The IETF solution for clueless home users is to give each device an IPv6 address but have a firewall that blocks incoming connections instead of a NAT. It works better and the "security" is the same. Apple already implemented this in their latest AirPort router.
Yes, your version of network neutrality solves the immediate problem, but if it was enacted I think ISPs would immediately start looking for loopholes such as discriminating based on protocol. Then you'd have to ask for "even more neutrality" and the legislators would likely say "we already gave you what you asked for, stop asking for more". Thus I think we should use an expansive definition of neutrality from day one, so we won't have to go back later and fix it.
Why is your definition of network neutrality the One that we should all support? I think ISPs should not discriminate based on protocols or content. ISPs can control bandwidth and remain neutral by using rate capping, token buckets, or fair queueing.
That's the real problem; Intel doesn't currently make anything similar to the Geode that OLPC is using. The lowest-end Intel x86 system (e.g. AppleTV) requires three chips, which cost quite a bit more than the Geode's two, and probably require more board space and more power.
Everyone except Intel is a proponent of HyperTransport, but that doesn't mean that Power6 will use it. And what does that have to do with pipeline length?
it's not unreasonable to argue that the university plays the role of your ISP here.
But that argument doesn't help, since many commercial ISPs have similar "three DMCAs and you're banned for life" policies. The only parts of the Stanford policy I would object to are the academic penalties; I have a feeling Stanford wouldn't suspend you for getting too many speeding tickets, so why are DMCA notices different?
There a difference between an app crashing and an app crashing the entire system. If Delicious Disco goes up in smoke, then you can still call 911. Of course, we are talking about third-party apps. If something that comes with the phone (like the dialer) doesn't work then the phone is just defective and banning third-party apps won't help.
Storing your own data locally on your own computer and manipulating it with local apps may be "old thinking", but at least it puts you in control. Just when a critical mass of free (as in freedom) software is emerging, Red Hat is talking about services. I suspect it's impossible to make these services free as in freedom.
Sun used to give JVM source code to phone vendors, who would each add their own incompatible bugs. But now all JavaFX phones are supposed to run exactly the same firmware so they will all have the same bugs.
What if you need to call 911, and some strange app crashes your phone?
Then your phone is defective and you should return it for a working one that uses a real OS. Strange apps don't crash OS X; why would they crash OS X Lite?
I wonder if that is partially responsible for delaying OS X Leopard?
Nah, if ZFS wasn't working Apple would just disable it and ship Leopard anyway. As much as many of us would like to have ZFS, Apple never announced that it's in Leopard and most users would never miss it.
UNIX and Linux design is quite holistic: features are often added at various levels of the system in order to make a whole work out. For example, desktop search support had both user and kernel space components, Beryl/Compiz-style interfaces have triggered changes in Gnome, X11, and the kernel, etc.
Those are anomalies. For every new cross-cutting change that has been made, there are many that have not been made because the relevant people can't agree. For example: sound, network configuration management, safe fast user switching, multiconsole, etc.
520-byte sectors were a nice idea back in the day when all RAID arrays used SCSI/FC disks. But these days you have to support SATA and its 512-byte sectors, so you just find somewhere else to store the checksums.
A DVD-ripping utility would be legal if it preserves CSS on any rips that it makes and the vendor signed the CSS license. Most rippers do neither, so they're still illegal.
SET failed, and now we have Verified by VISA, which I refuse to sign up for because it imposes extra work on me for no benefit. I'm not eager to try this idea a third time.
Yes, but all the other vendors signed the same contract, so presumably they can all rip DVDs now. Also, the CSS contract was the only thing preventing legal personal DVD ripping tools, so it is important to have the last roadblock taken down.
PowerPCs tend to be less than 100% compatible with each other, mostly because there is not a huge legacy of OSes that must be carried forward (e.g. people expect the latest and greatest x86s to boot DOS and Win95, but nobody exepcts some random old kernel to run on a new embedded PPC). Also, the PWRficient is a SoC with several new on-chip devices.
Slashdot Mirror
The IETF solution for clueless home users is to give each device an IPv6 address but have a firewall that blocks incoming connections instead of a NAT. It works better and the "security" is the same. Apple already implemented this in their latest AirPort router.
Yes, your version of network neutrality solves the immediate problem, but if it was enacted I think ISPs would immediately start looking for loopholes such as discriminating based on protocol. Then you'd have to ask for "even more neutrality" and the legislators would likely say "we already gave you what you asked for, stop asking for more". Thus I think we should use an expansive definition of neutrality from day one, so we won't have to go back later and fix it.
Why is your definition of network neutrality the One that we should all support? I think ISPs should not discriminate based on protocols or content. ISPs can control bandwidth and remain neutral by using rate capping, token buckets, or fair queueing.
That's the real problem; Intel doesn't currently make anything similar to the Geode that OLPC is using. The lowest-end Intel x86 system (e.g. AppleTV) requires three chips, which cost quite a bit more than the Geode's two, and probably require more board space and more power.
Of course they don't support ECC; only servers and high-end workstations deserve ECC according to Intel.
Everyone except Intel is a proponent of HyperTransport, but that doesn't mean that Power6 will use it. And what does that have to do with pipeline length?
It's interesting to see PowerPC on the other side of the megahertz myth for a change.
Also, I bet Power6 would work great in minis and MacBooks.
it's not unreasonable to argue that the university plays the role of your ISP here.
But that argument doesn't help, since many commercial ISPs have similar "three DMCAs and you're banned for life" policies. The only parts of the Stanford policy I would object to are the academic penalties; I have a feeling Stanford wouldn't suspend you for getting too many speeding tickets, so why are DMCA notices different?
There a difference between an app crashing and an app crashing the entire system. If Delicious Disco goes up in smoke, then you can still call 911. Of course, we are talking about third-party apps. If something that comes with the phone (like the dialer) doesn't work then the phone is just defective and banning third-party apps won't help.
Storing your own data locally on your own computer and manipulating it with local apps may be "old thinking", but at least it puts you in control. Just when a critical mass of free (as in freedom) software is emerging, Red Hat is talking about services. I suspect it's impossible to make these services free as in freedom.
Sun used to give JVM source code to phone vendors, who would each add their own incompatible bugs. But now all JavaFX phones are supposed to run exactly the same firmware so they will all have the same bugs.
What if you need to call 911, and some strange app crashes your phone?
Then your phone is defective and you should return it for a working one that uses a real OS. Strange apps don't crash OS X; why would they crash OS X Lite?
I wonder if that is partially responsible for delaying OS X Leopard?
Nah, if ZFS wasn't working Apple would just disable it and ship Leopard anyway. As much as many of us would like to have ZFS, Apple never announced that it's in Leopard and most users would never miss it.
Coincidentally, basically every core linux kernel hacker didn't look at the code before commenting.
UNIX and Linux design is quite holistic: features are often added at various levels of the system in order to make a whole work out. For example, desktop search support had both user and kernel space components, Beryl/Compiz-style interfaces have triggered changes in Gnome, X11, and the kernel, etc.
Those are anomalies. For every new cross-cutting change that has been made, there are many that have not been made because the relevant people can't agree. For example: sound, network configuration management, safe fast user switching, multiconsole, etc.
Apparently at Digg, abiding by the law means taking the law into your own hands and then some.
The reason SATA drives are cheaper than SCSI is because they don't support all those crazy features.
520-byte sectors were a nice idea back in the day when all RAID arrays used SCSI/FC disks. But these days you have to support SATA and its 512-byte sectors, so you just find somewhere else to store the checksums.
An open-source logic analyzer for $150 sounds nice, but the site is seriously lacking in screen shots.
A DVD-ripping utility would be legal if it preserves CSS on any rips that it makes and the vendor signed the CSS license. Most rippers do neither, so they're still illegal.
SET failed, and now we have Verified by VISA, which I refuse to sign up for because it imposes extra work on me for no benefit. I'm not eager to try this idea a third time.
Yes, but all the other vendors signed the same contract, so presumably they can all rip DVDs now. Also, the CSS contract was the only thing preventing legal personal DVD ripping tools, so it is important to have the last roadblock taken down.
Apple already has a CSS license for their "DVD Player" app, but your other points stand.
PowerPCs tend to be less than 100% compatible with each other, mostly because there is not a huge legacy of OSes that must be carried forward (e.g. people expect the latest and greatest x86s to boot DOS and Win95, but nobody exepcts some random old kernel to run on a new embedded PPC). Also, the PWRficient is a SoC with several new on-chip devices.
IIRC they're talking about a goodput speed record, not about line rates.