Space not speed, and price issues
on
DVD-Rs go 8x
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Personally I want more space on a DVD. I'm quite happy to wait twice as long if I can store more. In terms of a backup solution
Your typical HD costs 200 pounds for 250GB. Removeable caddy for HD costs 10 pounds One-off caddy container for PC is 15 pounds.
A DVD-/+/RW/RAM drive costs 105 pounds. A DVD-RW holds 4.5GB and costs 17 pounds for 5 (=22.5 GB) Total cost of 250 GB DVD media is (105+187 =) 292 pounds.
So, the DVD just about scrapes home as cheaper during the third 250 GB. You may be able to get something off if you buy your DVD's in larger bulk - those prices were all I could see offered, and they're the cheap end as well. The "branded" names make the argument even stronger since "Sony" DVD-RW's are 22 pounds, not 17...
On the other hand, you now have 165 DVD's with your data on somewhere. At that rate, it's surely better to have 3 HD's and a caddy slot on your PC ? In an emergency, you can even get by for a day or so using the data live off the disk.
If, however, you want to pirate DVD's and play them in your home cinema, then sure, that extra 7 minutes you'd have to wait over a 4x drive would seem an eternity...
Where have all the mp3's gone ? Long time passin' Where have all the mp3's gone ? Long time ago. Where have all the mp3's gone ? Gone to CNET every one. When will they ever learn ? When will they ever learn...
So, the "communist lefty hippy" types are happily beavering away on whatever takes their fancy (some odd pointer relocation optimisation, or whatnot:-)
And the mercenary potential-captains-of-industry types suddenly see pecuniary advantage in the OS stuff. Perhaps they'll even stay around afterwards.
Good idea:-)
Note - for the humour-impaired, neither characterisation is intended to be taken too seriously...
Short answer: "It depends on your view". They all used the 68k series chips. Every member of that chip family was internally a 32-bit processor, doing 32-bit arithmetic in a single operation. Some chips had external databusses with only 16 (or in some cases 8) bits. The "ST" stood for "Sixteen Thirtytwo", showing it's 16-bit bus and 32-bit architecture.
As far as I'm concerned, if you can hold a 32-bit memory pointer in a single register, manipulate it, and use it as an indirection pointer, it's a 32-bit machine. Others' views differ...
Have you ever coded in Xlib ? I have, before toolkits were at all useful, and I was doing image processing applications. Trying to get even valid-looking content erroneously into the X server is nigh on impossible. Getting a BadMatch error from the X server is a simple task, trust me.
X has a really really anal protocol parser. In all the time I've been using X (well over a decade now) I've never heard of anyone brute-forcing the protocol for anything. It was designed at a university, remember, if there's anything university people know about, it's curious students...
The unix credo is to build tools that work well within themselves and interoperate well with others.
"Be generous in what you accept, and rigourous in what you export".
The (completely transparent) use of ssh for network compression/encryption is not a quick hack, it's an example of two well-designed tools working well together. When one is optimised/improved/whatever, the other automatically gains the advantages. Why would you change ?
Besides, if you claim X should be trimmed down to "remove the network transparency", surely you wouldn't want to further lumber it with compression and encryption ?
And another point - I think X has plenty of deficiencies (just that compression/encryption aren't one of them), and I'm open to good debate on the subject. I was mainly referring to those who use any X-related topic to say "X sucks"...
Yes sir, yes madam, we have our first customer, roll up, roll up, see the troll feverishly attack the non-existent target.
As has been said many many times before, the network transparency does not affect the local transport. The X team amongst others have done tests (you know, where you measure things), and the implementation (using unix sockets, which are massively efficient data-transports, and shared-memory (no transport at all)) is as fast as you can get. It's within the theoretical margin of error of the peak performance of the system. Nothing goes faster.
I can't say this any simpler. X is massively efficient on the local channel. Direct-X on the PC is a different name for the same thing - an API into the low-level drivers.
You might argue that the low-level drivers are in need of optimisation, and I might agree in some cases, but that would still be the case for any new system. X itself is pretty bloody good at getting the maximum performance out of any hardware you throw at it - try running the 2-D blit in X11perf, then multiply the area * bitdepth * fps, divide by your AGP bandwidth and read the number you get.... You'll be surprised if you're running nvidia or ATI cards. Even venerable matrox cards push the bandwidth limit...
There is a program to do this already - it sets up another X displays, and instead of:0, you use:1. (similar to ssh setting up:10 for tunnelling). It allows programs to be moved from one display to another pretty seamlessly as I recall. It's called 'xmove' I think:-)
This is a joke, right ? Time to get new students if not...
Just in case...
"get off the ground" ? Like, oh to pull an example out of the air, running the only graphical user interface common to every computer platform I've ever used ? It runs on just about everything it is possible to get a framebuffer on - I've even used it on an Atari ST....
Any X "roadmap" is going to have the hungry trolls out in force, mindlessly flailing around with "arguments" that X is badly designed and should be junked at the first opportunity.
My take is this. You can do what you like to the underlying graphics subsystem. I neither know nor care what the protocol-on-the-wire says. However, you can take the network transparency from my cold and bloody fingers once I've shuffled off this mortal coil, and even then you'll have a fight on your hands. This single attribute is the reason I use it, and why it's possible to remotely administer far far more unix machines than windows ones. VNC is cool, but X is built-in. I love it.
What would be really neat would be to be able to control the glow, so cat walks on by and fish pulses (extra kudos if the pulses go -X-X-X--X-X-X-X--X-X--XX-, X=pulse, repeating) and gentle mac-standby-button pulsing for normal behaviour:-)
if only to the power and comms companies. Always useful to know more about what affects you.
I'm not sure there's much they can *do* about solar flares though, I mean, talk about force of nature! Volumes of incandescent plasma the size of the planet being ejected are always going to be tough to deal with!
" I didn't know England played baseball. hrmph. it's a day for dang useless trivia"
What is this "baseball" of which you speak ?
Oh, I remember, played it at school.. "rounders" I believe we call it.
Simon
Shouldn't be so smug
on
Snail Mail Tech
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I mean, junk mail was a problem, but it never reached the epidemic that is the spam problem today...
On average I receive about 300 emails per day, about 150 of which are spam. If we were still using "snail" mail, I could probably start a recycling business with that lot...
Well, a corporation doesn't have the right to impose prison, as far as I know. They can only take out a civil case against you, not a criminal one.
Yeah yeah, I know, they can't dismember you either, but the idea of spilling all the PS2's secrets was more likely to invoke avenging ninja than avenging lawyers, it was a while back, lawyers were kept more on their leash then:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Personally I want more space on a DVD. I'm quite happy to wait twice as long if I can store more. In terms of a backup solution
Your typical HD costs 200 pounds for 250GB.
Removeable caddy for HD costs 10 pounds
One-off caddy container for PC is 15 pounds.
A DVD-/+/RW/RAM drive costs 105 pounds.
A DVD-RW holds 4.5GB and costs 17 pounds for 5 (=22.5 GB)
Total cost of 250 GB DVD media is (105+187 =) 292 pounds.
So, the DVD just about scrapes home as cheaper during the third 250 GB. You may be able to get something off if you buy your DVD's in larger bulk - those prices were all I could see offered, and they're the cheap end as well. The "branded" names make the argument even stronger since "Sony" DVD-RW's are 22 pounds, not 17...
On the other hand, you now have 165 DVD's with your data on somewhere. At that rate, it's surely better to have 3 HD's and a caddy slot on your PC ? In an emergency, you can even get by for a day or so using the data live off the disk.
If, however, you want to pirate DVD's and play them in your home cinema, then sure, that extra 7 minutes you'd have to wait over a 4x drive would seem an eternity...
Simon.
Where have all the mp3's gone ?
:-)
Long time passin'
Where have all the mp3's gone ?
Long time ago.
Where have all the mp3's gone ?
Gone to CNET every one.
When will they ever learn ?
When will they ever learn...
You tayka my myusic, I hacka your format.
Simon
So, the "communist lefty hippy" types are happily beavering away on whatever takes their fancy (some odd pointer relocation optimisation, or whatnot :-)
:-)
And the mercenary potential-captains-of-industry types suddenly see pecuniary advantage in the OS stuff. Perhaps they'll even stay around afterwards.
Good idea
Note - for the humour-impaired, neither characterisation is intended to be taken too seriously...
Simon.
Maybe he's just very well endowed... the top of your thighs is called your lap, after all ...
Simon.
(BTW: Yuk).
driving naked from the waist down with a portable in one hand (I don't want to think what was in the other) should be an offence in and of itself ?
Simon.
This one really is an old chestnut.
Short answer: "It depends on your view". They all used the 68k series chips. Every member of that chip family was internally a 32-bit processor, doing 32-bit arithmetic in a single operation. Some chips had external databusses with only 16 (or in some cases 8) bits. The "ST" stood for "Sixteen Thirtytwo", showing it's 16-bit bus and 32-bit architecture.
As far as I'm concerned, if you can hold a 32-bit memory pointer in a single register, manipulate it, and use it as an indirection pointer, it's a 32-bit machine. Others' views differ...
Simon
Been waiting a long time, haven't we ?
Have you ever coded in Xlib ? I have, before toolkits were at all useful, and I was doing image processing applications. Trying to get even valid-looking content erroneously into the X server is nigh on impossible. Getting a BadMatch error from the X server is a simple task, trust me.
X has a really really anal protocol parser. In all the time I've been using X (well over a decade now) I've never heard of anyone brute-forcing the protocol for anything. It was designed at a university, remember, if there's anything university people know about, it's curious students...
Simon.
Certainly the Amiga and the Atari ST. First 32-bit computers generally available to the masses.
But how on earth can you not include the Sinclair spectrum (1982)... Or in fact the ZX80/81. Obviously not an author from the UK....
Simon.
The unix credo is to build tools that work well within themselves and interoperate well with others.
The (completely transparent) use of ssh for network compression/encryption is not a quick hack, it's an example of two well-designed tools working well together. When one is optimised/improved/whatever, the other automatically gains the advantages. Why would you change ?
Besides, if you claim X should be trimmed down to "remove the network transparency", surely you wouldn't want to further lumber it with compression and encryption ?
And another point - I think X has plenty of deficiencies (just that compression/encryption aren't one of them), and I'm open to good debate on the subject. I was mainly referring to those who use any X-related topic to say "X sucks"...
Yes sir, yes madam, we have our first customer, roll up, roll up, see the troll feverishly attack the non-existent target.
.... You'll be surprised if you're running nvidia or ATI cards. Even venerable matrox cards push the bandwidth limit ...
As has been said many many times before, the network transparency does not affect the local transport. The X team amongst others have done tests (you know, where you measure things), and the implementation (using unix sockets, which are massively efficient data-transports, and shared-memory (no transport at all)) is as fast as you can get. It's within the theoretical margin of error of the peak performance of the system. Nothing goes faster.
I can't say this any simpler. X is massively efficient on the local channel. Direct-X on the PC is a different name for the same thing - an API into the low-level drivers.
You might argue that the low-level drivers are in need of optimisation, and I might agree in some cases, but that would still be the case for any new system. X itself is pretty bloody good at getting the maximum performance out of any hardware you throw at it - try running the 2-D blit in X11perf, then multiply the area * bitdepth * fps, divide by your AGP bandwidth and read the number you get
Simon.
There is a program to do this already - it sets up another X displays, and instead of :0, you use :1. (similar to ssh setting up :10 for tunnelling). It allows programs to be moved from one display to another pretty seamlessly as I recall. It's called 'xmove' I think :-)
Simon
This is a joke, right ? Time to get new students if not...
Just in case...
"get off the ground" ? Like, oh to pull an example out of the air, running the only graphical user interface common to every computer platform I've ever used ? It runs on just about everything it is possible to get a framebuffer on - I've even used it on an Atari ST....
"get off the ground." HAH!
Simon.
Any X "roadmap" is going to have the hungry trolls out in force, mindlessly flailing around with "arguments" that X is badly designed and should be junked at the first opportunity.
My take is this. You can do what you like to the underlying graphics subsystem. I neither know nor care what the protocol-on-the-wire says. However, you can take the network transparency from my cold and bloody fingers once I've shuffled off this mortal coil, and even then you'll have a fight on your hands. This single attribute is the reason I use it, and why it's possible to remotely administer far far more unix machines than windows ones. VNC is cool, but X is built-in. I love it.
Simon.
What would be really neat would be to be able to control the glow, so cat walks on by and fish pulses (extra kudos if the pulses go -X-X-X--X-X-X-X--X-X--XX-, X=pulse, repeating) and gentle mac-standby-button pulsing for normal behaviour :-)
Simon
if only to the power and comms companies. Always useful to know more about what affects you.
I'm not sure there's much they can *do* about solar flares though, I mean, talk about force of nature! Volumes of incandescent plasma the size of the planet being ejected are always going to be tough to deal with!
Simon
" I didn't know England played baseball. hrmph. it's a day for dang useless trivia"
What is this "baseball" of which you speak ?
Oh, I remember, played it at school.. "rounders" I believe we call it.
Simon
I mean, junk mail was a problem, but it never reached the epidemic that is the spam problem today...
...
On average I receive about 300 emails per day, about 150 of which are spam. If we were still using "snail" mail, I could probably start a recycling business with that lot
Simon.
Aah. I see from the poster above that it was a solar flare. Far more likely than a comet :-)
Simon
Pity - the more craft we send there, the more we'll all learn.
Simon.
It mentions that the whole thing runs in debian 'woody' sandboxes when the code is run. Presumably you can only 'rootkit' the sandbox ...
Simon
Now we've got it debugging the code, we only need to get it started writing the code, and we're sorted :-)
Simon
Simon
Well, a corporation doesn't have the right to impose prison, as far as I know. They can only take out a civil case against you, not a criminal one.
:-)
Yeah yeah, I know, they can't dismember you either, but the idea of spilling all the PS2's secrets was more likely to invoke avenging ninja than avenging lawyers, it was a while back, lawyers were kept more on their leash then
Simon
I direct you to Spamhaus.org rokso list
Have a quick scan down the list of countries...
Simon
...reminds me of an NDA from Sony I signed in a previous life. Buried deep in the middle of it was the phrase (from memory)
"Should PARTNER at any time divulge material covered by this agreement, then financial reparation may not be sufficient"...
(No, the NDA wasn't under the NDA - do you think I'd be telling you this, if it was ???)
I never did get clarification on what non-financial reparations would be demanded (first-born son?, ritual dismemberment ?)
Simon.