While you're right that switches pretty much don't care for most uses, I can think of two cases where fancy managed switches actually might care... 1) Management traffic (telnet/snmp/etc. for monitoring/configuring the switch) 2) IGMP Snooping (without this (or something similar like Cisco's CGMP), multicast traffic effectively becomes broadcast traffic on the switch)
Of course this isn't counting multi-layer switches, which effectively are routers built into switches. (which most definitely do care about IP)
While I've always been able to hear that high-frequency noise made by TVs, that reminds me of something... Back when I lived with my parents, it never used to bother me that much. Then I went off to college, and spent months at a time never being exposed to anything closely but computer monitors (which have higher-quality CRTs that don't emit the same sort of whine). All of the sudden, when I went home on break, the TV noise became unbearable and excessively annoying like it never had before.
Two more things... 4) Sluggish user interface 5) Lack of an on-board 100Mbit ethernet jack
The USB ethernet dongle approach works fine when you're using it as an alternative to a phone line. However, as they add more network and home media type features, you really feel the slowness of it.
If they came out with a new TiVo that fixed these two issues, and had a second tuner, I'd probably buy one tomorrow.
I'm doing pretty much the same thing at RPI. I went there for my undergrad in CompSci (physically, in person), and am now doing their on-line thing for my master's (technically in Computer Engineering, but focusing my coursework on subject areas like networking, operating systems, and software engineering).
I can also say that these on-line classes are no different than if I were to take them in person. In fact, they actually are "real, in person lectures" that are merely video-taped and placed on-line. (sometimes I even recognize someone in the videostream) It actually makes things harder, not easier, since you lack that same level of classmate interaction. (and when the lecture is boring, or the professor is rambling, you pay even less attention when you're at home) Oh, and don't get me started on the understandability of a thick Indian accent over low-quality lossy audio compression.
But in general, it is an enjoyable program, and more flexible (with better quality classes) than my alternatives around here.
And yet somehow they don't even bat an eye at throwing another $100B towards operations in Iraq, meanwhile there's widespread public "why take a dump when the world's problems aren't 100% fixed?" outcry everytime NASA has any sort of "comes with the territory" disaster.
Solaris "zones" technically aren't really virtualization, per se. Rather, they are virtual-machine-"like" process containers. Inside of a zone, it behaves very much like a virtual machine, but it really isn't.
This concept likely provides many advantages for system resource management on a server, where you only care about a single operating system. It does not, however, let you run different OSs at the same time.
I still remeber reading that the whole x86 architecture didn't meet the requirements for virtualization, meaning that this recent trend is probably the result of VMware figuring out some "tricks to make it work", and then everyone else jumping on the bandwagon.
Yes, it was published in 1974, but most of the concepts are still very applicable and make a lot of sense. (though the architecture examples are obviously dated)
This is a very good paper which lays out all the ground rules. Sure, it may sound a bit academic in terminology and explanation, but it is still quite readable.
Yeah, but back in the day many of us bought Computer Shopper *for* the ads. Prior to the popularization of Internet shopping, the only way to find out about good-price vendors from which to get all our computer hardware was through those ads. (unless, of course, you live in California where all those vendors were physically located, which I obviously didn't)
One thing I'd like to see is a HOWTO on running X11 as the native GUI system on MacOSX in place of Aqua/WindowServer/etc. Of course one could always run raw Darwin on the machine, getting most of MacOSX device support advantages, but that would be an unreasonable pain for people who want the two environment to co-exist once in a while, and/or not do a complete reinstall.
My father is a GI, and I remember that the endoscopes he had for looking into the stomach were smaller than the colonoscopes used to go in the other end. (and I always heard the stomach one referred to as an Endoscope, and the colon one referred to as a Colonoscope)
Linux geeks? Probably not... BSD geeks? You damn well better believe it!
I generally find that the BSD geeks I know are MUCH more likely to use (and get ideas from) the commercial 'nixes, while the Linux geeks just say "eww... It isn't 'EXACTLY LIKE MY LINUX BOX' and therefore 'MUST BE THIS STRANGE AND WEIRD CRAP'". (sorry if the above sounds like flamebait)
In all seriousness, we may see the biggest advantages in cross-polination. Heck, I recently heard rumors that people are planning to work on porting dtrace over to FreeBSD:)
And that's a major thing I love about *NIX and hate about Windows...
Deterministic failures.
If something breaks in *NIX, chances are its not a fluke, will break again reliably, and it is obvious where to look for a log message to see what happened. If it is intermittent, it may be hardware related, and the error messages will still be helpful in providing a clue to that effect.
You know, I wonder how much of the DLL version hell in the Windows world might be a hold-over side effect of building a mentality around short 8.3 style filenames. I know the restriction isn't there anymore, but it is kinda a hack outside of the NT world (and everyone wants to maintain some sort of Win9X compatability)
Likely the reason that problem isn't as bad as in the *NIX world, is because we've never had much of a filename-length option, nor a limited extention issue, and have tacked version numbers onto library filenames for a long time.
Of course the way many Windows program installers dump crap into the WINDOWS directory is also quite bad, but an area I'm not sure *NIX is much better. (sure, more organized, but still not much better fundamentally) Of course Apple seems to do a much nicer job here, making programs quite "self-contained".
You're willing to put up with the sucky OS that is Windows the rest of the time you're using your computer (i.e., when you're not playing games) just so you can play games?
I prefer my approach to the problem;) I put up with the sucky Windows machine while playing games. As soon as the game is over, I hit the input switch on the monitor to go back to my "real" desktop:)
(Though I'll admit that dual-desktops isn't practical for most people, and that I have way too many computers)
And unfortunately, many take that saying as flaimbait. However, it couldn't be more true. If you just go to a LUG, and ask (or wait for introductions) "how/why did you get started with Linux?", just about everyone will give a reason that somehow touches on looking for an alternative to MS. (not everyone, but most of them)
Maybe that's why many Linux people are "afraid of other UNIXes, because they're different from their precious GNU/Linux", while many BSD people often also like using systems like Solaris.
Of course once the "love of UNIX" and the "hatred of Microsoft" combine, you have people like me who will do anything to avoid Windows when possible;) (and, like many of us, even have recently gone the Apple route)
"I just want a Unix-like OS without a revolution packaged with it"
That's the biggest difference between the BSD and Linux camps, as far as I can tell.
The BSD folks want a free UNIX-like system, and want to make the best UNIX-like system they can. That's what they develop, and that's what they want to use. That's also what most BSD users are looking for in the first place.
Meanwhile, most of the Linux users I run into (at local LUGs, anyways), use Linux because they're fed up with Microsoft, Windows, or something related to the two. Their initial motivation for trying Linux was simply "I want to try this thing that isn't Windows, and I like it."
As an aside, when I first started using Linux, I wasn't looking for a Windows-replacement. It was the mid-90s, and I had my first introduction to UNIX (at a computer camp, ok I'm a total geek) on a SCO system. I thought it was pretty cool, and asked around as to whether there was anything like it I could get myself. Someone mentioned Linux, and the rest was history.
Many years later, in college, I was introduced to FreeBSD. What I liked about it was that it resembled everything I liked about Linux back in the mid 90's, only done MUCH better. Instead of trying (and often failing) to be end-user friendly, FreeBSD tries to be command-line-geek-user friendly, and does a good job at it.
Sun's been improving Solaris quite a lot in that area in Solaris 9 and even more so in Solaris 10. (especially if you install the Software Companion CD, but a lot is now even in the base system that didn't used to be)
Yeah, and my "Desktop Solaris" also looks like "your desktop Linux but with a different wallpaper" as well. (hint: I'm running KDE 3.4.1, with all the same software any "Linux user" would otherwise use as well)
All that glorious "Linux software" you all gloat about is really not "Linux software". It's "UNIX-compatable software" and benefits users of just about any *NIX-like system out there.
Slashdot Mirror
While you're right that switches pretty much don't care for most uses, I can think of two cases where fancy managed switches actually might care...
1) Management traffic (telnet/snmp/etc. for monitoring/configuring the switch)
2) IGMP Snooping (without this (or something similar like Cisco's CGMP), multicast traffic effectively becomes broadcast traffic on the switch)
Of course this isn't counting multi-layer switches, which effectively are routers built into switches. (which most definitely do care about IP)
32-bit SPARC code works flawlessly on 64-bit UltraSPARC. ...likewise...
32-bit x86 code works flawlessly on 64-bit x86_64 (AMD64)
I think the issue is that a lot of people get confused and think "32-bit" and "64-bit" *are* architectures (which they are NOT).
Of course code compiled on 32-bit x86 will not work on SPARC, regardless of bit-ness, since they are totally different processor architectures.
Not only is that a dead link, but running Win32 (x86) codecs on a SPARC is fundamentally IMPOSSIBLE.
The only way to run them would be through an x86 emulator, which would probably be way too slow to result in actual watchable video.
While I've always been able to hear that high-frequency noise made by TVs, that reminds me of something... Back when I lived with my parents, it never used to bother me that much. Then I went off to college, and spent months at a time never being exposed to anything closely but computer monitors (which have higher-quality CRTs that don't emit the same sort of whine). All of the sudden, when I went home on break, the TV noise became unbearable and excessively annoying like it never had before.
Two more things...
4) Sluggish user interface
5) Lack of an on-board 100Mbit ethernet jack
The USB ethernet dongle approach works fine when you're using it as an alternative to a phone line. However, as they add more network and home media type features, you really feel the slowness of it.
If they came out with a new TiVo that fixed these two issues, and had a second tuner, I'd probably buy one tomorrow.
I'm doing pretty much the same thing at RPI. I went there for my undergrad in CompSci (physically, in person), and am now doing their on-line thing for my master's (technically in Computer Engineering, but focusing my coursework on subject areas like networking, operating systems, and software engineering).
I can also say that these on-line classes are no different than if I were to take them in person. In fact, they actually are "real, in person lectures" that are merely video-taped and placed on-line. (sometimes I even recognize someone in the videostream) It actually makes things harder, not easier, since you lack that same level of classmate interaction. (and when the lecture is boring, or the professor is rambling, you pay even less attention when you're at home) Oh, and don't get me started on the understandability of a thick Indian accent over low-quality lossy audio compression.
But in general, it is an enjoyable program, and more flexible (with better quality classes) than my alternatives around here.
And yet somehow they don't even bat an eye at throwing another $100B towards operations in Iraq, meanwhile there's widespread public "why take a dump when the world's problems aren't 100% fixed?" outcry everytime NASA has any sort of "comes with the territory" disaster.
"User-Mode Linux" is a Linux kernel patched to run as a user-mode application. It is not a virtual machine.
Solaris "zones" technically aren't really virtualization, per se. Rather, they are virtual-machine-"like" process containers. Inside of a zone, it behaves very much like a virtual machine, but it really isn't.
This concept likely provides many advantages for system resource management on a server, where you only care about a single operating system. It does not, however, let you run different OSs at the same time.
I still remeber reading that the whole x86 architecture didn't meet the requirements for virtualization, meaning that this recent trend is probably the result of VMware figuring out some "tricks to make it work", and then everyone else jumping on the bandwagon.
In any case, if you really want to learn about the fundamental concepts behind virtualization, I strongly recommend reading the following paper: Formal Requirements for Virtualizable Third Generation Architectures
Yes, it was published in 1974, but most of the concepts are still very applicable and make a lot of sense. (though the architecture examples are obviously dated)
This is a very good paper which lays out all the ground rules. Sure, it may sound a bit academic in terminology and explanation, but it is still quite readable.
I'm not sure a shortcut would count, since shortcuts are not application-transparent in the same way as symlinks.
Yeah, but back in the day many of us bought Computer Shopper *for* the ads. Prior to the popularization of Internet shopping, the only way to find out about good-price vendors from which to get all our computer hardware was through those ads. (unless, of course, you live in California where all those vendors were physically located, which I obviously didn't)
One thing I'd like to see is a HOWTO on running X11 as the native GUI system on MacOSX in place of Aqua/WindowServer/etc. Of course one could always run raw Darwin on the machine, getting most of MacOSX device support advantages, but that would be an unreasonable pain for people who want the two environment to co-exist once in a while, and/or not do a complete reinstall.
Yeah, but good luck at getting >384K upstream without being charged an arm and a leg for every minor incremental bump.
My father is a GI, and I remember that the endoscopes he had for looking into the stomach were smaller than the colonoscopes used to go in the other end. (and I always heard the stomach one referred to as an Endoscope, and the colon one referred to as a Colonoscope)
Technically, that's what a colonoscope is for. The endoscope is more commonly used to look into the stomach.
CDE is practically dead in Solaris now. (might still stay around to make old-timers happy for a while...)
Sun's now uses GNOME in Solaris 10 (and had it available for 9). They call it the "Java Desktop System", but it is just a customized build of GNOME.
Of course, I personally run KDE on my Sun machine in Solaris 10, which also works quite nicely.
Linux geeks? Probably not... BSD geeks? You damn well better believe it!
:)
I generally find that the BSD geeks I know are MUCH more likely to use (and get ideas from) the commercial 'nixes, while the Linux geeks just say "eww... It isn't 'EXACTLY LIKE MY LINUX BOX' and therefore 'MUST BE THIS STRANGE AND WEIRD CRAP'".
(sorry if the above sounds like flamebait)
In all seriousness, we may see the biggest advantages in cross-polination. Heck, I recently heard rumors that people are planning to work on porting dtrace over to FreeBSD
And that's a major thing I love about *NIX and hate about Windows...
Deterministic failures.
If something breaks in *NIX, chances are its not a fluke, will break again reliably, and it is obvious where to look for a log message to see what happened. If it is intermittent, it may be hardware related, and the error messages will still be helpful in providing a clue to that effect.
You know, I wonder how much of the DLL version hell in the Windows world might be a hold-over side effect of building a mentality around short 8.3 style filenames. I know the restriction isn't there anymore, but it is kinda a hack outside of the NT world (and everyone wants to maintain some sort of Win9X compatability)
Likely the reason that problem isn't as bad as in the *NIX world, is because we've never had much of a filename-length option, nor a limited extention issue, and have tacked version numbers onto library filenames for a long time.
Of course the way many Windows program installers dump crap into the WINDOWS directory is also quite bad, but an area I'm not sure *NIX is much better. (sure, more organized, but still not much better fundamentally) Of course Apple seems to do a much nicer job here, making programs quite "self-contained".
You're willing to put up with the sucky OS that is Windows the rest of the time you're using your computer (i.e., when you're not playing games) just so you can play games?
;) I put up with the sucky Windows machine while playing games. As soon as the game is over, I hit the input switch on the monitor to go back to my "real" desktop :)
I prefer my approach to the problem
(Though I'll admit that dual-desktops isn't practical for most people, and that I have way too many computers)
And unfortunately, many take that saying as flaimbait. However, it couldn't be more true. If you just go to a LUG, and ask (or wait for introductions) "how/why did you get started with Linux?", just about everyone will give a reason that somehow touches on looking for an alternative to MS. (not everyone, but most of them)
;) (and, like many of us, even have recently gone the Apple route)
Maybe that's why many Linux people are "afraid of other UNIXes, because they're different from their precious GNU/Linux", while many BSD people often also like using systems like Solaris.
Of course once the "love of UNIX" and the "hatred of Microsoft" combine, you have people like me who will do anything to avoid Windows when possible
"I just want a Unix-like OS without a revolution packaged with it"
That's the biggest difference between the BSD and Linux camps, as far as I can tell.
The BSD folks want a free UNIX-like system, and want to make the best UNIX-like system they can. That's what they develop, and that's what they want to use. That's also what most BSD users are looking for in the first place.
Meanwhile, most of the Linux users I run into (at local LUGs, anyways), use Linux because they're fed up with Microsoft, Windows, or something related to the two. Their initial motivation for trying Linux was simply "I want to try this thing that isn't Windows, and I like it."
As an aside, when I first started using Linux, I wasn't looking for a Windows-replacement. It was the mid-90s, and I had my first introduction to UNIX (at a computer camp, ok I'm a total geek) on a SCO system. I thought it was pretty cool, and asked around as to whether there was anything like it I could get myself. Someone mentioned Linux, and the rest was history.
Many years later, in college, I was introduced to FreeBSD. What I liked about it was that it resembled everything I liked about Linux back in the mid 90's, only done MUCH better. Instead of trying (and often failing) to be end-user friendly, FreeBSD tries to be command-line-geek-user friendly, and does a good job at it.
Sun's been improving Solaris quite a lot in that area in Solaris 9 and even more so in Solaris 10. (especially if you install the Software Companion CD, but a lot is now even in the base system that didn't used to be)
Yeah, and my "Desktop Solaris" also looks like "your desktop Linux but with a different wallpaper" as well. (hint: I'm running KDE 3.4.1, with all the same software any "Linux user" would otherwise use as well)
All that glorious "Linux software" you all gloat about is really not "Linux software". It's "UNIX-compatable software" and benefits users of just about any *NIX-like system out there.