Swap is still useful. Why the fuck keep programs/DLLs/libraries in RAM that are not actively running when that RAM could be better used for disk cache for programs that are actually active?
In the late 90s, linux was a prime candidate for those wanting to flee from Windows 98. In the early 00s, the situation wasn't much different, with those wanting to abandon Windows ME and Windows XP.
Now, Windows 7, for all the bitching here, is a good OS, that ships with most new computers. OS X is a very good OS that ships on the rest.
So, your end user has a choice - 99.9% of the software on Windows, or they go to a Mac for a little less software and better reliability.
What does Linux offer? The Windows UI fundamentals haven't' changed since 1995. The OS X fundamentals haven't changed since 2000 or so.
Linux, with its new incompatible desktop APIs every 2 years, no standard desktop and little commercial desktop software is not a compelling option. Free is nice, but when 90% of computers are bundled with an OS in any case, and most upgrade hardware before they upgrade software, its not enough to outweigh the negatives.
I say this as someone who was awaiting the linux desktop takeover since 1996. I gave up waiting and got a Mac.
POE works in a corp environment if everyone has an IP phone with a piggyback port for their PC. Cisco gear does this; the price of cheap 2960 POE switches has come down sufficiently now that it is cheaper and WAY less hassle than running power boards and power bricks into the phones.
You mean like how apple bolted on an X11 client into OS X. Or how there are various X11 clients for Windows. Or how Metaframe or RDP kick the shit out of remote X11 in terms of performance? Yes i have used remote X11. Remote display technology has moved on, significantly.
This can be bolted onto wayland without issue if it is required. See the X11 utility in OS X, or one of the myriad of X servers on Windows for examples. This way you can have a clean interface for the funky composting desktop, and lay X11 on top. Given that you're going to be running X11 soley for the remote display aspect, the minute performance hit you MAY get due to running via wayland instead of on bare metal will be un noticeable due to the network traffic in any case.
And thats discounting the fact that the code to wayland is likely to be far faster due to better hardware support without maintaining 20 years of backwards compatibility crap anyway. You WILL NOT LOSE remote display.
If you need X11 run X11. If you want to do advanced 3d desktop effects, don't. However, remote display has moved on since X11 was designed.
X11 can do remote display of apps running on a server, but it carries with it 20 years+ of baggage for functionality that perhaps 1-2% of users will ever use.
Besides, there are better ways of supporting X11. Personally i would suggest that the way forward is to move to wayland and then implement an X11 layer on top. Like the Mac UI has. I can run remote X11 stuff on my mac just fine, but i don't have all the garbage from legacy X11 getting in the way of 3d composting, etc.
Clicks work fine. The 2d nipple works, you just need to clean it. no it doesn't middle click accidentally. Its 3 years old.
Its by no means the greatest mouse ever, but it certainly has more than 1 functional button, which is what the parent post was complaining about with regards to Apple. And regular multi button mice work in any case.
Agreed, however thats exactly what I'm talking about. People went from the way 3.5 worked, to a buggy unstable pile of shit that actually worked in different ways, to boot. Being buggy wouldn't have been so bad if it worked the same. Working differently wouldn't have been so bad if it was stable. To have both issues for an extended period of time = user just switches.
As i understand it, the gnome issue is different. They're trying to dumb it down to the extent they think their users are idiots. Competent people don't like being treated like idiots.
- I take back that the Gnome 3 users have Windows envy. It's Mac envy too - disable all but one mouse buttons.
Oh come on now. I have an old mighty mouse here that has 4 buttons and a 2 dimensional scroll wheel. And they're customisable. What Gnome is doing isn't Mac envy, its simply stupidity. I guess that what you get when relying on hobbyist user interface designers. If they were any good at interface design, they'd be doing it as a day job and making a living out of it.
Perhaps because linus is not interested in a window manager holy war, and just wants to "get shit done" in a sane and efficient manner. KDE used to allow this. Gnome used to allow this. When KDE4 came out, my workflows were broken to the extent that I couldn't be bothered spending the excessive amount of time required to get them back. I have not yet used Gnome 3, but I suspect Linus is in the same situation. When its easier and less painful to change to a competing desktop environment than it is to use the new version of your previous choice, something is seriously wrong.
The complaints about IOS-ification of lion make me laugh. Apple have taken 3 major features and implemented them in lion: extensive sandboxing of apps (a good security practice), launchpad (meh, its optional - don't like it, don't use it) and auto save (which is a good thing).
And people are crying like its the end of the world.
OS X and IOS are ALREADY mostly the same. The places they are different are for very good reasons (resource usage, small touch interface). If apple wanted IOS and OS X to be the same (which, quite frankly would be retarded), they would have made them that way from the start.
I've actually upgraded to Lion and have lost precisely ZERO features vs snow leopard (well, except for rosetta, but that wasn't related to the implementation of IOS-isms and was already on its way out).
More like, the I/Os per second of 1 rack of SSD has 9x the THROUGHPUT of 1 rack of magnetic media. remember, we're talking about massive arrays here to get speed, not necessarily for disk capacity. If you only need the capacity provided by 1 rack of SSD, then being able to cut your rack space in half or less by getting the required IO in less drives can save heaps. Potentially, it can save you needing to build a new datacenter....which ain't cheap.
Slashdot Mirror
Swap is still useful. Why the fuck keep programs/DLLs/libraries in RAM that are not actively running when that RAM could be better used for disk cache for programs that are actually active?
Just use a time_t datestamp and give up the completely bogus version numbering.
Swap.
In the late 90s, linux was a prime candidate for those wanting to flee from Windows 98. In the early 00s, the situation wasn't much different, with those wanting to abandon Windows ME and Windows XP.
Now, Windows 7, for all the bitching here, is a good OS, that ships with most new computers. OS X is a very good OS that ships on the rest.
So, your end user has a choice - 99.9% of the software on Windows, or they go to a Mac for a little less software and better reliability.
What does Linux offer? The Windows UI fundamentals haven't' changed since 1995. The OS X fundamentals haven't changed since 2000 or so.
Linux, with its new incompatible desktop APIs every 2 years, no standard desktop and little commercial desktop software is not a compelling option. Free is nice, but when 90% of computers are bundled with an OS in any case, and most upgrade hardware before they upgrade software, its not enough to outweigh the negatives.
I say this as someone who was awaiting the linux desktop takeover since 1996. I gave up waiting and got a Mac.
If you're on mains power, why not have a mains power cord for the 100 watt USB device? This is a solution looking for a problem...
POE works in a corp environment if everyone has an IP phone with a piggyback port for their PC. Cisco gear does this; the price of cheap 2960 POE switches has come down sufficiently now that it is cheaper and WAY less hassle than running power boards and power bricks into the phones.
My major pet hate with USB. Other than the shitty nature of being entirely CPU driven.
Lion with its move towards full sandboxing is certainly a step in the right direction.
You haven't had much to do with fibreglass have you?
The old bush "mission accomplished" JPEG springs to mind (with regards to moving to KDE5, KDE4 is finished, or something).
Apple have remote admin tools. However as it is based on PDF drawing commands you could even display it on a printer and snail mail it if you like.
X11 has an inbuilt PDF display engine now?
You mean like how apple bolted on an X11 client into OS X. Or how there are various X11 clients for Windows. Or how Metaframe or RDP kick the shit out of remote X11 in terms of performance? Yes i have used remote X11. Remote display technology has moved on, significantly.
This can be bolted onto wayland without issue if it is required. See the X11 utility in OS X, or one of the myriad of X servers on Windows for examples. This way you can have a clean interface for the funky composting desktop, and lay X11 on top. Given that you're going to be running X11 soley for the remote display aspect, the minute performance hit you MAY get due to running via wayland instead of on bare metal will be un noticeable due to the network traffic in any case.
And thats discounting the fact that the code to wayland is likely to be far faster due to better hardware support without maintaining 20 years of backwards compatibility crap anyway. You WILL NOT LOSE remote display.
If you need X11 run X11. If you want to do advanced 3d desktop effects, don't. However, remote display has moved on since X11 was designed.
X11 can do remote display of apps running on a server, but it carries with it 20 years+ of baggage for functionality that perhaps 1-2% of users will ever use.
Besides, there are better ways of supporting X11. Personally i would suggest that the way forward is to move to wayland and then implement an X11 layer on top. Like the Mac UI has. I can run remote X11 stuff on my mac just fine, but i don't have all the garbage from legacy X11 getting in the way of 3d composting, etc.
Clicks work fine. The 2d nipple works, you just need to clean it. no it doesn't middle click accidentally. Its 3 years old.
Its by no means the greatest mouse ever, but it certainly has more than 1 functional button, which is what the parent post was complaining about with regards to Apple. And regular multi button mice work in any case.
Agreed, however thats exactly what I'm talking about. People went from the way 3.5 worked, to a buggy unstable pile of shit that actually worked in different ways, to boot. Being buggy wouldn't have been so bad if it worked the same. Working differently wouldn't have been so bad if it was stable. To have both issues for an extended period of time = user just switches.
As i understand it, the gnome issue is different. They're trying to dumb it down to the extent they think their users are idiots. Competent people don't like being treated like idiots.
10 out of how many nvidia equipped lion machines in the wild?
converging != becoming identical. features from one will be implemented in the other, where appropriate.
sure, who cares about compatibility with the rest of the world
Oh come on now. I have an old mighty mouse here that has 4 buttons and a 2 dimensional scroll wheel. And they're customisable. What Gnome is doing isn't Mac envy, its simply stupidity. I guess that what you get when relying on hobbyist user interface designers. If they were any good at interface design, they'd be doing it as a day job and making a living out of it.
Perhaps because linus is not interested in a window manager holy war, and just wants to "get shit done" in a sane and efficient manner. KDE used to allow this. Gnome used to allow this. When KDE4 came out, my workflows were broken to the extent that I couldn't be bothered spending the excessive amount of time required to get them back. I have not yet used Gnome 3, but I suspect Linus is in the same situation. When its easier and less painful to change to a competing desktop environment than it is to use the new version of your previous choice, something is seriously wrong.
The complaints about IOS-ification of lion make me laugh. Apple have taken 3 major features and implemented them in lion: extensive sandboxing of apps (a good security practice), launchpad (meh, its optional - don't like it, don't use it) and auto save (which is a good thing).
And people are crying like its the end of the world.
OS X and IOS are ALREADY mostly the same. The places they are different are for very good reasons (resource usage, small touch interface). If apple wanted IOS and OS X to be the same (which, quite frankly would be retarded), they would have made them that way from the start.
I've actually upgraded to Lion and have lost precisely ZERO features vs snow leopard (well, except for rosetta, but that wasn't related to the implementation of IOS-isms and was already on its way out).
Not quite. Pre-fetching doesn't need perfect security, but pre-rendering certainly does. Which is what they're implementing....
I'll be turning it off...
More like, the I/Os per second of 1 rack of SSD has 9x the THROUGHPUT of 1 rack of magnetic media. remember, we're talking about massive arrays here to get speed, not necessarily for disk capacity. If you only need the capacity provided by 1 rack of SSD, then being able to cut your rack space in half or less by getting the required IO in less drives can save heaps. Potentially, it can save you needing to build a new datacenter....which ain't cheap.