The nice thing about Freudian psychology is that you can explain anything with it. The stupid thing about Freudian psychology is that you can explain anything with it.
In other words, the SpeedTest benchmark is what engineers call a "microbenchmark". Meaning it measure some trivial function that isn't usually a key bottleneck.
OK then, how about a benchmark that does measure a real-world use case? Anyone?
True, but it isn't that hard to add compression hardware. Every modem (back when "modem" still meant the modulator-demodulator you used to send digital data over an analog circuit, instead of the digital network bridges that replaced them) used to come with a data compression circuit. It's the only way you can get 53kbs throughput on a voice line.
I don't actually know why internet data packets aren't routinely compressed. But I suspect that it has more to do with making the protocols dangerously complex than with the (minimal) overhead of data compression.
THE INTERNET . It's unreliable, not guaranteed, never has been, and YOU ALL KNOW THIS AND HAVE BEEN TOLD IT OVER AND OVER AND OVER.
I seem to have missed that meeting.
Anyway, bullshit. Every job I've had for the last 10 years wouldn't have existed if the Internet weren't reliable. Not 100% reliable — no technology is. But if the people who manage your network connection and the remote systems you access are at all competent, your Internet connection is going to be as reliable as a well-run telephone system.
Or maybe you mean that Internet technology doesn't have a built-in guarantee of bandwidth. True, but trivial. No communication system can guarantee that you'll get through if it's being used beyond its capacity. The phone system can't guarantee that you'll get through if everybody decides to use it at once. But once again, if both your Internet provider and remote system provider know what they're doing and have anticipated demand for their services, you can count on the system working.
I know: you're referring to the fact that most low-level networking technologies do not guarantee that any given data packet will get through. This is "unreliable" in a technical sense, which has nothing to do with "reliable" in the human sense, any more than you can use a synchronous clock to tell time. In networking "unreliable" just refers to a network design philosophy that says that it's more efficient to resend packets that didn't get through than to guarantee that all packets will get through. That's sort of counterintuitive, which is why it took so long for "unreliable" Ethernet to displace "reliable" Token Ring. But it did, and now a good chunk of humanity relies on Ethernet, even though it's "unreliable".
Don't be obtuse. As I already explained, jargon is associated with an attitude. In the case of Boss-speak, the attitude is one employees soon learn to loathe.
I don't think TPP was objecting to the guy knowing his employees. I think it was objecting to the guy referring to them as "contact points". That kind of management jargon tends to indicate a manager who puts on a show of caring because he was trained to, and really doesn't give a shit.
You're being sarcastic, of course. But Postscript by hand used to be very popular. Mostly for doing art and clever hacks, but there were people who insisted that a PS interpreter and a text editor is all the word processor anybody needs. Perhaps there still are.
Actually, the 80-column format goes back a lot longer than the . IBM standardized on 80-column punched cards in 1928. Typewriters that do roughly 80 characters per line (with 1-inch margins) have always been common.
But that's all irrelevant. You're looking for one of those backward compatibility issues, like the QWERTY keyboard and those railroad tracks supposedly designed by the ancient Romans. You won't find one here. Sure, terminal emulators and text editors typically default to 80 columns — but they all let you change that default.
The fact is, when you're editing source code, you need to put some reasonable limit on your lines. If you don't, your code is a nightmare to maintain. Doesn't have to be 80 columns; I use (stops to look at his.vimrc) 70 columns. Do you want to make it longer? OK, make it 100 columns. Make it 150. But the longer you make it, the fewer people you will be able to share your code with.
Or are do you dislike having any limit? That would mean that you don't have any trouble reading source statements that wrap at random places. Well, goodie for you, but most of find that a pain. That's why software projects like you to use 80-column code lines. It has nothing to do with any fossilized VT100 meme.
As for "more verbose writing": if your prose is so nonconcise that you need longer input lines, you need to take a writing class.
I really don't get the issue here. Is it because you can never remember to hit ENTER? Neither can I. Or most people. That's why God invented typewriter bells and text editors with autoformat modes.
Dude, criticizing a word processor because it isn't good with text files is like criticizing semi-rig because it's hard to park. Editing text files and editing documents are fundamentally different activities, and require specialized tools.
I think it more likely that they have legacy software that they don't want to move away from. Either it would be too expensive to retool around new software, or software that does what they want doesn't exist on other platforms, or they're in "if it ain't broke don't fix it" mode.
I once saw a Sun Workstation in a tire store, of all places. Asked them about it, and they told me that the tire software they preferred only ran on that platform. Similar logic.
I had a Sony micro-laptop with a Transmeta Crusoe CPU. Which also ran darn slow. The tradeoff was supposed to be reduce power consumption, but the thing actually gobbled up power pretty quickly.
Fuck, even in a socialist country (if there are any) they'd be looking for cheap labor.
Actually, most of our cheap labor comes from a socialist country: China. Well, yeah, they don't really practice socialism, but socialist countries never do. But officially they're the vanguard of the WORLDWIDE WORKER'S REVOLUTION! Everybody sing!
I couldn't identify an OS that has those specific features. But any modern OS has something very similar. Things like memory management and address partitions are very basic OS features.
And the bit about running stuff on a "abstract machine"? Those are very common. Ever use Java or.NET?
In any case, we're talking about the fundamental features of the hardware. That's separate from the OS, which could easily be ported to another platform, if there were any demand for it. As with mainframes, there's nothing magic about the AS400 itself. It's just a microcomputer, no more powerful than most PCs. Recent models even use a POWER CPU, which is the same CPU Macs used before they went over to Intel.
Linux may be growing, but the sad fact is that Windows still dominates enterprise servers. Maybe Linux will eventually take the lead in new installations, but once a platform has established itself in a company, it rarely goes away. Look at mainframes!
So the worst you can say about C# or.NET is that they might not grow as fast as Java. Hardly "death knell" status.
Perfectly correct. But those are long term costs. Politics is about the short term. That's why California passed so many laws to throw people in prison, but somehow forgot to allocate the funds for new prisons.
By the same token, good education and health systems save you a lot of money down the road, because it helps kids grow up to be people that contribute to the economy instead of being a drain on it. But just try and get funding for such things. Which is why we have to import so many professionals, and are quickly losing our lead in high tech.
You're perfectly correct about the technology. It's your terminology that's wrong. When I said that mainframes are just a kind of microcomputer, I was not saying that mainframes are a kind of PC. "Microcomputer" refers to the fundamental technology that the PC is based on. "Mainframe" originally referred to computers built out of discrete components (the "mainframe" being that chassis that holds those components). At first that was the only kind of computer there was. Then the low end of the market was taken over by "minicomputers" which used integrated components. These were slower but cheaper. As time went by, minis got faster, and mainframes retreated into a high-end market.
Then around 1971, microprocessors appeared, people used them to make microcomputers, and history repeated itself. As microcomputers got faster and cheaper, they gradually took over the market. Completely. Now "mainframe" and "mini" describes market positioning, not fundamental technology.
Perhaps you're saying, "You're just playing with words. Mainframes are faster." But if so you're confusing "mainframe" with "high performance computer".
As it happens, I'm the documentation lead for an HPC system from Sun, the x4600. Up to 8 AMD CPUs. When Barcelona comes out, you'll be able to 32 processor cores in a single 4U system. Now, this thing has a fancy high-speed bus and other optimizations, but aside fro that, it's not that different from a PC. You can even run Windows on it. (Alas, most of our customers do, though Linux and Solaris are also popular.) You could even run an IBM emulator on it and then run all the software that was originally written for mainframes. Just imagine a Beowulf cluster of these!
Everyone seems to be misunderstanding my statement that modern mainframes are microcomputers. "Microcomputer" is not just a fancy way of saying "PC". It refers to systems built around microprocessors: a CPU on a single chip.
As for your statement: I don't actually know whether you're right or not. My guess is that you are. But partitioning a computer on a low level just enhances its ability to emulate multiple computers. It does not affect the kind of applications the computer can run.
but I can tell you there are numerous things in the system that simply are not found in PC's and PC OS's.
For example?
Mainframes have always had multiple processors for various functions on various boards,
As do modern microcomputers. Having a lot of complex logic all over the place isn't what separates mainframes from micros. Originally, mainframes were distinguished by the fact that they used discrete components. They stopped doing that when integrated logic got fast enough to replace discrete technology. Now the only thing that distinguishes a mainframe is backward compatibility.
it does a lot of things that we'd be hard pressed to accomplish using PCs
And why is that? Because PCs are fundamentally incapable of running the kind of software you need? Computers don't work that way.
Which is not to say that using mainframes never makes sense. If you have a lot of tried-and-true legacy software, it might well be cost effective to keep legacy hardware around to run it. The alternative is to write replacement software that runs on modern systems, meaning you have to go through the whole development, QA, and deployment thing all over again, at huge cost. Very often it makes more sense just to keep using mainframes. But that's a matter of economics, not technology.
I would also point out that modern mainframes are not really "mainframes" in the original sense. The original mainframes used technology that became obsolete on the day microprocessor-based systems became more cost effective. What we now call "mainframes" are just specialized microcomputers that are optimized to run legacy mainframe code.
Slashdot Mirror
The nice thing about Freudian psychology is that you can explain anything with it. The stupid thing about Freudian psychology is that you can explain anything with it.
In other words, the SpeedTest benchmark is what engineers call a "microbenchmark". Meaning it measure some trivial function that isn't usually a key bottleneck.
OK then, how about a benchmark that does measure a real-world use case? Anyone?
True, but it isn't that hard to add compression hardware. Every modem (back when "modem" still meant the modulator-demodulator you used to send digital data over an analog circuit, instead of the digital network bridges that replaced them) used to come with a data compression circuit. It's the only way you can get 53kbs throughput on a voice line.
I don't actually know why internet data packets aren't routinely compressed. But I suspect that it has more to do with making the protocols dangerously complex than with the (minimal) overhead of data compression.
Anyway, bullshit. Every job I've had for the last 10 years wouldn't have existed if the Internet weren't reliable. Not 100% reliable — no technology is. But if the people who manage your network connection and the remote systems you access are at all competent, your Internet connection is going to be as reliable as a well-run telephone system.
Or maybe you mean that Internet technology doesn't have a built-in guarantee of bandwidth. True, but trivial. No communication system can guarantee that you'll get through if it's being used beyond its capacity. The phone system can't guarantee that you'll get through if everybody decides to use it at once. But once again, if both your Internet provider and remote system provider know what they're doing and have anticipated demand for their services, you can count on the system working.
I know: you're referring to the fact that most low-level networking technologies do not guarantee that any given data packet will get through. This is "unreliable" in a technical sense, which has nothing to do with "reliable" in the human sense, any more than you can use a synchronous clock to tell time. In networking "unreliable" just refers to a network design philosophy that says that it's more efficient to resend packets that didn't get through than to guarantee that all packets will get through. That's sort of counterintuitive, which is why it took so long for "unreliable" Ethernet to displace "reliable" Token Ring. But it did, and now a good chunk of humanity relies on Ethernet, even though it's "unreliable".
Another reminder that "great software" is really a way of saying "I am a fanboy".
In other words, a non-asshole manager has to pretend to be an asshole? I think such managers are only fooling themselves.
Don't be obtuse. As I already explained, jargon is associated with an attitude. In the case of Boss-speak, the attitude is one employees soon learn to loathe.
I don't think TPP was objecting to the guy knowing his employees. I think it was objecting to the guy referring to them as "contact points". That kind of management jargon tends to indicate a manager who puts on a show of caring because he was trained to, and really doesn't give a shit.
Dude, other phones aren't cool. Everything Apple does is cool. If you don't like cool things then you're not cool!!!!!
Actually, the 80-column format goes back a lot longer than the . IBM standardized on 80-column punched cards in 1928. Typewriters that do roughly 80 characters per line (with 1-inch margins) have always been common.
.vimrc) 70 columns. Do you want to make it longer? OK, make it 100 columns. Make it 150. But the longer you make it, the fewer people you will be able to share your code with.
But that's all irrelevant. You're looking for one of those backward compatibility issues, like the QWERTY keyboard and those railroad tracks supposedly designed by the ancient Romans. You won't find one here. Sure, terminal emulators and text editors typically default to 80 columns — but they all let you change that default.
The fact is, when you're editing source code, you need to put some reasonable limit on your lines. If you don't, your code is a nightmare to maintain. Doesn't have to be 80 columns; I use (stops to look at his
Or are do you dislike having any limit? That would mean that you don't have any trouble reading source statements that wrap at random places. Well, goodie for you, but most of find that a pain. That's why software projects like you to use 80-column code lines. It has nothing to do with any fossilized VT100 meme.
As for "more verbose writing": if your prose is so nonconcise that you need longer input lines, you need to take a writing class.
I really don't get the issue here. Is it because you can never remember to hit ENTER? Neither can I. Or most people. That's why God invented typewriter bells and text editors with autoformat modes.
Dude, criticizing a word processor because it isn't good with text files is like criticizing semi-rig because it's hard to park. Editing text files and editing documents are fundamentally different activities, and require specialized tools.
I think it more likely that they have legacy software that they don't want to move away from. Either it would be too expensive to retool around new software, or software that does what they want doesn't exist on other platforms, or they're in "if it ain't broke don't fix it" mode.
I once saw a Sun Workstation in a tire store, of all places. Asked them about it, and they told me that the tire software they preferred only ran on that platform. Similar logic.
I had a Sony micro-laptop with a Transmeta Crusoe CPU. Which also ran darn slow. The tradeoff was supposed to be reduce power consumption, but the thing actually gobbled up power pretty quickly.
I don't think Zonk's radar is much of a benchmark.
I think you answered your own question!
I couldn't identify an OS that has those specific features. But any modern OS has something very similar. Things like memory management and address partitions are very basic OS features.
.NET?
And the bit about running stuff on a "abstract machine"? Those are very common. Ever use Java or
In any case, we're talking about the fundamental features of the hardware. That's separate from the OS, which could easily be ported to another platform, if there were any demand for it. As with mainframes, there's nothing magic about the AS400 itself. It's just a microcomputer, no more powerful than most PCs. Recent models even use a POWER CPU, which is the same CPU Macs used before they went over to Intel.
Linux may be growing, but the sad fact is that Windows still dominates enterprise servers. Maybe Linux will eventually take the lead in new installations, but once a platform has established itself in a company, it rarely goes away. Look at mainframes!
.NET is that they might not grow as fast as Java. Hardly "death knell" status.
So the worst you can say about C# or
Perfectly correct. But those are long term costs. Politics is about the short term. That's why California passed so many laws to throw people in prison, but somehow forgot to allocate the funds for new prisons.
By the same token, good education and health systems save you a lot of money down the road, because it helps kids grow up to be people that contribute to the economy instead of being a drain on it. But just try and get funding for such things. Which is why we have to import so many professionals, and are quickly losing our lead in high tech.
You're perfectly correct about the technology. It's your terminology that's wrong. When I said that mainframes are just a kind of microcomputer, I was not saying that mainframes are a kind of PC. "Microcomputer" refers to the fundamental technology that the PC is based on. "Mainframe" originally referred to computers built out of discrete components (the "mainframe" being that chassis that holds those components). At first that was the only kind of computer there was. Then the low end of the market was taken over by "minicomputers" which used integrated components. These were slower but cheaper. As time went by, minis got faster, and mainframes retreated into a high-end market.
Then around 1971, microprocessors appeared, people used them to make microcomputers, and history repeated itself. As microcomputers got faster and cheaper, they gradually took over the market. Completely. Now "mainframe" and "mini" describes market positioning, not fundamental technology.
Perhaps you're saying, "You're just playing with words. Mainframes are faster." But if so you're confusing "mainframe" with "high performance computer".
As it happens, I'm the documentation lead for an HPC system from Sun, the x4600. Up to 8 AMD CPUs. When Barcelona comes out, you'll be able to 32 processor cores in a single 4U system. Now, this thing has a fancy high-speed bus and other optimizations, but aside fro that, it's not that different from a PC. You can even run Windows on it. (Alas, most of our customers do, though Linux and Solaris are also popular.) You could even run an IBM emulator on it and then run all the software that was originally written for mainframes. Just imagine a Beowulf cluster of these!
Everyone seems to be misunderstanding my statement that modern mainframes are microcomputers. "Microcomputer" is not just a fancy way of saying "PC". It refers to systems built around microprocessors: a CPU on a single chip.
As for your statement: I don't actually know whether you're right or not. My guess is that you are. But partitioning a computer on a low level just enhances its ability to emulate multiple computers. It does not affect the kind of applications the computer can run.
None of those features is exclusive to mainframes.
Which is not to say that using mainframes never makes sense. If you have a lot of tried-and-true legacy software, it might well be cost effective to keep legacy hardware around to run it. The alternative is to write replacement software that runs on modern systems, meaning you have to go through the whole development, QA, and deployment thing all over again, at huge cost. Very often it makes more sense just to keep using mainframes. But that's a matter of economics, not technology.
I would also point out that modern mainframes are not really "mainframes" in the original sense. The original mainframes used technology that became obsolete on the day microprocessor-based systems became more cost effective. What we now call "mainframes" are just specialized microcomputers that are optimized to run legacy mainframe code.