with 30 years of unix development.
I'll contradict low 6 digit noobs if i like :D
DRAM is not persistent across reboots, and the first load of the data into DRAM is going to be slow. Every time you preload your ram drive. SSD or Hybrid drives get around that issue. I don't particularly care how fast a drive is once i've already had to sit through waiting for the data to load that i was working on.
it still requires 2 drives in the machine. for laptops this is often not viable.
8 gigs is more than enough for the components in windows that you actually load on a regular basis. A windows install may be 17 gigs, but that includes all the utilities you use once in a blue moon, a heap of desktop wallpapers, drivers for all the hardware in the Windows world you DONT own, sound themes, etc. The actual base OS that is loaded into RAM on boot is likely nearer 1/3 to 1/2 a gig.
Ditto for the apps you install.
Hybrid has no place? How about your average laptop with one hard drive bay? If you can get near SSD performance and actually carry around a decent amount of data, i reckon its a winner.
Your resume` should be online. A decent website. You should perhaps create a few template sites to use as a portfolio of your work.
Once you've got those, then go chasing companies for work whether they are hiring or not. If you've got good skills you will find work. There are plenty of web "developers" out there who don't know shit from clay.
if you still can't find salary based work, then use our portfolio of sites to pimp yourself out freelance. Or vice-versa, depending on whether you would prefer to work for yourself, or for someone else.
Hmm.. thought i saw someone else comment that it has VT instructions. If not, then too bad.
Still, point remains I guess. Even if its pushed at low end physical servers - CPU these days just isn't required. Even less so if you aren't virtualising multiple servers onto one machine. Just retired a couple of blades last year that were pentium III 1.3ghz single cores. They were still running around 90-99% idle most of the time (web server for internal app + db server to go with it).
If you have a proprietary project including closed source, then yes, the GPL denies you the ability to use GPL code. This is by design. Some people think this is a good thing. BSD people don't.
That isn't what this is about. Name 1 standard with a GPL licensed reference implementation. Have fun googling that one.
Again, people choose the BSD license because they WANT people to use their code. Be it for proprietary uses or not.
This will likely be aimed at the small 10-20 employee shops to run vmware (or hyperV - blech) on. Free copy of ESXi, low end cpu like this with plenty of RAM = win. Add nodes/vcenter license and CPU/RAM as you grow.
A mate had a bugged P90 that he got cheap. For 99.9% of users, there was no issue. It certainly made for a cheap machine that kicked arse at quake, back when he got it for about the price of a 486.
Where "redesign from scratch" means "tweak the old p6 core a bit more"
Depending on the company, this would even be fine for an ESXi host to run 5-6 VMs on, given enough ram. As any ESX admin will tell you, you'll run out of IO and memory LONG before you get anywhere near running out of CPU these days, for all but the most cpu-demanding tasks (like VDI, code breaking, rendering, etc).
Given the ability of objective-c to pass messages around to any object whether or not it was designed to accept that message or not, and the ability of objective c to extend classes that you don't even have the source to via categories, i think they nailed it.
No, and this is that fundamental difference again. BSD code is released as BSD, because THE OWNER believes that it is better for anyone to be able to use it rather than invent the wheel. The OWNER has made the conscious decision to enable this. Not everyone in the open source world subscribes to the GNU philosophy of denying a subset of people the ability to make use of their code.
A lot of (most) business laptops have VGA out, so that the PHB can hook up to any projector he is likely to find.
bought a laptop lately?
I regularly switch between analog and digital on my monitor and notice no such difference (as i have 2 machines using 1 input each). The only advantage i get out of digital on a 22" widescreen 1680x1050 display is that the digital signal auto adjusts faster. there is zero blurriness on my Samsung LCD (similar to pictured in the dell image)
Heh. I remember pricing up 16mb of RAM of my early 486dx with 30 pin SIMMs. It was cheaper to buy a pentium :D Can only guess at how expensive a 16 meg 386-SX would have been.
Point is, you shouldn't be randomly adding system calls to the microkernel on a regular basis. Most of your code should be in user space.
Or sound. Does linux actually have reliable multichannel working without whatever bullshit flavour of the month daemon running yet? FreeBSD had fairly seamless multichannel audio back in the early 2000s if not previous.
Ability to use BSD in commercial closed source is a FEATURE.
No one is "wrapping up others work in a black box" by importing BSD code into a closed source project. The code taken is still publicly available - it HAS NOT been removed from circulation. However, the license DOES allow those working on projects that are no attractive to unpaid development to make money, and spend more time writing code that DOESN'T exist, to make the world a better place.
The only code that is hidden from public view is that which is written by the commercial developer. Now, we can force commercial developers to re-invent the wheel instead of using perfectly good and well tested open source code, which will drive up the price of software development, increase bugs and make some projects commercial unfeasible, or we can release under BSD.
Do you want high quality low cost commercial software, or not? Free software isn't the solution to every single problem in the world, and the BSD license recognises this.
Sure. However i'd argue the point that in the GENERAL case, a microkernel is a win. It's only specialised tasks (such as high speed networking, in your example) that the overhead is prohibitive. In which case, you're probably better off not using a general purpose OS/hardware, but something built to do the job from the ground up.
One OS / design philosophy is not suitable for all cases.
2c.